HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile # 2 � 4a
John M. Bredemeyer III, President Town Hall Annex,.,
Michael J. Domino,Vice-President � 'r,
54375 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Glenn Goldsmith Southold,New York 11971
A. Nicholas Krupski
Telephone(631) 765-1892
Charles J. Sanders , ° Fax(631) 765-6641
00
w
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEESIfZ
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
September 21, 2016 SEP (}i
rd .,
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
RE: OKI-DO LTD.
2835 SHIPYARD LANE, EAST MARION
SCTM#1000-38-7-7.1
Dear Ms. Moore:
The Town Trustees reviewed the report you submitted for the soil test data generated
by VHB located at 100 Motor Parkway, Suite 135, Hauppauge, New York at our
September 12, 2016 work session.
Unfortunately, it appears that the.offer of,the.Trustees and Town Engineer to work
with Oki-Do's designated scientists/engineering firm to monitor/participate in the
chain of custody sediment/soil sampling of the channel and basin as requested and
extended by this office through the office of then Assistant Town Attorney, Stephen
Kiely, was greatly misunderstood leading to the wholly inadequate, unilateral
sampling of the surface 1.0' of material in the upper strata of the channel dredge
track; the data which we reviewed at our September 12, 2016 meeting. Whilst the
chain of custody documentation and analytes selected for analysis appear to meet
EPA standards, the premise of sampling the 1.0' of surface material, that may well
represent coarse clean materials deposited during the end of Tropical Storm Sandy,
as opposed to bottom sediments historically deposited in the basin that are more
likely contaminated above standards and that may be disturbed during the proposed
dredging to depth and the restorative Spartina alternaflora re-vegetation, raises the
question of the seriousness of the inquiry. The undersigned, who actively
participated in sediment sampling under EPA's National Coastal Assessment
Program and the Peconic Estuary Program, with associated sediment sampling of
the Peconic Estuary, Long Island Sound, and Great South Bays, among a number of
other coastal embayment's in Suffolk County, has a problem understanding the intent
and methodology underlying this chosen depth other than to establish a "healthy
background" or baseline from which to start an serious inquiry.
Absent some agreement on sampling terms and conditions between your
scientists/engineers and the Town within the near term, the project will have to be
returned to the calendar for a positive environmental declaration pursuant to SEQRA,
as the information necessary to consider a conditioned-negative declaration is
insufficient and apparently not forth-coming.
If you have any questions in this matter please do not hesitate to contact the Trustee
Office in writing.
Sincerely,
John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Board of Trustees
cc: Town Trustees
Asst. Town Attorney, Damon Hagan
Town Engineer, Michael Collins
Town Planning Department
Sent via email and U.S.P.S.
PATRICIA C. MOORE ��a ��� y
Attomey at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11952
lwt C'°R 21 2 016
µ
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643 South04d Tos;
PfanMrig Board
April 18, 2016
Donald J. Wilcenski, Chairman and
Southold Town Planning Board
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
By email and hand deliver
Re: Site Plan: Shizen/GAIA Holistic Circle
Owner Oki-Do Ltd.
SCTM#1000-38-07-7.1
Dear Mr. Wilcenski:
It is not in my client's best interest to have the SEQRA process done incorrectly,or subject
to question. The Board's action to "Deny the application,without prejudice"is an"action"which
could arguably be challenged when my client files a new application.
In order to avoid this issue,my client has agreed to"withdraw"her application,thus ending
the SEORA review. We would suggest that the resolution"denying without prejudice"be rescinded
so that we may withdraw the application.
Enclosed is my client's request to "withdraw the application".
Tl a )k You
....m
el
atficia C. Moore
cc: William Duffy,Town Attorney
Dr. Kazuko Tatsumura Hillyer Ph.D, President Oki-Do Ltd
Butt Otruba-O'Connor,Architects
VHB
April 18,2011
Donald J, Wilconski,Chairman and
SoutholdTown Planning Board '
53095 Main Road
�1'F :.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
By caraall&hand delivet-y
Re: Site]Mara: Sli izent 0 A A Holistic Circle
Owncr Oki-Do Ltd,
C''t'MT6lC 000-38-07-7.1
.1
Dear Mr.Wilceriskil;
I hereby withdraw the above application.
9z k �l zats,au ura 14illyer T'itD:„
Pros'ent Olrl-Do Ltd
William Duffy,Town Attorney
Butt Cltruuba-O'Connor„ Architects
x"1-11"T
OFFICE LOCATION: IOJV So MAILING ADDRESS:
F S ':
Town Hall Annex P.O. Box 1179
��� �� '�'k
54375 State Route 25 Southold, NY 11971'ry''
(cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938
µ ax www.southoldtownny.gov
COUNTY,"
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
April 5, 2016
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Denial: Shizen/Oki-Do, Ltd.
Located at 2835 Shipyard La., ±3,278' s/o NYS Rt. 25 & Shipyard La., East Marion
SCTM#1000-38-7-7.1 Zoning District: M-II
Dear Ms. Moore:
The Southold Town Planning Board adopted the following resolution at a meeting held on
Monday, April 4, 2016:
WHEREAS, this proposed action is to construct a holistic health center with a total of 114
transient motel rooms consisting of 23 guest lodges totaling 87 accessory motel units (14
lodges containing 3 unit motel rooms & 9 guest lodges containing 5 unit motel rooms). The
remaining 27 motel units are to be located in the main spa building along with a 185 seat
restaurant (103 private guest seats, 72 public guest seats), 10 public bar seats, office space,
retail gift shop, 27 personal service treatment suites and accessory uses. The proposed
action also involves a 3,864 sq. ft. private restaurant annex with 45-99 private guest seats
and a covered 758 sq. ft. deck, 1,987 sq. ft. manager's residence with a 687 sq. ft. deck,
pool, a 7,205 sq. ft. maintenance and utility building, a sanitary waste treatment facility, 1,160
sq. ft. for three (3) gazebos, man-made water features, replacement of the existing bulkhead,
dredging of the 16 slip private marina basin, and various outdoor amenities on a 18.7 acre
parcel in the Marine - II (M-II) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2003, a Site Plan Application was submitted to the Planning Board
for review; and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617,
Article 6 of the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, initiated the SEQR lead agency coordination process for this Type I
action pursuant to Part 617.4 (b) (6) (i); and
ShizenJQki-Do Ltd. Pace 2 of 3 April 5, 2016
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board assumed lead agency
for this Type I Action; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board adopted a Positive
Declaration for the proposed action; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2008, the Southold Town Planning Board received the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS); and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2008, the Southold Town Planning Board, after reviewing the
DEIS, deemed it inadequate for public review, and sent a letter that requested the applicant
submit a revised DEIS; and
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2013, the Southold Town Planning Board sent a letter to the
applicant's agent Patricia Moore that noted there had been no activity on this application
since November 18, 2008, and requested that the required items from that letter be submitted
within sixty days. The applicant was also provided with the opportunity to explain why rnore
time was needed if they could not submit the required items in that time-frame, and put on
notice that the application would be considered withdrawn if no satisfactory explanation was
provided; and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2013, the applicant's agent, Patricia Moore, Esq., submitted a letter
providing the explanation for the delay and the need for more time, and requested a meeting
to discuss the timeline for their re-submission; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2013, the Planning Board, after reviewing the March 8, 2013 letter,
sent a letter to the applicant's agent, Patricia Moore, Esq., requesting that the new
information be submitted for review by all relevant agencies; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2015, the Planning Board returned unused funds to the applicant that
were being held by the Town to pay for review under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act due to the inactivity on the application; and
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2015, the applicant's agent, Patricia Moore, Esq., sent the check
back to the Planning Board stating that work was being conducted towards submitting a
revised DEIS; and
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2015, the Planning Board sent a letter to the applicant's agent,
Patricia Moore, Esq., returning the check referenced above, and requesting that revised
application materials be submitted; and
WHEREAS, as of April 1, 2016, there have been no formal submittals of any materials to
progress this application since September of 2008; and
WHEREAS, in the eight years that have passed with no formal activity on the application,
there have been changes to the Southold Town Code, changes to the FEMA Flood Maps,
and potential changes to the property itself due to a series of severe storms during this
interim which have rendered this application obsolete; be it therefore
Shizen/Oki-Do Ltd. Page 3 of 3 April 5, 2016
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby denies, without prejudice, the
Site Plan entitled "GAZA Holistic Circle," prepared by Butt, Otruba and O'Connor Architects,
AIA, dated March 17, 2004 and last revised January 10, 2006, including six (6) pages.
If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this resolution, please
contact the Planning Board Office at 631-765-1938.
Very truly yours,
ac
Donald J. Wilcenski
Chairman
Michaelis, Jessica
From: Lanza, Heather
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2016 1:56 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Kalin, Carol
Cc: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: Oki-Do/Gala/Shizen &Trustees
Carol and Jessica,
The Board of Trustees have requested that the Planning Department notify them in writing of any change in the
status of the application or SEQRA action before the Planning Board, should any occur.
Please print this email for the file. Thank you.
Heather Lanza,AICP
Town Planning Director
Southold Town Planning
53095 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Southold,New York 11971
Phone: (631)765-1938
E-mail: heather.lanza 0 town.southold.ny.us
%7v2z x-; MAILING ADDRESS:
( "
PLANNING BOARD MEMBP.O. Box 1179ERS '�A`
DONALD J.WILCENSHI ` Southold, NY 11971
Chair OFFICE LOCATION:
WILLIAM J.CREMERS Town Hall Annex
PIERCE RAFFERTY 54375 State Route 25
JAMES H.RICH III (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
MARTIN H.SIDOR COUN Southold, NY
Telephone: 631 765-1938
www.southoldtowirmy.gov
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
June 5, 2015
Patricia C. Moore
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Shizen/ Oki-Do Ltd.
SCTM #1000-38-7-7.1
Dear Ms. Moore:
I am writing in response to your letter dated May 22, 2015. At our meeting with you and
your team on April 24, 2013, you explained to us how the project referenced above
would be changing. At that meeting we all agreed that, due to those changes and the
very long time since the original Notice of Disapproval (February, 2006), the next step to
move this forward was to submit the new plans to the Building Department for a revised
Notice of Disapproval, and revise the site plan application and all related forms
accordingly.
We also stated at that April, 2013 meeting that the Planning Board may need to conduct
the scoping process again for SEQRA, to account for any changes that may have
occurred during the time lag. To date, almost nine years have passed since SEQRA
scoping was conducted. The Planning Board will be able to determine this after having
the opportunity to review the revised application materials, including the new EAF
required under SEQRA. Over two years have passed since our last meeting, and the
Planning Board has not yet received a revised application.
Regarding the check you have returned to us, the Planning Board does not have the
authority to accept them. All documentation needed for accepting funds to be held in our
Deferred Revenue account have expired and cannot be renewed until a revised
application is submitted. We have enclosed the check for you to return to your client. At
such time when new funds are needed to cover the Planning Board's costs for review of
Southold Town .Planning Board Page 2 June 5, 2015
a future DEIS, the applicant will be advised as to the amount required. This cannot be
known until the application has been revised and re-evaluated under the current
circumstances. Please call me with any questions. We look forward to receiving your
revised site plan application materials.
Sincerely,
Heather Lanza, AICP
Town Planning Director
Encls.
Cc: William Duffy, Town Attorney
• Complete Items 1,2,and 3.Also complete X Si ture
item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. X 0 Agent
* Print your name and address on the reverse ................... 0 Addremme,
so that we can return the card to you. I!! d by(Pdnted Name) C.Date o 000vevy
* Attach this card to the back of the mailplece,
or on the front if space permits. Lk LOL�
........ D. Is�d hvwy addwss different from Item 14 OYes
1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No
Patricia C. Moore
Attorney at Law 3.'Service Type
t051020 Main Road CI Certified Mall® Q Pfloft Mail Express'"
0 Registered 13 Return Receipt for Merchandise
11
Southold, NY 971 El Insured Mail ❑Collect on Delivery
4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 13 Yes
t Articlo Wnbor
(nansW from service Jabep
PS Forris 3811»Ji,ify 2013 Donlostio Return Roculpt
PATRICIA C. MOORE ��
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold N.Y. 11952 '
Tel: (631) 765-4330 MAY 2 2 2',O t''
Fax: (631) 765-4643
SOW Wt�
May 22, 2015
Donald J. Wilcenski, Chairman and
Southold Town Planning Board
53095 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
By Hand
Re: Site Plan: Shizen/GAIA Holistic Circle
Owner Oki-Do Ltd.
SCTM#1000-38-07-7.1
Dear Mr. Wilcenski:
My client forwarded to me your letter dated May 7,2015 together with the Town's check for
the balance of the Town's SEQRA consulting fees. We herein are returning the check and ask that
the funds be redeposited into the Town's escrow account.
The letter from the Town indicates that no SEQRA documentation or activity regarding the
environmental review has been provided to the Town since 2009. While it is my understanding that
no SEQRA documents has been re-submitted to the Town, there has been significant activity that
has occurred in addressing the comment letter prepared by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis (NPV) on
November 17, 2008.
As I stated in my letter to you dated 3-7-13, a team of experts have been retained and they
are compiling the data required for the re-submission of the DEIS.
My client,through her professionals,has been in communication with the various involved
agencies and the Town, as needed, to respond to the extensive scope of comments for this
application.
Specifically, and most recently, communications, inquiries, and data have been sought and
provided to my client,through her experts, for the following:
As required specific and current data for the DEIS, letters and responses were received from the
following:
Greenport School District
Oysterponds School District
East Marion Fire Department
Town of Southold Police Department(received response April 10, 2015)
Town of Southold Tax Assessor(received response May 12, 2015)
The Traffic Study has been ongoing. As recently as March 2015, Ryan M. Winter, PE,
Senior Project Traffic Engineer was in direct communication with Heather Lanza, Southold Town
Planner. In response to his questions, she was extremely helpful and pointed out projects which
might impact traffic counts. Specifically, the recently approved Peconic Landing expansion and
seasonal traffic issues in East Marion. Based on the Planner's information, the traffic study
continues to be prepared with the most recent data available.
In addition, there has been significant discussion with the Greenport Sewer District(Doug
Adams and Mike Chiarelli's office) regarding the proposed connection of the site to the STP.
The architect, Danita contacted OPRHP and received a letter indicating there would be no
impact.
I have been asked on several occasions the status of the project and I have continuously
advised Planning staff that work on revising the DEIS to respond to the comments has been
proceeding.
Also, recent groundwater monitoring has occurred on the site in accordance with the
recommendations of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Long Shore
Environmental. We installed groundwater monitoring wells and sampled them,as well as sampling
existing leaching pools on May 4, 2015 and sampled dredge spoils on May 7, 2015.
My client is extremely anxious to have the professionals work quickly to submit their data
for the preparation of the revised DEIS. We have been meeting to coordinate the submission of the
DEIS and the professional team has been spending thousands of hours to address the comments
made by your environmental consultant,NVP.
We ask that you keep the matter open and that you continue to cooperate with our
professionals.
Vcry-mily, y; urs,
C. Moore
PCM/bp
encls.
c: Dr. Kazuko Tatsumura Hillyer Ph.D, President Oki-Do Ltd
Butt Otruba-O'Connor, Architects
VHB
Received check by hand
on May 22, 2015
m
,F
ry
dam"
r
rr �
"N 4.
us+
tri 0
rap0
LJj
r .A ,
r
Of
Quo
�r
i
,r
� MAILING ADDRESS:
SO
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS P.O. Box 1179
DONALD J.WTLCENSHI �y '% Southold, NY 11971
Chair � OFFICEa�
LOCATION:
WILLIAM J.CREMERS Town Hall Annex
PIERCE RAFFERTY
AF
54375 State Route 25
JAMES H.RICH III �+ (cor. Main Rd. &dYoungs Ave.)
MARTIN H.SIDOR
UN
IN
Telephone: 631765-1938
www.s outholdtownny-gov
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
May 7, 2015
Oki—Do LTD.
20 West 64`h Street Apt. 24E
New York, NY 10023
Re; Site Plan Application for Shizen/ GAIA Holistic Circle/ Ok-Do
located at 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion
SCTM #1000-38-7-7.1
To Whom It May Concern:
This correspondence is in reference to the check that was mailed to you on May 6, 2015 in the
amount of$14,547.50 for the unused consulting fees held by the Town in connection with the
review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)for the application
referenced above.
You sent an initial amount of $22,500.00. Nelson Pope & Voorhis subsequently billed a total of
$7,952.50 (see attached invoice #6246).
We have not received any documents in connection with SEQRA for this application since 2009.
Due to the inactivity on this application, we are returning the unused portion of the funds to you.
Sincerely,
Donald Wilcenski
Planning Board Chair
LLC
Nelson, 'Pope
Property: 03261 Project: VA02084
572 Walt Whitman Road Phone: 6 127-5665 .."
lVleiville NY 11747 Fax: 631-427-5620 ._Shizen, Bast Marion-,,,
Manager: Voorhis,Charles
Invoice
To: Town of Southold Invoice#: 6246
Town Hall, 53095 State Rte 25 Invoice Date: November 25,2008
P.O.Box 1179
Southhold NY 11971-0959
Attention:Heather Lanza,Director
MAKE.CHECKS PAYABLE TO NELSON POPE&VOORHIS Invoice Amount $7,952.50
Professional Services Bill Hours Bill Rate Charge
Municipal
Review.Traffic Impact Study for compliance to
final scope documents.
Work Performed thru 10/15/08
Principal Planner Miscellaneous Municipal Consulting ' 8.00 160.00 1,280.00
Municipal Total: 8.00 $1,280.00
Professional Services Totals $1,280.00
Professional Services Biu Rate Char e
Bill Hours _..............
Municipal
Review Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Work Performed thru 11/3/08
Associate Environmental Scientist Municipal SEQR Review 0.50 185.00 92.50
Environmental Analyst Municipal SEQR Review 17.50 90.00 1,575.00
Environmental Planner Municipal SEQR Review 25.50 110.00 2,805.00
Managing Partner Municipal SEQR Review 11.00 200.00 2,200.00
Municipal Total: 54.50 $6,672.50
Professional Services Totals $6,672.50
lesson, Pope.&Voorhis, LLC Invoice: 6246
November 25,2008
roject: VA02084 Bill Group: REIMB Page 2 of 2
� _..�vm _W.. ....._ _.. g
*** Total Project Invoice Amount $7,952.50
All Invoices are due net 30 days. A late charge of/%per month will be added to any.unpaid balance after 30 days.
Please make all checks payable to NELSON POPE&VOORHIS
Please include invoice number on check
NELSON POPE&VOORHIS NOW ACCEPTS CREDIT CARDS
VISA - MASTERCARD - AMERICAN EXPRESS
MAILINGADDRESS:
PLANNING � fl, SO i, P.O. Box 1179
ly
JERILYN B.WOODOUSE � �, A ''4 Southold, NY 11971
Chair OFFICEC
KENNETH L.EDWARDS Town Hall Annex
MARTIN H.SIDOR 54375 State Route 25
GEORGE D.SOLOMON (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
JOSEPH L.TO SEND Southold, NY
Telephone: 631 765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMORANDUM
To: Accounting
From: Planning Department
Date: October 2, 2008
Re: Payments
Attached are the checks listed below. Payments are for deposit into a deferred
account.
Applicant/Project Name & Tax Map Amount Check Date/No.
Type _ #
Shizen/Gaia/Oki-Do Site Plan
..,. .,.,.. ...........
- 08#342
S
SEQRA $11,250
hizen/Gaia/Oki-Do Site Plan 38-7-7.1 9/29/08#343
SEQRA ...,.�...?.5. ........__.,,..�.............
�_.
Encs.
LR
1=2343 342
OKII-DO I-M. 210
7603101 1
DA FE
PAY TOTkrEVA
ORDER OF--
._...._. ..._ 4f's.,
_ CA
Lo
DOLLARS
" a,
CHASE
3„ JPMorgan Chase Bank,N.A.
'lit 1 Z ' �/� S
rk
�y
�Nwww,Chamo10017m ��
' AM 2 10000 2 0: -7.1 7 60 3 10 1 9 311'0 34 2 �
--' - c.a» :tike, ,M.,,., ff'
,n�.^_2Lua2M4l_;"7i wvmn+r.;�.a,Pw,.,;1.4P.tt�' ,r a7�-.,,w �.... �.0�'.. ,u�,z�.,zwi�.ru,.,,. .,�M,.h.::,,�:u, ,- trw xrrAu,�
«.gum re,,,,...�!ru.�. ... ,� �.,,.,�
1123
43 OKI-Do LTD. 210 3 4 3
7G031�
DATE 6—
®m
AY TO THE IOw ®.� �. .,_. ..—...— 11� � ' u �
ate'
P
ORDER OP._ .,..,. ,,,,,. e m ij
�. 11�U ,,. �`^' OC?V.i,AS
CHASE d p 9
1
Morw Chase.NewYork1001N.A.
New
1 ZPM S )J__9
0 2 10000 2 ZN 7 60 3 10 1 9 31110 34 3
A.:P
GLI08S 20 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Di '-,urs Inquiry by Vendor Name
View 1 1. Actual Hi . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- -1tail--GL100N. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vendor . . 014161 NELSON, POPE & VOOR W-01062009-627 Line: 209 Formula: 0
Y=Select Account . . B .8020.4.500.300
JE Date Trx. ate l"'Lli-id Acco tont Acct Desc SEQRA CONSULTANTS
Use Act i Trx Date. . . . . 1/06/2009 SDT 1/05/09
7/29/2008 7/29/2008 B .8020.4.5 Trx Amount . . . 7, 952. 50
7/29/2008 7/29/2008 B .8020.4.5 Description. . ENV SVCS-SHIZEN
7/29/2008 7/29/2008 B .8020.4.5 Vendor Code. . 014161 Pay Method:
7/29/2008 7/29/2008 B .8020.4.5 Vendor Name. . NELSON, POPE & VOORHIS,
8/12/2008 8/12/2008 B .8020.4.5 Alt Vnd. .
9/23/2008 9/23/2008 H3 .8660.2.6 = CHECK. . . . . . . . 99298 SCNB
9/23/2008 9/23/2008 H3 .8660.2.6 Invoice Code. 6246
10/21/2008 10/21/2008 B .8020.4.5 VOUCHER. . . . . .
11/05/2008 11/05/2008 B .8020.4.5 P.O. Code. . . . 18918
12/02/2008 12/02/2008 H3 .8660.2.6 Project Code.
1/06/2009 1/06/2009 B .8020.4.5 Final Payment P Liquid.
1/06/2009 1/06/2009 B .691 Type of 1099. M BOX. 07 Addl .
1/06/2009 1/06/2009 B .2115.30 Fixed Asset . . N
2/03/2009 2/03/2009 H3 .8660.2.6 Date Released 1/06/2009
2/03/2009 2/03/2009 B .8020.4.5 = Date Cleared. 1/31/2009
------------------------------- Use Act F3=Exit F12=Cancel
F2=Sh I ft Up F3=Exit F10=Prev View
Select Record(s) or Use Action Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
New York State Departni,,;nt of Environmental Conservdtion
Division of Environmental Permits, Region 1 _
SUNY @ Stony Brook v
50 Circle Road, Stony Brook, NY 11790-3409 _
Phone: (631)444-0403 - Fax: (631)444-0360
Website: www.dec.ny.gov Joe Martens
„O (r I Commissioner
�r� }t Ef.. n
I OCT 16
October 14, 2014
Southold Town
Donald J. Wilcenski, Chairman Planning Board
Town of Southold Planning Board
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Public Notice Number: NAN-2013-01475-EYA
Oki-Do, Ltd.
2835 Shipyard Lane
East Marion, NY 11939
SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1
Dear Mr. Wilcenski:
Thank you for copying me on the referenced public notice. The project described in the
notice will require a tidal wetlands permit from DEC, and we have not received an
application to date for the upland development at this site. When the applicant
completes the DEIS, could you please forward a copy to my attention at the above
address for review & comment by this department?
Sin rely,
Sherri Aicher
Environmental Analyst
OCT 092014
Planning I Transportation Land Development Environmental Services
Southold Town
Manning Board
Creating results for our clients and benefits for our communities
October 8,2014
Ref: 28836.00
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL—RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr.Jun Yan,P.E.
Project Manager,Eastern Section
United States Army Corps of Engineers
New York District
Jacob K.Javits Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza,Room 1937
New York,NY 10278-0090
Re: Public Notice Comment Response
USACE Permit Application No.NAN-2013-01475-EYA
Proposed Bulkhead Replacement,Revetment Construction and Maintenance Dredging Project
2835 Shipyard Lane
Hamlet of East Marion,Town of Southold
Suffolk County,New York
Suffolk County Tax Map No.:District 1000—Section 038.00—Block 07.00—Lot No.007.001
Dear Mr.Yan:
VHB Engineering,Surveying and Landscape Architecture,PC(VHB)is in receipt of your two September 19,
2014 letters,which include comments from the Town of Southold Planning Board and the general public
regarding the United States Army Corps of Engineers(USACE)public notice for the above-referenced project
(copies enclosed as Attachment A). Pursuant to your request,VHB is hereby submitting the following
responses on behalf of the applicant and property owner(Oki-Do,Ltd.).
Comments were received from the Planning Board of the Town of Southold(hereinafter the"Plaknning Board")
and the following five organizations and individuals expressing concerns that the proposed bulkhFead
replacement,revetment construction and maintenance dredging project(hereinafter,the"proposed action")
has been improperly"segmented"from a redevelopment project proposed for the above-referenced property
(hereinafter,the"subject property"):
> East Marion Community Association
> Marion Manor Property Owners Association
> Cleaves Point Condominiums
> Jacqueline A.McKee
> Karen Sauvigne.
VHB Engineering,Surveying
and Landscape Architecture, P.C.
100 Motor Parkway,Suite 135
Hauppauge,New York 11788
631.787.3400■FAX 631.813.2545
www.vhb.com
J
Ref: 28836.00
Mr.Jun Yan,P.E.
October 8,2014
Page 2
There Is no merit to this assertion,as the work proposed for permitting by the USACE is independent of any
potential future development of the subject property. The property owner is currently proposing to replace
the bulkhead and jetties,construct a bulkhead revetment and conduct maintenance dredging,in order to
address damage caused by various storms over the years and to prevent further damage from occurring.
Currently,and particularly after Hurricane Sandy,portions of the existing bulkhead have become non-
functional,and timber jetties have been seriously damaged. This work is necessary in order to protect the
property from erosion,undermining and other storm effects,as the damage to the bulkhead and jetties has
caused severe erosion and undermining of the subject property shoreline.in addition,the boat channel
connecting the existing marina basin to Gardiners Bay has silted in,preventing boat access between these two
water bodies. Thus,in addition to the replacement of bulkhead and the repair of the jetties,dredging Is
proposed to restore the basin connection to Gardiners Bay,and to protect and enhance the habitat of the
basin(by dredging,daily tidal flow to the basin will be restored,thereby benefiting the habitat).
The proposed action was discussed at length with the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation(NYSDEC)Bureau of Marine Habitat representative,Alexa Fournier,during a meeting with VHB
held on March 1,2013. During this meeting,it was discussed that the property has suffered significant erosion
and undermining as a result of Hurricane Sandy and other storms,and that the bulkhead/jetty measures are
necessary in order to protect the property from further damage.It was agreed that,with the exception of the
extreme western portions,the subject property bulkhead along the Gardiner's Bay shoreline is no longer
"functional."It was further discussed that there was a previous tidal wetlands permit application associated
with a redevelopment plan for the property,however,the current tidal wetlands permit application will be a
proposal to rebuild/repair the bulkheads and jetties at the site,and to dredge the inlet to the marina basin,in
order to protect the property from further erosion and reestablish a navigable connection between the basin
and Gardiner's Bay,respectively. It was agreed that dredging of the boat channel would result in a significant
ecological Improvement by reestablishing daily tidal flow to the basin and associated tidal wetlands. As
proposed by VHB,this mitigation could be enhanced by planting of wetland vegetation in the intertidal zone at
the eastern portion of the basin. Additionally,it was agreed that the proposed action was In keeping with a
previous NYSDEC permit issued in 1995 for a similar project to replace 1,438#-feet of bulkheading along
Gardiners Bay and to perform maintenance dredging of the aforementioned boat channel(copy included as
Attachment B).Finally,it was discussed that the NYSDEC would be involved in any future redevelopment plans
for the subject property,both as part of the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA)process and with
any associated tidal wetlands permitting.
VHB subsequently submitted a tidal wetlands permit application to the NYSDEC on October 23,2013. The
permit application package included a completed New York State Short Environmental Assessment Form
(SEAF),detailing the proposed bulkhead/jetty replacement,revetment construction and maintenance
dredging as a distinct and separate project from any future redevelopment plans for the subject property,due
to the immediate need to protect the subject property from further damage.Based upon written comments
received from the NYSDEC following their field inspection of the subject property,the size of the proposed
bulkhead revetment was reduced,in order to minimize potential adverse impacts to aquatic habitat,while still
providing the necessary degree of protection to the shoreline area. The NYSDEC subsequently issued a tidal
wetlands permit for the proposed action,dated May 6,2014(copy included as Attachment C).
r
Ref: 28836.00
Mr.Jun Yan,P.E.
October 8,2014
Page 3
Concurrent with the submission of the NYSDEC tidal wetlands permit application described above,VHB also
submitted the proposed action for review by the New York State Department of State(NYSDOS) New York
Coastal Management Program. As part of the review process,VHB provided the NYSDOS with a complete copy
of the NYSDEC tidal wetlands permit application,including the SEAF. Based upon the aforementioned
modifications to the proposed action made in response to the NYSDEC's comments,the NYSDOS issued a
General Concurrence for the proposed action,dated March 25,2014(copy included'as Attachment D).
Separate and apart from the aforementioned measures designed to protect the subject property from the
immediate threat of further erosion and undermining due to coastal storms,the applicant is proposing to
develop the subject property with a transient motel with 114 sleeping units,a two-story main building and
various associated improvements(hereinafter the"property development proposal"),which has been pending
since 2003. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)was prepared,in accordance with the State
Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA)and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617,and
pursuant to a Positive Declaration and a Final Scope adopted by the Planning Board,as lead agency for the
property development proposal,on November 6,2006. The DEIS was filed in September 2008 and comments
were issued by Nelson,Pope&Voorhis,LLC(NPV),the Town of Southold's environmental consultant,in a
memorandum dated November 17,2008. Subsequent to receipt of comments,the applicant was forced to
delay the project,but is now seeking to move forward with the property development proposal. This
development proposal is completely separate from the work that is the subject of the pending USACE permit
application,and neither are dependent on the other.
Although the proposed action is intended solely to protect the subject property from further storm damage,
the Planning Board and the organizations/individuals listed above raised comments regarding whether the
environmental review of this protective work is being Improperly segmented from the environmental review
of the property development proposal. As set forth below,the separation of the environmental review of the,
bulkhead,jetty and dredging effort from that of the property development proposal clearly does not represent
Improper segmentation.
Pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617.2(ag):
"Segmentation means the division of the environmental review of an action such that various
activities or stages are addressed under this Part as though they were independent,unrelated
activities,needing individual determinations of significance."
It is important to understand that in this situation,there are two separate actions under consideration: the
first action(bulkhead/jetty replacement,revetment construction and maintenance dredging effort)is being
proposed to protect the existing property from further damage,the second action(property development
proposal)is being proposed to permit the development of a transient motel on the property. These are not
activities or stages of one action. They are independent and unrelated actions.The SEQR Handbook(New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation,http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/47636.html)provides
relevant guidance on segmentation as follows:
i
Ref: 28836.00
Mr.Jun Yan,P.E.
October 8,2014
Page 4
3. What Is the basic test for segmentation?
When trying to determine If segmentation is occurring agencies should consider the following factors.If the
answer to one or more of these questions is yes,an agency should be concerned that segmentation is taking
place.
> Purpose:is there a common purpose or goal for each segment?
> Tlme:is there a common reason for each segment being completed at or about the same time?
> Location:is there a common geographic location involved?
Impacts:Do any of the activities being considered for segmentation share a common impact that may,
If the activities are reviewed as one project,result in a potentially significant adverse impact,even if
the Impacts of single activities are not necessarily significant by themselves.
> Ownership:Are the different segments under the some or common ownership or control?
> Common Plan:Is a given segment a component of an identifiable overall plan?Will the initial phase
direct the development of subsequent phases or will it preclude or limit the consideration of
alternatives in subsequent phases?
> Utility:Can any of the interrelated phases of various projects be considered functionally dependent on
each other?
> inducement:Does the approval of one phase orsegment commit the agency to approve other phases?
In this case,although the same property Is affected,as explained above,this situation involves two separate
and distinct actions—one to protect the existing property from further storm damage and the second to allow
new development on the subject property.
Furthermore:
> There Is no common purpose or goal for these two actions. The purpose of the first action is to
replace/repair existing structures to protect the subject property from further storm damage and to
dredge in order to restore the boat channel to previously-existing conditions. The purpose of the
second action is to permit new development.
> There is no reason for these actions to be completed at or about the same time. In fact,it is intended
that the first action would proceed as soon as possible because,as explained above,it is designed to
protect the property from further storm damage. The new development at the site would be
undertaken after completion of the extensive SEQRA process(which is still underway)and upon
issuance of required approvals.
> There are no common impacts between the two actions. As explained above,the first action involves
replacement/repair of existing structures to protect the property from further storm damage and
dredging to restore the boat channel to previously-existing conditions. The second action would
result in Impacts from new development(e.g.,modifications to land use,traffic generation,soils
Impacts,increased water use,sanitary discharge).
> There is no common plan of which these two actions are components. Moreover,the first action
(replace/repair existing structures to protect the property from further storm damage and dredging
to restore the boat channel to previously-existing conditions)has no effect on whether the
development proposal is ever approved or constructed. Furthermore,it would not limit the
consideration of alternatives to the proposed development plan. it is noted that alternatives to the
proposed development plan have already been identified as part of the SEQRA process,as follows:
i
Y,
Ref: 28836.00
Mr.Jun Yan,P.E.
October 8,2014
Page 5
> SEQRA-mandated No-Action Alternative;
➢ Alternative Site Layout(Preferred Alternative);Potential Acquisition of the Site;
➢ Development in Accordance with Prevailing Zoning;Development of Ferry Terminal and
Restaurant;and Development of Fish Processing Facility;
➢ Alternative Parking Layout;
➢ Alternative Removing Cottages from East Property Line;
> Alternative with Reduced Building Mass;
> Alternative Dumpster Locations;and
> Alternative with Gillette Drive Driveway for Emergency Access Only.
> The first action(replace/repair existing structures to protect the property from further storm damage
and to dredge in order to restore the inlet connection)is functionally independent of the proposed
development plan. They are separate actions and are not interrelated phases of the same action.
> The approval of the first action(replace/repair existing structures to protect the property from
further storm damage and to dredge in order to restore the inlet connection)in no way induces any
agency to approve the proposed development plan.
Based on the foregoing,it is clear that there are two separate actions,and that the separation of the
environmental review thereof does not constitute segmentation.
Nevertheless,even under the inaccurate assumption that separation of the environmental review of these
Individual actions represented segmentation,such segmentation would not be improper. The SEQR Handbook
explains when segmented review is acceptable,to wit:
4.Is segmented review ever acceptable under SEQR?
There are some limited circumstances where a segmented review may be justified.For example, the following
circumstances,when considered together,may warrant segmentation when a project has several phases:
> information on future project phase(s)is too speculative,
> future phase(s)may not occur;
> future phase(s)are functionally independent of current phase(s).
If circumstances suggest that a segmented review is appropriate,such justification must be clearly noted in the
determination of significance and in any subsequent EIS by providing supporting reasons and demonstrating
that such review will be no less protective of the environment.For example,functionally independent projects
might be capable of segmented review.
In this case,as explained above,the proposed development plan is in the midst of an extensive SEQRA
process. At this point,it is not known if the proposed development plan will be approved,and if approved,
what the density,configuration,etc.will be. As indicated above,as part of the DEIS that is being prepared,the
lead agency(i.e.,Planning Board)is requiring the analysis of numerous alternatives.
Ref: 28836.00
Mr.Jun Yan,P.E.
October 8,2014
Page 6
Thus, until the SEQRA process is concluded,it is unknown if the proposed development plan will be approved
(and if so,at what density/configuration). Thus,the new development may not occur,and clearly,the
replacement/repair of existing structures(bulkheading/jetties)to protect the property'from further storm
damage and dredging in order to restore the boat channel to previously-existing conditions are functionally
independent of any new development that may ultimately be approved on the subject property. For these
reasons,even under the inaccurate assumption that segmentation was occurring in this situation,such
segmentation would not be improper.
In addition to the comments discussed above,two additional comments regarding the proposed action were
received. The first comment,received from Carol and Louis Wirtz includes the following text:
"Please stop the dredging permit from being applied for in the above. Peconic Bay,its estuaries and
the intrusion of bay water into the only source of water the East End of Long Island and Is in trouble
must be stopped."
Based upon the above text,it appears that the commentators may be concerned that dredging the boat
channel to reestablish a navigable link to the basin would result In salt water Intrusion to the local
groundwater aquifer. It is Important to note that the basin was previously connected to Gardiners Bay via the
aforementioned boat channel,which was formerly maintained by periodic dredging. As such,the basin was a
marine feature that was subject to daily tidal flushing,rather than an expression of the local groundwater
table. Currently,due to sedimentation of the boat channel,the basin Is subject to infrequent tidal influences
during extreme high tides and/or storm events. In either case,no direct connections are known to exist
between the basin and the local groundwater aquifer,and no records exist to Indicate that this was ever the
case. As such,no impacts to local groundwater are anticipated as a result of the proposed dredging.
The final comment,from local residents Martin and Audrey Green,reads as follows:
"As residents of East Marion,we hereby request that you deny the application for a dredging permit
to Oki-Do, Ltd.
The owners of the property in question have yet to comply in any way with the Town's requirements
to clean up the property under their ownership in compliance with environmental requirements prior
to beginning any work. The dredging would constitute a conflict of the stated requirements of the
Town of Southold.
The area in question is abutted by residential homes and condominiums on both sides and the impact
of this dredging without the required clean up would be detrimental to the properties adjacent to the
properties in question. The current owners have in no way provided the basic maintenance to this
property and the buildings and grounds are a hazard which must be dealt with prior to any
consideration of dredging.
We thank you for your review and consideration of our concerns"
f
Ref: 28836.00
Mr.Jun Yan,P.E.
October 8,2014
Page 7
The applicant has invested in and undertaken numerous efforts to secure the subject property and the existing
structures. Nevertheless,as the existing bulkhead and timber jetties along Gardiner's Bay have become non-
functional as a result of storm damage,significant erosion and undermining of the shoreline area has
occurred,including shoreline areas located proximate to existing structures.As such,the proposed action Is
necessary due to the Immediate need to protect the subject property and structures from further damage due
to erosion and undermining from coastal storms.
Based on the foregoing,It Is respectfully submitted that the comments received by the USACE with respect to
the pending permit application are without basis. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If additional
information is required,or should you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
VHB Engineering,Surveying and Landscape Architecture,P.C.
David Kennedy,M.S.
Project Scientist
DK/ba
enc.
cc: Donald Wilcenski,Chair,Southold Town Planning Board
John M. Bredemeyer III,President,Southold Town Board of Trustees
\\vhb\proj\Long1s1and\28836.00 Shi:en Hotel\ProjRecords\FInalDocs\Yan USACE Letter_30-8-14.docx
L 1-e,
cly __
-]DU
OCT
092014 ,
3
nr�inq B�zr�:
Attachment' A
r.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW YORK DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS
JACOB K.JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK,NEW YORK 10276-0080
Regulatory Branch —Eastern Permit Section SE 1 9 2014
Subject: Permit Application Number NAN-2013-01475-EYA'
by Oki-Do Ltd
Oki-Do Ltd.
20 West 64th Street, Suite 24E
New York, NY 10023
Dear Sir:
Correspondence from the Town of Southold expressing concerns regarding the
Public Notice issued for your proposal has been received by this office. A copy of the
letter is enclosed. You must demonstrate to this office that you have satisfied the Town of
Southold's request to complete the SEQRA process.
Please note that in order for us to continue processing your application you must
submit the above requested information to this office within 30 days of this letter.
If any questions should arise concerning this matter, please contact Jun Yan at
(917) 790- 8092.
Sincerely,
n Yan,
Proje nager
East n Section
Enclosure
Cc:
Mr. David Kennedy—VHB Engineering
Mr. Donald Wilcenski -Town of Southold
MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS � rjf SO(/l P.O.Box 1179
DONALD J.WILCENSKI ��` ' Southold,NY 11971
Chair OFFICE LOCATION:
WILLIAM J.CREMERS Town Hall Annex
PIERCE RAMRTY G 54375 State Route 25
JAMES H.RICH III (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
MARTIN H.SIDOR (,�QU Southold,NY
IY ti
Telephone: 631765-1938
www.southoldtownny.gov
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECEP/M BY REGULATORY
September 9, 2014
SEP 12 201
Ms. Jodi M. McDonald, Chief, Regulatory Branch NYD6T;C0RP80FEN01*E6
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New York District
Rm. 1937, 26 Federal Plaza
Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
New York, NY 10278-0090
Re: Public Notice Number: NAN-2013-01475-EYA
Dear Ms. McDonald:
The Town of Southold Planning Board is in receipt of the Public Notice, dated
August 12, 2014, in connection with the Oki-Do Ltd. Department of the Army application
and objects to its issuance at this time for the reasons set forth below:
1. In 2003, the Town of Southold Planning Board accepted a Site Plan
Application to construct a holistic health center located at the southerly
end of Shipyard Lane on Gardener's Bay, in the hamlet of East Marion,
Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, on an 18.7-acre parcel in the Mil
Zone also identified as SCTM #1000-38-7-7.1. The proposed Site Plan
included a total of 114 transient motel rooms consisting of 23 guest lodges
totaling 87 accessory motel units, a main spa building along with a 185-
seat restaurant (103 private guest seats, 72 public guest seats), 10 public
bar seats, office space, retail gift shop, 27 personal service treatment
suites and accessory uses. The proposed project also involved a 3,864
sq. ft. private restaurant annex with 45-99 private guest seats and a
covered 758 sq. ft. deck, 1,987 sq. ft. Manager's residence with a 687 sq.
ft. deck, pool, a 7,205 sq. ft. maintenance and utility building, a sanitary
waste treatment facility, 1,160 sq. ft. for three (3) gazebos and man-made
water features. Additionally, and most pertinent for your review, the
subject project also included the replacement of the existing bulkhead,
dredging of the 16-slip private marina basin, and various outdoor
amenities.
Ms. Jodi M. McDonald
Page 2
September 9, 2014
2. In 2006, the Town of Southold Planning Board was established as Lead
Agency for the action and, as such, conducted a coordinated review and
issued a Positive Declaration. In connection with its review, the Planning
Board required scoping and a Final Scope, dated November 6, 2006, was
adopted (copy attached). Thereafter, a Draft Environmental Impact_
Statement (hereinafter referred to as "DEIS") was submitted, but was
found to be incomplete with respect to the aforementioned Final Scope. A
letter requesting revisions to the DEIS was sent to the n was taken byapplicant
applicant for
November 18, 2008, and no furtheractio
approximately five (5)years.
3. On February 26, 2013, the Planning Board issued a letter to the applicant
indicating that the application would be considered withdrawn due to
inactivity, unless a letter was submitted within 60 days stating the reasons
for the delay. On March 8, 20{3, the tlhe ntentoficant itheappl cant to a response to
the Planning Board indicating hat t was
continue with the Site Plan, however, to date, we have not received any
further communication from the applicant.
Based on the foregoing, the Planning Board respectfully requests that you suspend your
review of the Oki-Do Ltd. permit application until the applicant completes the pending
SEQRA process. The Planning Board is awaiting a DEIS it requested in 2006 and
cannot continue its review until receipt. Further, it is the position of this Board that the
cumulative impact analysis required by SEQR cannot be adequately satisfied if the
project is segmented as defined by Part 617.2(ag), to wit "... the division of the
environmental review of an action so that various activities or stages are addressed as
though they were independent, unrelated activities needing individual determinations of
significance"
Here, the approval sought from the Army Corps is part of the "whole action" and
any issuance of a Dept. of the Army permit would be premature as the full
environmental impact analysis as identified by the Final Scope is incomplete.
Please contact this office if you have any further questions.
Very truly yours,
Donald J. Wilcenski
Chairman
Enclosure
Ms. Jodi M. McDonald
Page 2
September 9, 2014
cc: Joseph Martens, NYS DEC Commissioner
Sheri Aicher, NYS DEC, Stony Brook, NY
Mark Wolfgang, NYS Department of Transportation
Jennifer Street, NYS Department of State
Christopher Lubicich, PE, Suffolk County Department of Health Services-
Kimberly Kennedy, Suffolk County Water Authority
Andrew Freleng, Suffolk County Planning Commission
Honorable Scott A. Russell, Supervisor .
Martin Finnegan, Town Attorney
Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk
Leslie Weisman, Chairperson, Zoning Board of Appeals
Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector
John Bredemeyer, Chairman, Board of Trustees
Michael Collins, Town Engineer
Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator
Southold Town Architectural Review Committee
I
MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 0g so F.O.Box 11
79� y�lO Southold,NY 111
971
JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE
Chair OFFICE LOCATION:
4 4 Town Hail Annex
KENNETH L.EDWARDS CA 54375 State Route 25
MARTIN H.SIDORGc� �p
GEORGE D.SOLOMON Q (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
JOSEPH L.TOWNSEND I�COUm� Southold,NY
Telephone: 631765-1938
Fa=631765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
November 6, 2006
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Proposed Site Plan for Gala Holistic Circle, Oki-Do Ltd.
Located approximately 3,278 ft. s/o New York State Road 25 at the s/e end of Shipyard
Lane known as 2835 Shipyard Lane in East Marion
SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1 Zone: M-II, Marine II District
Dear Mrs. Moore:
The following resolution was adopted at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on
Monday, November 6, 2006:
WHEREAS, this proposed action requires a special exception and site plan to construct a holistic
health center with a total of 114 transient motel rooms consisting of 23 guest lodges totaling 87
accessory motel units (14 lodges containing 3 unit motel rooms & 9 guest lodges containing 5 unit
motel rooms). The remaining 27 motel units are to be located in the main spa building along with a
185 seat restaurant (103 private guest seats, 72 public guest seats), 10 public bar seats, office
space, retail gift shop, 27 personal service treatment suites and accessory uses. The proposed
action also involves a 3,864 sq. ft. private restaurant annex with 45-99 private guest seats and a
covered 758 sq. ft. deck, 1,987 sq. ft. manager's residence with a 687 sq. ft. deck, pool, a 7,205 sq.
ft. maintenance and utility building, a sanitary waste treatment facility, 1,160 sq. ft. for three (3)
gazebos, man-made water features, replacement of the existing bulkhead, dredging of the 16 slip
private marina basin, and various outdoor amenities on a 18.7 acre parcel in the MII Zone located
approximately 3,278 ft. south of New York State Road 25 at the south east end of Shipyard Lane
known as 2835 Shipyard Lane in East Marion. SCTM # 1000-38-7-7.1, and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617, Article 6 of
the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
initiated the SEQR lead agency coordination process for this Type I action pursuant to Part 617.4
(b) (6) (i); and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board assumed lead agency for this
Type I action; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2006, the Southold Planning Board adopted a Positive
Declaration for the proposed action; and
GALA Holistic Circle (OKI-DO) Page Two November 6, 2006
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2006, that pursuant to Article 617.13 of the 6NYCC, Part 617
State Environmental Quality Review Act the applicant agents will be financially responsible for
costs incurred for the review and posting of the draft and final Environmental Impact
Statements by the Town of Southold; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2006, the Southold Planning Board pursuant to Article 617.8 held
a public scoping meeting from 4:30p-6:00pm and allowed for comments to be received at the
Planning Department up to October 26, 2006; be it therefore
RESOLVED, pursuant to Article 617.13 of the 6NYCC, Part 617 State Environmental Quality
Review Act the applicant will be financially responsible for costs incurred for the review and
website posting of the draft and final Environmental Impact Statements by the Town'of
Southold as reflected in the estimate of Nelson Pope& Voorhis dated October 30, 2006,
subject to modification; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board pursuant to Article 617.8 adopts the
FINAL SCOPE FOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT prepared by Nelson Pope &
Voorhis, LLC dated November 6, 2006 and require that the agent address all issues.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
?edlyn B. Woodhouse
Chairperson
cc:
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Southold Town Building Department NYSDEC-Stony Brook
Southold Town Clerk for Southold Town Board New York State Department of Transportation
Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Suffolk County Water Authority
Southold Town Board of Trustees Suffolk County Planning Department
Southold Town Engineer Architectural- Review Committee
Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator Army Corps of Engineers
Commissioner, NYS DEC Suffolk County Department of Public Works
New York State Department of State Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Environmental Notice Bulletin Department of Ecology, Kimberly Shaw
File
Enc: Final Scope
NELSON,POPE & VOORHIS,LLC___
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING • CONSULTING
Environmental Consultant to the Planning Hoard
S?2WALT WHITMAN
Town orSouthold, New York (631)427.3663 FAX(631)427-3620
VPvQnelsonpope.com
FINAL SCOPE FOR
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
11GAIA HOLISTIC CIRCLE"
Proposed Special Exception Permit for Transient Motel
Shipyard Lane,East Marion,Town of Southold
Suffolk County,New York
Prepared for: Town of Southold
Planning Board
Town Hall,53095 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
(631)765-1938
Prepared by: Nelson,Pope&Voorhis,LLC
572 Walt Whitman Road
Melville,New York 11747.
(631)427-5665
Contact: Charles J.Voorhis,CEP,AICP
Date: November 6,2006
1..0 Introduction
This document is the Final Scope of the issues and analyses to be included in the DEIS for the
proposed transient motel on a 17.325-acre parcel located at the southerly end of Shipyard Lane
on Gardener's Bay, in the hamlet of East Marion, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk known
as Gaia Holistic Circle.
The analysis of the Gaia Holistic Circle project in a DEIS has been required by the Town of
Southold Planning Board, as Lead Agency for administration of the subdivision review and as
required by the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA). The requirement
for a DEIS was contained in a Positive Declaration issued by the Planning Board on September
11, 2006.
The information prepared in conformance with this scope and the SEQRA process is intended to
provide comprehensive input in the decision-making process for use by involved agencies in
preparing their own findings and issuing decisions on their respective permits. The document
Gain,Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
must be concise but thorough, well documented, accurate and consistent. Figures and tables will
be presented in support of the discussions and analyses contained in the document. Technical
information will be summarized in the body of the DEIS and attached in their entirety in an
appendix.
2.0 Brief Rescription of the Proposed Proiect
The proposed action requires a special exception and site plan to construct a holistic health
center with a total of 114 transient motel rooms consisting of 23 guest lodges totaling 87
accessory motel units (14 lodges containing 3 unit motel rooms & 9 guest lodges containing 5
unit motel rooms). The remaining 27 motel units are to be located in the main spa building along
with a 185 seat restaurant (103 private guest seats, 72 public guest seats), 10 public bar seats,
office space, retail gift shop, 27 personal service treatment suites and accessory uses: The
proposed action also involves a 3,864 sq. ft. private restaurant annex with 45-99 private guest
seats and a covered 758 sq. ft. deck, 1,987 sq. ft. manager's residence with a 687 sq. ft. deck,
pool, a 7,205 sq. ft. maintenance and utility building, a sanitary waste treatment facility, 1,160
sq. ft. for three (3) gazebos, man-made water features, replacement of the existing bulkhead,
dredging of the 16 slip private marina basin, and various outdoor amenities on a 18.7 acre parcel
in the MII Zone located approximately 3,278 fl. south of New York State Road 25 at the south
east end of Shipyard Lane known as 2835 Shipyard Lane e in East Marion.
A parking area containing 162 spaces is proposed along the length of the western property line
and extending into the northwest portion of the site. A total of 27 stalls will be landbanked for
future parking area expansion. The practicality and adequacy of the proposed parking lot
location is not known at this time, and may vary bused on the proposed site uses and duration of
guest stay. Three (3) ingress/egress points are proposed along Shipyard Lane. An additional
gated ingress/egress point is proposed from Cleaves Point Road along the eastern property
boundary. A loading dock will be provided at the transient hotel building and will be accessible
from the proposed access point located at the southwestern corner of the property. A 20-foot
wide interior, gravel roadway is proposed along the northern and eastern property line to connect
the parking lot area to the Cleave Point Road entrance. It is not known if the Cleave Point Road
access will be utilized for emergency access only, or if this access will be utilized for through
traffic and maintenance vehicles. Ornamental landscaping is proposed throughout the site,
including the required minimum twenty-foot buffer of supplemental landscaping and natural
vegetation maintained along the eastern and northern property perimeters and required minimum
15-foot buffer is proposed along the western property line.
The proposed project also includes repairing/replacing the existing wooden bulkhead that
extends along the western half of the boat basin and adding boat slips along a new dock. This
portion of the bulkhead is in fair to poor condition. The wooden bulkhead indicated on the Site
Plan along the southwest property boundary fronting Gardiners Bay is dilapidated and no longer
functioning. This portion of bulkhead will be replaced with a rock revetment to match that
located on the adjacent Cleaves Point Village property. Information regarding NYSDEC
jurisdiction and permitting is discussed in the Wetlands section below. Any dredging or removal
of fill from the access channel or the boat basin will require acquisition of all the applicable
1�1' JF
Page 2
SGaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
permits from the Town Board of Trustees, the Army Corps of Engineers, the NYSDEC, and the
NYS Department of State (discussed in the Wetlands section below).
A large manmade pond, containing a landscaped island, several recreational bridges and wooden
decks are proposed in the central portion of the property. The water feature will be accessible
from several different paths throughout the site and will be surrounded by Japanese Gardens and
native landscaping.
A drainage system of catch basins, leaching pools and piping is proposed throughout the site. A
wastewater treatment facility is proposed for the northwest corner of the site. However, no
sanitary calculations are provided in the plans. Additionally, a series of leaching pools and catch
basins are proposed for Cleaves Point Road, in the vicinity of the proposed entrance. The
proposed density and design will be subject to review and approval by the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services.
Site History
The subject property was improved with an oyster-processing facility circa 1964, together with
three smaller detached wooden and metal buildings. One or more of these detached buildings
was used for maintenance and/or repair activities, since equipped with waste oil and other oil
USTs, and as a machine shop. In addition, an existing metal storage and maintenance building,
likely used for boat maintenance, was completed in 1983 and East End Diesel, Inc., a diesel
engine repair and remanufacturing company,occupied the southernmost building from the late
1980s to circa 1996. The oyster-processing facility ceased operations circa 1988 and the subject
property is currently vacant. Single-family homes and crop fields historically surrounded the
subject property.
Approvals
In order to develop the site as proposed, the following approvals are required:
Town of Southold Board of Appeals Special Exception Use
Town of Southold Planning Board Site Plan
Town of Southold Highwa Department Road Work Permit
Town of Southold Town Trustees Wetlands Permit
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Article 4 Water Supply
Article 6 Sewage Treatment Plant
Suffolk County Water Authority Water Supply Connection
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 1- Notice of Intent—SPDES General
Permit for Stormwater Discharges
During Construction Activities
2. SPDES Discharge Permit
3. Tidal Wetlands Permit
4. Mining Permit for Ponds(if
ap icable
NYS Department of State FCoastal Consistency
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Individual Permit
Page 3
• • caia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft EnAroomental Impact Statement
3.0 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts
The following description of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed project has been taken
verbatim from the Planning Board's Positive Declaration of September 11, 2006:
1. The site has been evaluated in accordance with the Criteria for Determining Significance as contained
in SEQRA 6NYCRR Part 617.7 (c). The proposed action has been evaluated through review of the
following materials:
• Site and architectural plan and architectural elevation drawing prepared by Butt, Otruba-
O'Connor Architects,
• Part I and II of the Environmental Assessment Form(EAF),
• Site plan application,
• Traffic Impact Study prepared by Dunn Engineering,
• Environmental Site Assessment(ESA)Report prepared by Longshore Environmental,
• Site plan use diagram,
• Informational letter from Butt,Otruba-O'Connor Architects,
• Independent site inspection,
• Planning Board deliberation on materials supplied by the applicant, the consultant, and planning
staff.
Based upon this thorough review, the Planning Board identified potential significant adverse
environmental impacts in connection with the proposed project. Additional supporting findings are
provided below.
2. The Criteria for Determining Significance are specifically evaluated with respect to this action, as
follows:
a. Substantial adverse change in existing ground or surface water quality or quantity, traffic or noise
levels; increase in solid waste production; leaching or drainage problems.
The proposed action may significantly change the subject site such groundwater or surface water
quality, traffic, noise levels, solid waste production,.leaching or drainage problems may occur.
Insufficient information has been provided in which to accurately assess these impaels.
b. The removal or destruction of large quantifies of vegetation or other significant adverse impact to
natural resources.
The NYS Heritage Program Database Records indicates there are no known rare species or
ecological communities located within the project area; however, historical and recent records
indicate the presence of several threatened and endangered vascular plants and birds in the
vicinity of the project site.
c. The impairment of the environmental characteristics of a Critical Environmental Area as
designated pursuant to subdivision 617.14(g).
The EAF indicates that the subject site is not located within a Critical Environmental Area
(CEA). However, due to the site's location on Gardiners Bay / Orient Harbor, potential
Page 4
«�
�.�)M..—A
0 Gais Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
significant adverse impacts were identified as a result of the proposed project,particularly as it
relates to water quality, harbor use and scenic resources.
d. The creation of a material conflict with a community's current plans or goals as officially
approved or adopted.
The proposed project had a preliminary evaluation in terms of land use, zoning, and land use
plans that establish a community's plans and goals. The overall size and scope of the project
appears to be in conflict with adjoining land uses and zoning. The project's consistency.with the
East Marion Hamlet Study, Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, State Coastal Management
Program, etc.shall also be evaluated.
e. The impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural, or
aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character.
NYS OPRHP has noted that the area of the proposed project has not been comprehensively
surveyed and recommended that a Phase I archeological survey be conducted unless sufficient
evidence of substantial prior ground disturbance can be documented.
f. A major change in the use of either the quantity or type of energy.
The proposed project involves a significant increase in energy use. Impacts to local facilities
shall be analyzed.
g. The creation of a hazard to human health.
The proposed project may result in unsafe pedestrian movement throughout the site in addition to
use of public streets for site operations.
h. A substantial change in the use, or intensity of use, of land including agricultural, open space or
recreational resources,or in its capacity to support existing uses,
The proposed project significantly increases the intensity of use on the site, resulting in potential
adverse impacts to traffic, sanitary and water generadon/use, water quality, noise and visual
resources, as well as community character.
i. The encouraging or attracting of a large number of people to a place or places for more than a few
days,compared to the number of people who would come to such place absent the action.
A is expected that the proposed action would attract a significant number of people for more than
a few days; however, proposed site uses, possible public access to site facilities like the
restaurants and duration of guest stay have not been specified.
j. The creation of a material demand for other actions that would result in one of the above
consequences.
The proposed project is not expected to create a material demand for other actions that would
exacerbate or create other impacts.
"o U. Page 5
+wn�•cb•sa_a Tna
• • Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
k. Changes in two or more elements of the environment,no one of which has a significant impact on
the environment, but when considered together result in a substantial adverse impact on the
environment.
The proposed project does propose a significant physical site alteration and the intensity of
proposed use may have combined adverse impacts on the environment.
1. Two or more related actions undertaken, funded or approved by an agency, none of which has or
would have a significant impact on the environment, but when considered-cumulatively-would
meet one or more of the criteria.
There are no other pending projects in the vicinity of the project site which when considered
cumulatively with the proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental
impacts.
3. The site's sensitive waterfront location and area resources may be affected by the proposed project
and insufficient information has been provided in which to accurately assess significant
environmental impacts that may be associated with the proposed project. Anticipated adverse
impacts do not appear to be minimized or mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Alternatives
to the proposed action that will reduce potential impacts shall be examined.
4.0 Oreanization and Overall Content of the DEPS Document
The DEIS must conform with the basic content requirements as contained in 6NYCRR Part
617.9(b)(3). The outline of the DEIS shall include the following sections:
COVER SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
1.1 Project Background,Need,Objectives and Benefits
1.1.1 Background and History
1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives
1.1.3 Objectives of the Project Sponsor
1.1.4 Benefits of the Project
1.2 Location and Site Conditions
1.3 Project Design and Layout
1.3.1 Overall Site Layout
1.3.2 Grading and Drainage
1.3.3 Access,Road System and Parking
1.3.4 Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply
1.3.5 Site Landscaping and Lighting
1.3.6 Open Space
1.4 Construction and Operation
1.4.1 Construction
1.4.2 Operation
1.5 Permits and Approvals Required
U-MW ,� Page 6
• • Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental impact Statement
2.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
2.1 Soils and Topography
2.1.1 Existing Conditions
2.1.2 Anticipated Impacts
2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation
2.2 Water Resources
2.2.1 Existing Conditions
2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts
2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation
2.3 Ecology
2.3.1 Existing Conditions
2.3.2 Anticipated Impacts
2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
3.1 ' Transportation
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
3.1.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.2 Land and Water Use,Zoning and Plans
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.3 Community Facilities and Services
3.3.1 Existing Conditions
3.3.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.3.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.4 Aesthetic Resources and Community Character
3.4.1 Existing Conditions
3.4.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.4.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources
3.5.1 Existing Conditions
3.5.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.5.3 Proposed Mitigation
4.0 OTHER REQUIRED SECTIONS
4.1 Construction Related Impacts
4.2 Cumulative Impacts
4.3 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided
4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
4.5 Growth-Inducing Aspects
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 No Action Alternative
5.2 Alternative Site Designs
6.0 REFERENCES
APPENDICES
�M=Z.rr �ecAMAk7 A.rr.ri
Page 7
• . Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
5.0 Extent and Qaality of Information Existing and Needed
As required under SEQRA, the DEIS shall include "a statement and evaluation of potential significant
adverse impacts at a level of detail that reflects the severity of the impacts and the reasonable likelihood
of their occurrence". Included in this evaluation shall be reasonably related short-term and long-term
impacts,with other required sections identified in the Section 6.0 of this scoping document. This section
further describes the level of analysis and the type of analysis expected with respect to the key
environmental impacts of the project as outlined in the Positive Declaration. Each major section is
followed by a description of the extent and quality of information needed to perform the evaluation of
each of the impacted resources.
Descrip ion of the Proposed Proiect
Background and History
• There shall be a brief description of the site and application History; this shall include a
full description of the existing and historic use of the site, dredging and site
improvements, status of current use, site ownership and related background and history.,
• Phase I and Phase H Environmental Site Assessments related to site conditions shall be
summarized and attached or excerpts attached to establish background conditions; site
remediation shall be identified.
Public Need and Municipality Objectives
• Include justification of proposed project in terns of Town goals for site.
• Public need for the project shall be discussed; indicate market study used to assess the
need and viability of the facility; indicate potential for conversion of site to other use
based on non-viability of facility or lack of need.
• Population served by the project shall be identified.
• Public access to the waterfront shall be discussed.
Objectives of the Project Sponsor
• The objectives of the project sponsor shall be included and discussed.
• The objectives of the project sponsor shall indicate the Gaia Holistic Circle form of
treatment/lifestyle as related to site use and design.
Benefits of the Project
• Include a discussion of the community benefits expected to accrue from the proposed
project.
Location and Site Conditions
• Using appropriate mapping and/or tables, describe location of site, in terms
adjacent/nearby significant properties,zoning and service districts, available services,etc.
• The existing conditions of the site in terms of bulkheads, mean high water, mean low
water, site survey, structures, vegetative cover shall be provided as an overall background
of existing site conditions.
• A summary of subsurface conditions and features, suspected contamination on the site
and in the area proposed for development, as well as remediation initiatives.
Page 8
�. _ T �� �
0 Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Project Design and Layout
o Overall Site Layout - include a brief description of the site and project layout; describe
basis for site yield, proposed structures, services, utilities, access points, road system,
drainage, marina and include a site quantities table.
o Use Design/Description - address breakdown of use areas from a structural standpoint;
indicate if the "patio' will be covered; describe any retail activities on site (sale items,
access to public).
o- Architecture--the architecture,height and appearance of structures shall be identified.
o LEED -Details on the LEED green building certification being sought for this project.
o Regulations -ADA compliance features and FEMA Flood Plain development compliance
as related to structural improvements; indicate requirements, design parameters and
proposed design; indicate first floor elevations of buildings required and proposed.
o Dredging - details on dredging and bulkhead project; dredge spoil, volume and quality;
dredge spoil dewatering, dredge spoil disposal.
• Marina and Bulkhead/Revetment - the marina installation shall be fully described
including bulkheading and revetment (including cross sections, materials used, stone size,
bulkhead type, backfill, etc.), dredging, piles and floats, access, function; etc.; indicate if
fuel tanks will be installed anywhere on premises and who will have access.
• Grading - the grading program and associated areas disturbed shall be discussed along
with volumes of soil excavated, cut/filled, removed from site and maximum depths of
cut/fill; fill needed for sanitary, drainage or structures shall be identified; grading for the
proposed access to the managers residence shall be outlined; quantity of fill behind
proposed bulkhead.
o Drainage- site drainage and proposed drainage system and provide capacity and function
information shall be provided along with a discussion of conformance to NYSDEC
SPDES stormwater and erosion control regulations for construction and post-construction
conditions; use of the lake/stream system for drainage shall be identified if intended as
well as function, capacity and viability in view of depth to groundwater constraints.
Lake/Stream System - details on the lake and stream system, method of
construction/lining; water supply; soil removal/re-grading, design and depth of features,
make-up water and source, vector control, filtration/treatment equipment, stocking with
fish and species, wildfowl control, stormwater retention qualities if applicable;vegetation
and landscaping.
o Access - the vehicle access points, internal roadway layout and traffic circulation shall be
identified.
• Parking- the adequacy of on-site parking shall be discussed; required parking as required
by a breakdown of parking requirements for each sub-use shall be provided; this will
establish the basis for the parking variance; the amount and adequacy of proposed
parking shall be determined; use of permeable pavement shall be described in detail in
terms of location and use; identify the location of loading docks and dumpster locations.
o Water Supply - include a description of water supply source, infrastructure and
availability, water main routing to access the site; irrigation well water supply,
lake/stream "make up" water, and proposed wastewater handling and corresponding use
of water supply and sanitary design flow.
.cl.a..k,-^., Page 9
m
Gain Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Utilities - the sizes and locations of all utilities and services shall be described along with
the status of future possible connection.
• Lighting- the Town lighting requirements, proposed lighting and an illumination analysis
shall be provided and described for all aspects of the project including parking areas, the
restaurant and other site improvements; compliance with"dark skies"shall be identified.
• Landscaping - information on the type, amount and location of landscaping proposed
shall be provided as well as information on maintenance requirements such as irrigation
and fertilization under operation and maintenance; information on buffers around the site
perimeter, retention of existing trees and other buffering techniques shall be identified;
the plant list shall be reviewed and described to ensure that "invasive" species are not
introduced to the site; screening of dumpsters, recreational activities and parking shall be
addressed.
• Amenities — describe all amenities on site including outdoor use, tennis courts, arenas,
playgrounds,use of beach and limits on off-site use of facilities,etc.
• Open Space Management - include a discussion on retained open space areas; areas of
dedication, areas of retention by applicant; easements or restrictions to ensure retention of
open space.
Construction
• The construction and operation/maintenance of the site shall be fully discussed.
• Demolition of the existing buildings including safety and protection of neighboring
properties.
• Remediation based on the Phase I/II ESA.
• Project phasing(if applicable).
• Method of construction, construction schedule/timetable, days of the week; indicate
Town code restrictions of nuisance activities and compliance.
• Construction management, equipment storagelstaging, delivery routes, hours of
operation,workers' parking,protection of natural and sensitive areas.
• Protection of workers and worker safety during construction shall be evaluated.
• Need to modify overhanging trees on Shipyard Lane for construction or operation.
• Quantity of soil import/export, truck routes, management and mitigation.
• Dredging and bulkhead project details; staging areas; construction methods; dewatering
areas; disposal areas; dredge removal truck trips; time frames for construction. -
Operation
• In terms of operation, describe the management and protection of open space; describe
Organization management and operation; describe road, landscape and open space
maintenance practice, describe any special conditions which may apply.
• Detailed description identifying which of the site uses (if any) will be open to the public
(i.e., the marina,restaurant, spa, etc.) and which will be exclusive for hotel guests.
• Uses expected of various locations and facilities within the site; seasons of use, intclisity
of use, whether the site will be open to special events such as weddings, conferences or
catering events,retail sales.
• Projected number of employees required for the various uses for weekdays, weekends
and seasonal peak periods.
M«�
Page 10
• . Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Indicate activities such as outdoor parties,placement and use of loudspeakers, concerts or
special events including frequency, location time periods and schedule.
• Truck sizes expected for deliveries and delivery routing, delivery times and truck
unloading areas.
• Location of dumpsters, truck access to dumpsters, hours of dumpster pickup shall be
addressed; indicate if trash compactors will be used.
• Details on internal traffic circulation plan, use of gravel road and general on-site
activities.
• Description of use of golf carts on site.
• Valet parking shall be fully described.
• Description of any generators proposed for the facility.
• Description of operation of the proposed marina, users, frequency of use, etc.
• Seasons of operation of various components of the facility.
• Lighting operations in terms of type,hours lit and controls shall be discussed.
• Snow removal shall be described as related to parking surfaces and operation.
• Entity responsible for site operations.
• Restrictions on Emergency Access (if proposed) and how the restrictions will be ensured.
• Lake/stream system operation and maintenance; lake "make-up" water; fish stocking;
wildfowl population control;nutrient influx control; mosquito/vector control; aesthetics.
• Water use shall be fully described including: maximum size of vessels, turning radius,
depths, vessel speeds in marina, potential, for increased number of private vessels.
docking, channel enhancements (increased dredging potential, navigation aids), and
access to existing navigation channels.
• Use and management of open space areas.
• Operation of the manna shall be identified; indicate if fuel storage will occur for marina
patrons.
Permits and Approvals Required
• Identify all required permits and reviews
• Indicate the filing date and status of submissions to the lead and involved agencies.
Natural Environmental Resources
Soils and Topography
• Existing soil, subsoil and topographic conditions shall be analyzed in terms of existing
conditions, proposed conditions and measures which. may be employed to minimize
potential significant adverse environmental impacts.
• The existing soil types shall be determined pursuant to the Suffolk County Soil Survey.
• Soil borings shall be described to determine subsurface soil quality and depth to
groundwater.
• The topography of the site shall be determined using site specific topographic surveys of
the property.
• The soil quality shall be described in terms of analytical results from Phase II sampling.
Page 11
• • Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental impact Statement
• Impact to soils shall be discussed in terms of soil constraints pursuant to the Suffolk
County Soil Survey based on the type of land use proposed and the constraints for each
soil type.
• water shall be evaluated by establishing that
Constraints in terms o£ depth to ground
sanitary and drainage systems can function property; vertical profiles of these systems
establishing minimum surface elevation, maximum groundwater elevation and system
installation to required design standards shall be included.
• Topographic alteration of the site shall be determined through evaluation of the grading
proposed for the site and determination of resultant slopes, volume and disposition/origin
of cut or fill, and proposed changes to topographic elevations; impact of fill for sanitary,
drainage and buildings shall be evaluated; evaluation may include description, profiles,
contour maps and/or other methods to perform effective evaluation; impact of grading for
the proposed managers residence road shall be evaluated.
• Mitigation in terms of soil remediation, erosion control, retention of soils, fugitive dust
and related impacts shall be identified.
Water Resources
• The groundwater management zone as classified under Article G of the Suffolk County
Sanitary Code shall be referenced.
• The depth to groundwater in key development locations of the site shall be determined by
use of on-site soil borings; soil borings in all areas of proposed leaching must be included
given constrained site soils, fill,oyster shell, etc.
• The expected direction of groundwater flow based on hydrologic interpolation shall be
identified.
• The existing groundwater quality shall be referenced from existing literature.
• The water supply source, infrastructure and availability, service provider and capacity of
systems shall be established through communication with the water district and analysis
of impacts; water main routing and growth impacts must be evaluated; irrigation water,
well installation and impacts must be examined.
• The expected impact of the project with respect to water quality shall be fully examined
in terms of sanitary discharge compliance, wastewater treatment system operation and
regulatory requirements.
• Applicable Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) regulations and
requirements will be identified in terms of density and current policy on the proposed
wastewater system, and the compliance of the action with same will be evaluated.
• Calculations of projected sanitary flow and consistency with the Suffolk County Sanitary
Code will also be provided.
• The nitrogen budget for the site (considering all potential sources of nitrogen) shall be
determined using mass-balance modeling methods.
• Other water quality impacts related to pesticides, snow melt chemicals (if applicable),
chemical storage and any other sources shall be analyzed.
• The consistency of the proposed action with the findings of the Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program (NURP) and Nonpoint Source Management Handbook will be evaluated as
related to stormwater management and discharge.
• The existing stormwater management system and surface drainage conditions on the site
mb&wc-Alt Page 12
• Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact statement
will be described. This will include, but not be limited to: stormwater generated,
available information relative to collection and management systems, and system
capacity. In addition, post-development stormwater management conditions will be
evaluated. This evaluation will include: calculations of stormwater to be generated,
details of the proposed collection and management systems, system capacity, future
maintenance practices for stormwater collection and leaching structures and analysis of
how the proposed stormwater management system will comply with applicable
regulatory requirements, including the NYSDEC SPDES GP 02-01 Phase 2 stormwater
regulations.
• The change in hydrology of the site in terms of quantity of recharge under existing and
future conditions shall be established using appropriate hydrologic analysis methods; use
of the irrigation well, drawdown and potential for salt-water intrusion shall be included;
drought conditions water consumption and impact to neighboring private wells; issues
regarding increased water table elevations, functioning of sanitary/drainage recharge
systems and potential to increase flooding in the area shall be addressed.
• Constraints and impacts related to depth to groundwater must be evaluated; depth of
leaching structures (sanitary and stormwater) placement to ensure minimum 2-3' above
the water table,capacity and function shall be considered.
• The DEIS will provide calculations of projected water consumption for each use
proposed and, in consultation with the Suffolk County Water Authority, will evaluate the
ability to meet this projected water demand; the evaporative loss of water from new
surface water features, pond "make up" water, irrigation and all water use shall be
included.
• As the proposed action includes the installation of an irrigation well, the yield of the well
must be provided to determine the need for a Long Island Well Permit and to evaluate the
potential impacts associated therewith.
`• Area conditions in terms of drainage and potential for or reported flooding shall be
described.
• As the site is situated in Zone AE, base elevations as promulgated by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would be identified, and a consistency
analysis with same would be included; the Flood Zone line shall be interpolated based on .
"on-site"topography and shall align with the nine(9) foot contour.
• Impact of flooding on sanitary system function, generator function, and
restaurant/hotel/cottage evaculation.
• Mitigation measures which may reduce potential water quality impacts shall be
identified; measures to correct existing flooding and assurance that flooding will not be
exacerbated shall be included; resurfacing of Shipyard Lane and installation of drainage
in the Town right-of-way shall be considered as mitigation; drainage mitigation for area
of Cleaves Point Road near east part of site.
Ecology
• Existing upland habitats shall be inventoried through an inspection of the site by a
qualified biologist/ecologist to determine the vegetation, wildlife, and general habitat
character. An inventory of flora and fauna observed and expected will be provided in this
section of the DEIS.
OlAfte"�a«c Page l3
• • Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• In addition, protected native plants, plant and animal species listed as endangered,
threatened, special concern (or with other protective status) and significant habitat areas
on or in the vicinity of the project site will be identified.
• The NY Natural Heritage Program shall be contacted for site file information concerning
habitats,plant and animal species.
• Impact to upland habitats shall be quantified and discussed qualitatively in terms
ecological impact to plants and animals.
• The type,quantity and quality of wetlands present on,adjoining, or in the vicinity of the
site shall be mapped and described using current site conditions and recognizing that the
location of high water has moved landward; wetland jurisdiction of the Federal
government, State and Town shall be established; existing biological conditions of
proposed dredging areas including submerged aquatic vegetation.
• The jurisdiction, regulatory framework and controls of the Federal government, State and
Town shall be established.
• Hydrologic systems supporting these wetlands shall be presented.
• Federal and State wetland maps indicate that the proposed action would be under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ALOE) and the NYSDEC as well as
the Town Trustees. As such, all required wetland permit applications to the ACOE,
NYSDEC and Trustees must be made. Copies of all existing wetland permits would also
be provided (e.g., the existing maintenance dredge permit) and a discussion of each
permit will be included.
• Potential impacts to wetlands shall be evaluated in terms of maintaining or enhancing all
wetlands, maintaining adequate setbacks and ensuring that the hydrology of the systems
(sanitary, stormwater, erosion control, etc.) supporting wetlands is not degraded in
quality or quantity.
• Water use impact must be evaluated including; .marina impacts associated with
installation and operation, adequacy of navigation channels and boat access to site as well
as boat maneuvers within site;include assessment of available pumpout facilities.
• Historical dredging of the basin and historical depth of the basin shall be documented to
establish pre-existing conditions to support the proposed"maintenance"dredging; impact
of dredging on vegetation and wildlife including osprey nests shall be evaluated.
• Dredging and bulkhead project impacts of construction; installation/spoil removal;
dewatering (odor and vector control); dredge spoil placementtdisposal; dredge spoil
quality (grain size, organic content, volatile/semivolatile organic compounds, metals,
PCB's and related contaminants) shall be included; impact of the proposed revetment on
surrounding properties shall be determined; analysis shall include physical and biological
littoral processes and impact on submerged aquatic vegetation.
• Setbacks required by State and Town wetland review shall be located and evaluated in
terms of compliance with maintaining setbacks for disturbance/fertilized vegetation,
structures and sanitary installation.
• Management of the land within wetland setback areas shall be formulated to ensure
conformance with the code requirements.
• Mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts shall be identified and method of
implementation determined; details on erosion control to protect site ecology shall be
included.
Page 14
• • Gain Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Human Resources
Transportation
• Provide a thorough analysis of the traffic impacts of the proposed development on the
area's roadway system. The study shall consider future traffic associated with
employees, guests, visitors, and all aspects of site operations.
• Include analyses of the proposed plan and internal roadway system and a full traffic
impact study assessing the proposed development's impact on the surrounding roadways.- --
• Sight distance at site and Shipyard Lane and Route 25, road/lane width, circulation and
parking shall be included in this analysis.
• The Traffic Impact Study will include: collection of data regarding planned roadway
improvements and other developments, field surveys and counts of existing traffic
volumes, estimates of future traffic volumes, analyses of existing and future traffic
volumes and identification and timing of required roadway improvements and the entity
responsible for initiating those improvements. The following specific tasks will be
undertaken and documented in the traffic and transportation section of the DEIS:
1. Several personal, on-site field observations to observe the traffic movements under
various conditions.
2. A physical inventory of the adjacent street network.
3. The hourly volume report of the NYSDOT traffic count on Main Road shall be obtained
and included in the traffic study. A review of the count should be performed and the peak
hours occurring on the weekday and weekend should be identified.
4. The following should be included as study intersections with turning movement counts
and analysis conducted during all the time periods:
• Shipyard Lane and Main Road;
• Gillette Drive and Main Road;
• Cleaves Point Condominium driveway and Shipyard Lane.
5. In addition to weekday AM and PM peak period counts, Saturday peak period
intersection turning movement counts at the study intersections should be conducted
during the afternoon and/or evening peak periods identified by review of the Main Road
hourly volumes. Sunday is not typically the busiest weekend day. However, the hourly
volumes should identify which day should be included in the study.
t. Hourly volumes for a seven day period should be collected on Gillette Drive and
Shipyard Lane.
7. Perform a gap study at the study intersections during the peak periods to record available
gaps in traffic along Main Road.
8. The accident analysis should include a request for accident records along Shipyard Lane
and Gillette Drive, at both intersections with Main Road and along Main Road for an
appropriate distance in either direction from each intersection. The accident records
should be reviewed and tabulated.
9. The trip generation calculation should be conducted based upon each of the separate uses
on the site, such as, the restaurant, marina, spa and hotel. The hours of operation, size of
each facility, maximum employees during peak activity, and whether the facility is open
to the public should be identified. Any credit assumed for internal trips should be
supported with documentation. The data from the Hotel land Use Code provided by ITE
is not appropriate.
10. A directional distribution analysis to distribute the site-generated traffic onto the
0: MLlc Page 15
14. 7.GQN!i.A.tif.R�
• . Gala Holistic Circle .
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
operate the facility(housing, schools,etc.).
• The DEIS will include detailed projections of service demand with supporting
documentation.
• The existing tax revenue of the site shall be established.
• The DEIS shall consider future taxes, and if it is expected that the use will not be taxed, a
determination shall be made to determine if payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) is
necessary to offset potential impact to community service providers.
• The emergency services (ambulance, police and fire) which serve the site shall be
identified and contacted for input with respect to continued ability to serve the site.
• Changes associated with the proposed project shall be evaluated in terms of emergency
service access; a practical approach shall be taken to ensure that safe and efficient
emergency service vehicle access to the site can be provided to the site.
• Hydrant installation/location and other development considerations which assist in
addressing emergency services shall be included.
• Mitigation for emergency service access to ensure that equipment can ingresslegress the
site shall be included.
Page 18
. • Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Aesthetic Resources and Community Character
• The importance of the site in teens of open space character in the community shall be
established; the type of open space which the site represents and locations of other open
space in the community shall be used in this evaluation.
• The visual character of the existing site conditions shall be identified through ground and
aerial photography using a key for locations of all ground photography.
• The significance of visual character shalt be established in terms of the viewing public
and view accessibility.
• Other aspects of the existing visual character in terns of vegetation, lighting,utilities,etc.
shall be identified. "Dark sky"compliance shall be addressed.
• Impacts of the proposed project in terms of community character and visual setting shall
be determined by discussion as well as graphic methods. Locations shalt be determined
through analysis of significance to the viewing public, but at a minimum shall include the
view of the site from Gardiners Bay. "To scale" photographic and architectural
renderings are anticipated, with supporting cross-section evaluation and descriptive text
to fully disclose the change of visual character of the site.
• Impact of shadows of large buildings shall be evaluated.
• The impact of use of fill, increase in site elevations, and visual appearance of structures
will be evaluated. The significance of visual impacts will be assessed and mitigation
proposed. Lighting impacts will be discussed from a visual impact perspective; the"dark
sky" compliance shall be evaluated as well as the potential for a "glow" or"halo" effect
from parking areas, the restaurant or other site improvements shall be addressed.
• The change in character and visual setting shall be determined in terms of landscape
vegetation, lighting and utilities.
• Impact associated with the marina operation shall be evaluated in terms of activity, lights,
noise and community land use compatibility impacts.
• The existing noise environment will be evaluated in ten-ns of ambient noise, sensitive
receptors and community character. The potential noise impacts of the project will be
assessed through identification of source areas, traffic circulation/volume, golf carts, car
doors, backup alarms, building/grounds maintenance, restaurant,waterfall, generator use,
dumpster location; trash compactors (if used) and use, proximity to receptors, distance
and other attenuation, and the significance of potential noise impacts will be assessed.
• Impact of special events (if proposed) shall be evaluated in terms of community
character.
• Impact of gas dock (if proposed) on community safety and pollution potential in
consideration of the surrounding area.
• Population/demographic impacts associated with the use of the site.
• Measures to minimize the impact of loss of open space and change in visual character
and the means for their implementation shall be provided.
Historic and Archaeological Resources
• The historic and archaeological resources of the site will be addressed through a
determination of historic and archaeological sensitivity and preparation of a Stage IA/IB
Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA). The site is within an arca of archaeological
Page 19
• • Gain Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
sensitivity and therefore a Stage IA/IB is required, unless significant ground disturbance
is documented to the satisfaction of the OPRHP. Any mitigation which may be needed
shall be identified.
6.0 Other Required Sections
In addition to the key resources identified in the Positive Declaration, SEQRA identifies other
required sections for a complete DEIS as included in 6NYCRR Part 617.9 (b)(3). Mitigation
measures shall be included with respect to each key impact area as noted in Section 5,0.
Alternatives to be studied are identified in Section 7.0. The following Other Required Sections
and evaluations shah be provided in the DEIS.
• Construction Impacts (Describe the impacts related to construction demolition,
construction, dredge operations, dredge spoil disposal, noise, dust, erosion and
sedimentation, area receptors, applicable nuisance regulations, applicable agency
oversight and safeguards, phasing of the project, staging areas, parking areas, operation
areas, duration,hours, and related mitigation measures to reduce construction impacts).
• Cumulative Impacts (Describe other pending or approved projects in vicinity (East
Marion), determine potential for impacts due to implementation of proposed project in
combination with others and discuss/analyze impacts).
• Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided (Provide brief listing of those adverse
environmental impacts described/discussed previously which are anticipated to occur,
which cannot be completely mitigated).
• Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources (Provide brief discussion of
those natural and human resources which will be committed to and/or consumed by the
proposed project).
• Growth-Inducing Aspects (Provide brief discussion of those aspects of the proposed
project which will or may trigger or contribute to future growth in the area).
7.0 Alternatives to be Studied
SEQRA requires a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action
that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor. As noted in
SEQRA, "The description and evaluation of each alternative shall be at a level of detail sufficient
to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed". The followhig alternatives
and methods of evaluation are anticipated:
• No Action Alternative-Alternative whereby the site remains in its current condition).
• Potential Acquisition of the site.
• Alternative Design(s) - Design(s) which incorporate(s) features or combinations of
features to provide the following reduced impact alternatives:
➢ Alternative which conforms to LVW.
➢ Alternative design to conform to a 75 foot impervious/structure setback from current
location of wetlands and placement of the rock revetment above mean high water.
:'t 1
EEPW U-1 MU:•a 1 .�� Page 20
Ju, wwru...a.Trur.
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
➢ Alternative parking layout to provide convenience to proposed use areas and reduce
impact to neighboring residential properties(more interspersed parking).
Conversely, consider an alternative to centralize parking and provide internal operations
to provide access to user access to site uses in order to better locate and buffer parking
and reduce off-site impacts.
Alternative design to reduce impervious surface area (particularly the pool patio area) to
increase indigenous landscaping and reduce stormwater, groundwater and wetlands
impacts.
➢ Alternative to remove separate cottages near east property line.
Alternative with reduced building mass of the large building to reduce visual impact.
Y Reduction in site lighting design to reduce perimeter lighting, impact to Town roads and
adjacent properties.
Alternative building locations to ensure FEMA,compliance with less use of fill.
➢ Alternative dumpster locations to reduce impact on neighboring properties.
➢ Alternative driveway configuration to consolidate two driveways into one located farther
north from the Cleaves Point Condominiums.
➢ Alternative south end driveway location to avoid conflicts with public access to the road
end.
➢ Consideration for the use of the Gillette Drive driveway for alternate access in addition to
employee access to distribute vehicle trips.
➢ Consideration for the use of the Gillette Drive driveway for emergency access only.
Consideration for use of the combination of Shipyard Lane and Gillette Drive as a
separate ingress and egress from the site.
➢ Removal of entire length of bulkhead extending seaward of upland property.
Attachments Useful in Document Pre aration
• Town Engineer Review Letter of August 25, 2006
• Town LWRP Coordinator Review Letter of October 25,2006
• Department of State Review Letter of October 17, 2006
Comments,Issues and Scoae Items Deemed Not Relevant
• Increase in sea level due to global warming.
• Eminent domain issue.
This document is intended to fulfill the lead agency requirements for issuance of a Final Scope in
accordance with SEQRA Part 617.8. The document assists the lead agency in evaluating the
DEIS for content and adequacy for public review and assists the applicant in understanding the
extent and quality of information needed to evaluate the proposed project and allow the lead
agency and involved agencies to obtain the information necessary to reach an informed decision
on the project.
Page 21
0 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW YORK DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS
JACOB K.JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK,NEW YORK 10278-0090
Regulatory Branch— Eastern Permit Section SEP 19 2014
Subject: Permit Application Number NAN-2013-01475-EYA
by Oki-Do Ltd
Oki-Do Ltd.
20 West 64th Street, Suite 24E
New York, NY 10023
Dear Sir:
Correspondence expressing concern regarding the Public Notice issued for your
proposal has been received by this office. Copies of these letters are enclosed.
[X] These letters contain specific.questions and recommendations; please supply this
office with a response to these questions/recommendations within 30 days of this letter.
[ X] You may voluntarily elect to contact objectors to resolve their objections to your
proposal.
If any questions should arise concerning this matter, please contact Jun Yan at
(917) 790- 8092.
Sincerely,
J Yan, P.
roject ger
Eastern ection
Enclosure
Cc:
Mr. David Kennedy—VHB Engineering
East Marion
Community Association
PO Box 625 East Marion, NY 11939 • www.emca.us
Email: Board@EMCA.us
September 6, 2014
Jodi M. McDonald SEP
._.1..5.2014
Chief Regulatory Branch
US Army Corps of Engineers
New York District
Jacob K.Javits Federal Building
New York, N.Y. 10278-0090
Dear Ms. McDonald,
The East Marion Community Association strongly objects to the granting of a permit to
Oki-Do, Ltd.,file Number: NAN-2013-01475-EYA for dredging with 10 year maintenance,
bulkhead replacement,rock revetment construction and new dock construction for the
following reasons:
We believe the applicant is attempting to circumvent a thorough environmental review
of its intent-a proposed spa, motel, restaurant and marina-which should be completed under
State Environmental Quality Review(SEAR)by the lead agency,the Planning Board of the Town
of Southold. The applicant's original Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)for this huge
project was sent back to the applicant for revision by the Town of Southold Planning Board back
in 2008 because it was deemed inadequate. To date,the applicant has never resubmitted a
revised DEIS for review as requested by the lead agency.
Should your agency grant the permit, it will be splitting this larger proposed project into
a smaller project(dredging)which should be subject to a thorough Draft Environmental Impact
Statement(DEIS). We believe that granting this permit would be considered segmentation ,
contrary to the intent of SEAR. We requesr that you review the attached documents: a review
of the applicant's DEIS conducted on behalf of the Town of Southold Planning Board in 2008
noting the recommendations and deficiencies that have never been addressed and a letter and
review submitted to the Planning Board by EMCA on the completeness of the applicant's DEIS.
We are committed to monitoring any actions involving this project and its impact on our
community. We trust that you will keep us advised of any actions or decisions made by your
agency regarding Oki-Do, Ltd.,file Number: NAN-2013-01475-EYA and its waterfront property
on Shipyard Lane.
Sincerely,
bin mandt
G
President
East Marion Community Association www.emca.us
C�-
NELSON. POPE & VOIORHtS, LLC
ENVIRONMENTAL. PLANNING - CONSULTING
s72.wALT wHITIVInN ROAD,IvELVILLE.W 11747-2198.
Environmental Consultarit to the Planning Board (s31) 427-ssss FAX (531) 427-5620
Town of Southold, New York npvffneleorpopeaom
REVIEW OF THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT(DEIS)
S_nIZEN HOTEL WELLNESS CENTER& ' ''f°x''
ON THE REACHI SOUTHOLD,NY � :.•'A
(a&a.GALA Holistic Circle) s
Proposed Special Exception Permit for Transient Motel �'1 17 2008
Shipyard Lane,East Marion,Town of Southold
Suffolk County,New Yorke,
Prepared for: Town of Southold
Planning Board ''" '.f "xs"u""""" "".�."r�►` -
Town Hall,53095-Main Road
P.O,Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
(631)765-1938
Prepared by: Nelson,Pope&Voorhis,LLC
572 Walt Whitman Road
Melville,New York 11747
(63.1)427-5665
Date: November 17,2008
At the request of the Town of Southold Planning Board, and pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617.9(a)(2),
Nelson, Pope&Voorhis, LLC(NP&V)has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
prepared by Cramer Consulting Group dated September 8,2008 (hereafter the DEIS), submitted
on behalf of the above referenced applicant. This review is for the purpose of making a
recommendation to the Planning Board whether the DEIS is adequate with respect to scope and
content for the purpose of commencing public review. At this time, and if the Planning Beard is
in agreement, we recommend that the Planning Board require revisions to the DEIS prior to its
acceptance as complete and adequate for public review. Comments included herein primarily
address the need to conform to the Final Scope issued by the Planning Board,dated November 6,
2006, as well as inaccurate or confusing information requiring clarification and revision. The
recommended revisions are provided below:
Shi2en(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 2 of 19
General Comments:
1. A track changes reviewer's copy of the revisions is recommended,along with complete documents to
be resubmitted The document should be reviewed for punctuation,grammatical errors, page number
consistency, consistency of data between sections and Table of Contents uniformity, items that are
noted to be flaws in the current draft.
2. The DEIS_format should follow the format specified in Section 4.0 of the Final Scope adopted by the
Planning Board. This would assist in ensuring that the preparer addresses each of the required items
contained in the scope and will facilitate the review of the document. The current document is
confusing in format,and lacks information required in the Final Scope.
3. All figures should have a cited source as well as a date of publication.
4. . The project is referred differently on the cover of the DEIS than what is shown on the plans and the
Scope.
5. There should be consistency with the naming and references to the proposed buildings. Using the
Ietters referenced on the site plan to refer to buildings in the DEIS would be helpful.
6. It would be helpful if the List of Appendices should indicate which Appendices are included in the
manila folders as an addendum to the document,end which are-included in the binders.
7. In the document received by this office, the renderings referenced to be in Appendix M, were
included in Appendix B. Final documents should be checked to ensure that Appendices are in the
correct locations.
8. There is no clearly defined indoor pool on the site plans, although it is mentioned several times
throughout the DEIS.
Section 1.0 Executive Summary:
9. All revisions requested for the main text of the DEIS should_ be carried through to the DEIS Summary
contained in Section 9.0.
Section 2.0 Description of the Proposed Action:
10. Page 1, first title: Remove one 412.071.
11. Page 1, Subsection 2.1, first sentence: The subject property is initially listed as 18.27 acres, but the
subsequent description of the site which divides the areas between surface water and.upland area
totals 18.26 acres. Clarification of the actual site acreage is necessary.
12. Page 1, Subsection 2.1,second paragraph: The conditions of the structures currently existing on the
subject site should be disclosed in this paragraph.
13. Page 1, Subsection 2.1, second paragraph: A one-story metal building situated in the approximate
center of the parcel is mentioned,but not shown on the existing conditions survey.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DIMS Review
November 17,2008
Page 3 of 10
14. Page 1, Subsection 2.1, second paragraph, last sentence: The term "tie line" is utilized here. The
meaning of this term is unclear,and the sentence should be reworded for clarification.
15. Page 1, Subsection 2.2.1: Details on the historic dredging and use of the boat basin should be
included in this section,if available.
16. Page 4, Subsection 2.2.1, first paragraph: The magnitude of relief requested from the ZBA for the
area variance for setback from bulkhead in the boat basin and from the deteriorated bulkhead should
be indicated. The required and proposed setbacks should be identified.
17. Page 4,Subsection 2.2.1,second paragraph: It is stated that permission was granted for securing the
property;however;it is unclear if or when this was undertaken. Please clarify.
18. Page 5,Subsection 2.2.2: The primary benefits of the proposed project that are identified are property
tax-related and redevelopment of a vacant developed site. Are any additional benefits of the project .
expected,acid if so,these should be identified.
19. Page 5, Subsection 2.2.2,third paragraph, last sentence: The type of jobs included in the DEIS that
will be offered do not mention any jobs related to the spa.
20.•Page 5,Subsection 2.2.2: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are not adequately addressed, or are partially addressed in other
sections or Appendices.- This information should be collectively provided *in this section in
conformance with the Final Scope.
• Include justification of proposed project in terms of Town goals for site.
• Public need for the project shall be discussed,indicate market study used to assess the need and viability of
the facility;indicate potential for conversion of site to other use based on non-viability offacility or lack of
need.
• Population served by the project shall be identified.
• Public access to the waterfront shall be discussed.
21, Page 6, Subsection 2.3.1: The allowable uses in the M-II zone should be indicated in order to
establish the appropriateness of the zoning district for the defined-transient motel..
22. Page 6,Subsection 2.3.1,first paragraph,second sentence: The DEIS states that the proposed 51,422
SF building will be located in the southeast coiner of the site; however, the proposed structure
appears to be located on the southwest corner of the site on the plans. This mistake is carried on
throughout the document.
23. The DEIS does not include a section on"Location and Site-Conditions",and therefore items included
in the scope have not been included collectively in one section as indicated in the scope.
24. Page 6, Subsection 2.3.1: The Marine Plan should'be described in detail so that a full understanding
of the scope of the project is identified in the Project Description and Layout section. SCDHS
requirements for a holding tank serving the pumpout facility should be identified.
25. Page 6, Subsection 2.3.1: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed or are partially addressed in other areas of the document. This
section should describe the entire project including the marine plan and other issues/details note
below:
Shizen(aka Gala Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 4 of-19
• Overall Site Layout-describe basis for site yield,proposed structures,services,utilities,access points,road
system,drainage,marina and include a site quantities table.
• Use Design/Description - address breakdown of use areas from a structural standpoint; indicate if the
"patio"will be covered;describe any retail.activities on site.(sale items,access to public).
• Architecture-the architecture,height and appearance of structures shall be identified.
• LEED-Details on the LEED green building certification being sought for this project.
• Regulations - ADA compliance features and FEMA, Flood Plain development compliance as related to
structural improvements;indicate requirements,design paramefiers and proposed design;indicate first floor
elevations of buildings required_and proposed.
• Dredging - details on dredging andbulkhead project; dredge spoil, volume and quality; dredge spoil
dewatering,dredge spoil disposal,
• Marina and Bulkhead/Revetment-the marina Installation shall be fully described.including bulkheading
and revetment(Including cross sections,materials used,stone size,bulkhead type,backfill,etc.),dredging,
piles and floats,.access,function;.etc.;indicate if fuel tanks will be installed anywhere on premises and who
will have access.
26. Page 7, Table 1: Areas of natural vegetation versus native landscaping should be individually
calculated. In note 3,how much of the beach area is vegetated,if any?
27. Page 7, Subsection 2.4: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are not adequately addressed, or are partially addressed in other
sections.
• Grading-the•grading program apd associated areas disturbed shall be discussed along with volumes of soil
excavated,cut(filled,removed from site and maximum depths of cut/fill;fill needed for sanitary,drainage
or structures shall be identified; grading for the proposed access to the managers residence shall be
outlined;quantity of fill behind proposed bulkhead.
• Drainage-site drainage and;proposed drainage system and provide capacity and Tinction information shall
be provided along with a disdussion of conformance to NYSDEC SPDES stormwater•and erosion control
regulations for construction and post-construction conditions; use of the lake/stream system for drainage
shall be identified if intended as well as function, capacity and viability in view of depth to groundwater
constraints.
• Lake/Stream System-details on.the lake and stream system,method of construction/lining;water supply;
soil removal/re-grading, design. and depth of features, make-up water and source, vector control,
filtration/treatment equipment,.stocking with fish and species, wildfowl control, stornwater retention
qualities if applicable;vegetation and landscaping.
28. Page 8,Subsection 2.5,second sentence: "Infrequent"should be changed to"infrequently."
29. Page 8, Subsection 2.5: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are inadequately addressed or are partially addressed in other
sections and should be collectively described here for a full understanding of the proposed project.
• Parking-the adequacy of on-site parking shall be discussed;required parking as required by a breakdown
of parking requirements for each sub-use shall be provided; this will establish the basis for the parking
variance; the amount and adequacy of proposed parking shall be determined; use of permeable-pavement
shall be described in detail in term$of location and use;identify the location of loading docks and dampster
locations.
30. Page 8,Subsection 2.6: The location of the wastewater treatment facility should be described,and the
treatment capacity estimate of 14,876 gpd of sanitary waste should be referenced as to how that
volume was determined. It is noted that this information is presented in Table 5 on Page 152,and it is
recommended that this be provided in Section•2.6. In addition,the required setbacks and conformity
to setbacks should be indicated to determine if any variances are needed for placement of the facility.
Sbizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 5 of 19
31. Page 8, Subsection 2.6: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are inadequately addressed or are partially addressed in other
sections and should be,collectively described here for a full understanding of the proposed project.
• Water Supply - include a description of water supply source, infrastructure and availability,water main
routing to access the site; irrigation well water supply, lake/stream "make up" water, and proposed
wastewater handling and corresponding use.of water supply and sanitary design flow.
32. Page 9, Subsection 2.7: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are inadequately addressed or are partially addressed in other
sections and should be collectively described here for a full understanding of the proposed project.
• Utilities - the sizes and locations of all utilities and services shall be described along with the status of
future possible connection.
• Lighting-the Town lighting requirements,proposed lighting and an illumination analysis shall be provided
and described for all aspects of the project including parking areas, the restaurant and other site
improvements;compliance with"dark skies"shall be identified.
• Landscaping-information on the type,amount and location of landscaping proposed shall be provided as
well as information on maintenance requirements such as Irrigation and fertilization under operation and
maintenance; information on buffers around the site perimeter, retention of existing trees and other
buffering techniques shall be Identified;the plant list shall be reviewed and described to ensure that
"invasive"species are riot introduced.to-the site;screening of dumpsters,recreational activities and parking
shall be addressed.
• Amenities—describe all amenities on site including outdoor use,tennis courts,arenas,playgrounds,use of
beach and limits on off-site use of facilities,etc.
33. Page 9, Subsection 2.7: Specify the coverage of fertilized versus unfertilized landscape vegetation;
this is important to determine nitrogen load impacts from fertilizer dependent vegetation.
34. Page 9, Subsection 2.7, second paragraph: Reference that the facility will comply with "dark sky"
lighting if such is the case.
35. Page 9,Subsection 2.8: The percentage of the site to be preserved as open space should be disclosed,
and the location of the open space area should be described. The proposed area of open space should
be compared to the existing area of open space in terms of area and percentage.
36. Page 9,Subsection 2.8,second sentence: The sentence is incomplete and should be corrected.
37. Page 9,Subsection 2.9.1: In the first paragraph,the phasing should be described and depicted on the
site plan.
38. Page 10, Subsection 2.9.1: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in
this section have not been addressed, are inadequately addressed or are partially addressed in other
sections and should be collectively described here for a full understanding of the construction of the
proposed project.
• Demolition of the existing buildings including safety and protection of neighboring properties.
• Remediation based on the.Phase 1/11 ESA. Specifically,when will the remaining remediation necessary
occur?
• Project phasing(if applicable).
• Method of constriction,construction schedule/timetable,days of the week;indicate Town code restrictions
of nuisance activities and compliance.
• Construction management, equipment storagetstaging, delivery routes, hours of operation, workers'
parking,protection of natural andsensitive areas.
• Protection of workers and worker safety during construction shall be evaluated.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,200$
Page 6 of 19
• Need to modify overhanging trees on Shipyard Lane for construction or operation.
• Quantity of sail import/export,truck routes,management and mitigation.
• Dredging and bulkhead project details;. staging areas; construction methods; dewatering areas; disposal
areas;dredge removal truck trips;timeframes for construction.
39. Page 10, Subsection 2.9.1: Site preparation for development should be expanded to address required
handling of asbestos containing materials, lead-based paint, well abandonment (if applicable) and
other demolition-related matters. It is unclear if there are open issues with regard to the Phase II ESA
as identified in review of Section 3.1.3. Additional considerations regarding soil testing, removal,
remediation should be identified with respect to Construction as appropriate based on the Phase Il
ESA.
40. Page 14, Subsection 2.9.2: The hours of construction operation permitted by the Town should be
disclosed. The first two paragraphs in this section should be moved to 2.9.1 as they are more
appropriate as construction-related items.
41. Page 15 Subsection 2.9.2: Overall, the facility operations and maintenance are not adequately
described to gain a full understanding of the project. The scope identified the level of required
information. The following items in the scope which should have been addressed In this section have
not been addressed,are inadequately addressed or are partially addressed in other sections and should
be collectively described here for a full understanding of the operations of the proposed project.
• Detailed description identifying which of the site uses(if any)will be open to the public(i.e.,the marina,
restaurant,spa,etc.)and which will-be exclusive for-hotel.guests.
• Uses expected of various locations and facilities within the site,seasons of use,intensity of use,whether
the site will be open to special events such as weddings,conferences or catering events,retail sales.
• Projected number of employees required for the various uses for weekdays,weekends and seasonal peak
periods.
• Indicate activities such as outdoor parties,placement and use of loudspeakers,concerts or special events
including frequency,location time periods and schedule.
• Truck sizes•expected for deliveries and delivery routing,delivery times and truck unloading areas.
• Location ofdumpsters,truck access to dumpsters,hours of dumpster pickup shall be addressed;indicate if
trash compactors will be used.
• Details on internal traffic circulation plan,use of gravel road and general on-site activities.
• Description of use of golf carts on site.
• Valet parking shall be fully described.
• Description of any generators proposed.for the facility.
• Description of operation of the,proposed marina,users,frequency of use,etc.
• Seasons of operation of various components of the facility.
• Lighting operations in terms of type,hours lit and controls shall be discussed.
• Snow removal shall be described as related to parking surfaces andoperation.
• Entity responsible for site operations.
• Restrictions on Emergency Access(if proposed)and how the restrictions will be ensured.
• Lake/stream system operation and maintenance;lake"make-up"water, fish stocking;wildfowl population
control;nutrient influx control;mosquito/vector control;aesthetics.
• Water use shall be fully described including: maximum size of vessels, turning radius, depths, vessel
speeds In marina, potential for increased, number of private vessels docking, channel enhancements
(increased dredging potential,navigation aids),and access to existing navigation channels.
• Use and management of open space areas.
• Operation of the marina shall be identified;indicate if fuel storage will occur for marina patrons.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 7 of-19
42. Page 16, Subsection 2.10: A "status" column should be added to the table in this section. Also,
under "Permit/Approval" a "Coastal Consistency" permit should be added, to which the applicable
agency is the'NYSDOS."
Section 3.0 Existina Environmental Conditions
43. Page 25,.Subsection 3.1.1: Soil borings 1,2 and 5 encountered bog and clay below the water table.
The characteristics of the full borings should be described, including the profile below the water table
and this may be important with respect to potential impacts. Also, the presence and amount of
organic material within the soil should be disclosed, and limitations with regards to building should
be addressed.
44. Page 26, Subsection 3.1.2: The figure reference in the first paragraph should read"see Figure 4"as
opposed to"see Figure V' The general slopes on the property should be described.
45. Page 26, Subsection,3.1.3: It is very difficult to follow sequence of the Phase I and Phase II ESA,
and how that translates to required action items to ensure that the property does not retain residual
contamination for development and/or agency release. The dates and authors of the documents
referenced in subheadings should be indicated: In addition,questions raised by this section are noted
as follows:
• Are there unknown tanks remaining on the property,and how will this be.addressed(page 30)?
• . Have dredge spoil mounds been sampled, do they contain contaminated materials, and how will this be
addressed(page 3I)? •
• Was there an endpoint sample collected after_remediation of Leaching Structure#1(page 35)?
• What is the remediation plan for Leaching Structures#9 and 10 which are contaminated(page 35)?
• In some cases an"asterisk"is used instead of a"#'sign;this should be corrected(pages 36,149,150).
• Under(1ST Closure Activities(page 37),the agency should be identified as the Suffolk County Department
of Health Service§.
• On page 38,pending samples are indicated;updated sampling should be included in the revised DEIS.
• What agency sign-offs are needed and what{sign-offs have been obtained?
• What is the status.of the spills)on site;has it been closed?
• What was the source of MTBE;was gasoline stored on'the site or could it have been?
• Are there any soil-gas concerns which may require use/design considerations for the proposed .
development?
• What considerations are there with respect to asbestos,lead and well abandonment?
46. Page 34, Subsection 3.1.3: The final sentence states that leaching structure locations are depicted in
Figure 1; however, this is not true for this document, and, this statement should be revised to reflect
the figures contained within the DEIS.
47. Page 39, Subsection 3.2.1: The third paragraph should describe how depth to groundwater is arrived
at by providing both the measured depth and the surveyed minimum and maximum topography of the
site.
48. Page 39, Subsection 3.2.1: A source should be referenced for the groundwater quality in the area of
the subject site. There are more up-to-date studies of water quality for nitrogen and pesticides on the
north fork. The Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan(1987)contains
larger scale figures,and updated studies for the north fork are available from SCDHS;these should be
consulted.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DE1S Review
November 17,2008
Page 8 of 19.
49. Page 41, Subsection 3.2.1: Although the hydrogeological zone is analyzed, the Groundwater
Management Zone map is different, and should be utilized for an analysis of Article VI compliance,
as stated in the scope.
50. Page 47, Subsection 3.2.1: It should be noted that a discharge of 600 gpd/acre is permitted only
where public water supply is available.
51. Page 52, Subsection 3.2.4: A description of the benefits and function of LZ wetlands should be
provided; the National Wetlands Inventory feature west of Shipyard Lane.near the site identified as
"PEM217x"should be described.
52. Page 73, Subsection 3;3.2: It is understood that the habitats will be grouped together for the purpose
of defining general habitat areas; however, areas that are unvegetated should be accounted for
separately,and all structures should be separated out from the larger habitat areas in the habitat map.
53. Page 92, Subsection 3.3.2: Dates of site visits should be provided,and plants actually identified on
site(vs.those expected)during the site visits should be rioted in the list of expected plant species for
the subject site.
54. Page 96, Subsection 3.3.2: Seabeach knotweed is mentioned in the NYNHP letter as last observed in
1991,and is not discussed here. A discussion of this plant should be included here.
55. Page 98,Subsection 3.3.3,first paragraph: The last sentence should be removed as it is not supported
and is more related to the"Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action"section.
56. Page 112,.Subsection 3.3.3: Dates of site visits should be provided, and avian species identified on
site during the site visits(vs,those expected)should be noted in the list of expected avian species for
the subject site;Species of Special Concern should also be indicated by a key letter in the Species list.
57. Page 118, Subsection 3.3.4: Dates of site visits should be provided, and mammalian species
identified on site during the site visits (vs. those expected).should be noted in the list of expected
mammalian species for the subject site;Species of Special Concern should also be indicated by a key
letter in the Species list.
58. Page 120,Subsection 3.3.5: Dates of site visits should be provided,and reptilian species identified on
site during the site visits (vs.those expected)should be-noted in the list of expected reptilian species
for the subject site;Species of Special Concern should also be indicated by a key letter in the Species
list.
59. Page 121, Subsection 3.3.5: In the third paragraph, the definition provided should be that of a
"threatened"species,not an"endangered"species,as listed.
60. Page 124,Subsection 3.4.1,first paragraph: The land use description of the site does not state that the
site is currently vacant. More detail on-the surrounding land uses should be included according to the
scope as noted below.
61. Page 124, Section 3.4: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are not adequately addressed, or are not addressed in the format
prescribed by the Final Scope and should be incorporated into the document.
• This section of the DEIS will describeexisting land use and zoning on the subject site and in the
surrounding area.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 9 of 19
• A physical description of the property(size,boundaries,etc.)will be provided.
• This section of the DEIS will also provide information on the development history of the site and
surrounding area;the existing land use character of the site and surrounding area within 1,000 feet shall be
described and mapped.
• The zoning which applies to the site and the area within 1,000 feet shall be described and mapped,and a
description of zoning regulations for the project site and surrounding area zoning shall be provided.
• Land use plans which pertain to the project site shall be outlined and discussed in terms of their general
intent and applicability to the project site.
62. Page 125, Subsection 3.4.3: The only land use plan identified and summarized was the Town's
LWRP. Several studies identified in the Final Scope were omitted.
63. Page 131,Subsection 3.4.3,second paragraph: Correct spelling of"Recreational".
64. Page 133, Section 3.5: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed or are not adequately addressed,and should be incorporated into the
document.
• Circulation and parking shall be included in this analysis.
• The Traffic Impact Study will include: collection of data regarding planned roadway improvements and
other developments, field surveys and counts of existing traffic volumes, estimates of future traffic
volumes,analyses of existing and future traffic volumes and identification and timing-of required roadway
improvements and the entity responsible for initiating those improvements. The following specific tasks
will be undertaken And documented in the-traffic and transportation section of the DEIS:
Hourly volumes for a seven day period should be collected on Gillette Drive and Shipyard Lane.
➢ Perform a gap study at the study intersections during the peak periods to record available gaps in
traffic along Main Road,
65. Page 139,Section 3.6: The following community service providers were excluded from analysis:
• School district
• Ambulance services
• Sanitary
• Solid waste
66. Page 139, Section 3.6: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed or are not adequately addressed,and should be incorporated into the
document.
• The Impact analysis contained in the DEIS will include consultations with service providers regarding
existing demand for services and capabity such that the DEIS will objectively analyze the impact of the
proposed action on community facilities and services; ability of services to address emergency needs of
site.
67. Page 140, Subsection 3.7: The following items in'the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are not adequately addressed or are partially addressed in other
sections and should be collectively addressed in this section pursuant to the Final Scope.
• The importance of the site in terms of open space character in the community shall be established;the type
of open space which the site represents and locations of other open space in the community.shall be used in
this evaluation.
• The significance of visual character shall be established in terms of the viewing public and view
accessibility.
• Other aspects of the existing visual character in terms of vegetation, lighting, utilities, etc. shall be
identified. "Dark sky"compliance shall be addressed.
Shizen(aka Gaia holistic Circle)
DE IS Review
November 17,2008
Page 10 of 19
68. Page 141, Section 3.8: The noise analysis should be included in the "Aesthetic Resources and
Community Character"section,per the code. The existing noise environment should be evaluated in
terms of ambient noise,sensitive receptors and community character.
69. Page 142, Section 3.9, last paragraph: No information on the status of the additional work requested
by SHPO was indicated.
Section 4.0 Probable Impactsofthe Proposed Action
70. Page 143, Subsection 4.1.1, last paragraph: Impacts related to the number of truck,trips to import
15,547 cubic yards of material to the site should be analyzed in tbrms of trips; routes, noise, dust,
community disturbance,hours of activity and length of time of activity.
71. Page 145, Subsection 4.1.1, first paragraph: The description of the USEPA General Permit
referenced•on this page should. be integrated 'with a discussion of the SPDES GP 0-08-001
requirements for an.Erosion Control Plan,Notice of Intent and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan(SWPPP),or cross referenced to the appropriate section for this discussion.
72. Page 146, Subsection 4.1.3,.First paragraph: The conclusive statement regarding". . .no significant
adverse impacts associated with construction. . .", should address construction impacts of soil
importation and other disturbancelactivity during the construction. period which could adversely
impact the neighborhood.
73. Page 148, Subsection 4.1.3, third paragraph: The first sentence references a "steep incline
topographic impacts, resultant slopes, stabilization and grading in relation to ponds and other site
features should be discussed; topographic impacts related to construction of ponds should be
discussed.
74. Page 149,Subsection 4.1.2: The poor quality subsoils below the water table identified in Borings 1,2
and 5 should be evaluated in terms of potential impact to the functioning of sanitary and drainage
systems. The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this section have not
been addressed or are not adequately addressed,and should be incorporated into the document.
• Depth to groundwater
• Constraints in terms of depth to groundwater shall be evaluated by establishingthat sanitary and drainage
systems can function property;vertical profiles of these systems establishing minimum surface elevation,
maximum groundwater elevation and system installation to required design standards shall be included.
•- Topographic alteration of the site shall be determined through evaluation of the grading proposed for the
site and determination of resultant slopes, volume and dispositionlorigin of cut or fill, and proposed
changes to topographic elevations; impact of fill for sanitary,drainage i nd buildings shall be evaluated;
evaluation may include description, profiles, contour maps and/or other methods to perform effective
evaluation;impact of grading for the proposed managers residence road shall be evaluated.
75. Page 148; Subsection 4.1.3, last paragraph: The depth of channel dredging referenced in this
paragraph is confusing; it appears as though the depth is being'reduced rather than being made
deeper. Impacts related to dredging such as quality of dredged material,disposal,dewatering,form of
dredging,dewatering, staging onsite,and removal, with discussion of related impacts have not been
adequately addressed.
76. Page 150, Subsection 4.1.3: This section should address the suitability of the site for the proposed
use after the questions raised in Comment 44, relating to Section 3.13, have been addressed under
existing conditions.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 11 of 19
77. Page 150, Subsection 4.2.: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in
this section have not been addressed or are not-adequately addressed, and should be incorporated into
the document.
• Water main routing and growth impacts must be evaluated; irrigation water;well installation and impacts
must be examined.
• The nitrogen budget for the site(considering all potential sources of nitrogen) shall be determined using
mass-balance modeling methods.
• The consistency of the proposed action with the findings of the Nadomvide Urban Runoff Program
(NURP)will be evaluated as related to stormwater management and discharge.
• The existing stormwater management system and surface drainage conditions on the site will be described.
This will include,but not be limited to: stormwater generated. In addition,post-development-stormwater
management conditions will be evaluated. This evaluation will include: calculations of stormwater to be
generated,and future maintenance practices for stormwater collection and leaching structures.
• The change in hydrology of the site in terms of quantity of recharge under existing and fltture conditions
shall.be established using appropriate hydrologic analysis methods;drought conditions water consumption
and impact to neighboring private wells; issues regarding increased water table elevations,functioning of
sanitary/drainage recharge systems and potential to increase flooding in the area shall be addressed.
• As the proposed action includes the installation of an irrigation well,the yield of the well must be provided
to determine the need for a Long Island Well Permit and to evaluate the potential impacts associated
therewith.
• Impact of flooding on sanitary system function,generatorfunction,and restaurant/hotel/cottage evacuation.
• Mitigation measures which may reduce potential water quality impacts shall be identified; measures to
correct existing flooding and assurance that flooding will not be exacerbated shall be included;resurfacing
of Shipyard Lane and Installation of drainage in the Town right-of-way shall be considered as mitigation;
drainage mitigation for area of Cleaves Point Road near east part of site.
78. Page 151,Subsection 4.2.1,first paragraph: This third sentence indicates there would be". . .no on-
site
nsite discharge and no associated sanitary impacts to groundwater." This statement Is not accurate and
should be corrected. The CromaglassTM discharge is a sanitary discharge that has a measureable
nitrogen load which must be analyzed as noted in other related comments under Comment 76 and 78.
The fourth sentence indicates that native species would be used,but does not quantify the fertilization
of landscaped areas on the site relative to nitrogen load. The last sentence Indicates that, ". . . the
proposed development would not contribute nitrates to the shallowggroundwater system." This is not
true as stormwater, fertilization and sanitary nitrogen would be contributed to the shallow
groundwater system, but has not been analyzed. The revised analysis should address total nitrogen,
not nitrates.
79. Page 155, Subsection 4.2.2, second paragraphs The nitrogen load related to sanitary waste has not
been adequately addressed to support the statement that no significant adverse impacts to
groundwater quality will occur.
80. Page 155, Subsection 4.2.2,water supply: How will the pond irrigation system operate? How will a
minimum water elevation be maintained in the ponds, or will the ponds be allowed to go dry? Will
the pond receive water from a public supply to provide irrigation water during dry periods? The
statement that, ". . . there would be no added demand from the public water supplies for irrigation.",
may not be accurate, depending upon`the design of these systems. Statements should be revised
accordingly,once these details are disclosed.
81. Page 156, Subsection 4.2.2, last paragraph: The quantity of lawn/fertilized area within the 7.98 acres
of landscaped areas,should be identified to support the statement that native species would be used to
i
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DE IS Review
November 17,2008
Page 12 of 19
the maximum extent practicable. It is noted that a breakdown is included on Page 159, indicating that
3.25 acres of the site would be fertilized. This should be factored into the appropriate analyses to
demonstrate that overland runoff and recharge of nitrogen are minimized to the maximum extent,as
expressed in other comments.
82. Page 166, Subsection 4:2.2, third paragraph: The reference to ". . . preparatlon of a SWPPP (see
Appendix B)... .",is_confusing. Appendix B contains the site development plans. It does not appear
as though a SWPPP has been prepared to date. A properly prepared SWPPP may indicate the need
for containment of more than a 2 inch rainfall. What provisions are made for more than a 2 inch
storm and what impacts may occur as a result of stormwater during extreme rain events.
83. Page 168, Subsection 4.2.4, first paragraph: As noted in Comment 74, impacts related to dredging
such as quality of dredged material, disposal; dewatering, form of dredging, dewatering, staging on
site,and removal,with discussion of related impacts have not been adequately addressed.
84. Page 168, Subsection 4.2.4, second paragraph: The jurisdictional boundary of the NYSDEC under
Article 25 should be clearly-established;the jurisdiction area of 6.6177 acres indicated on the Grading
and Drainage Plans seems too small; how was this determined. This is important so that density,
setbacks,and related Part 661 requirements can be evaluated.
85. Page 170,Subsection 4.2A-. The NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations contained in Part
661 include a density provision for sites with a public or community sewage disposal system;this has
not been evaluated.
86. Page 170,Subsection 4.2.4: Justification should be offered for the encroachment of parking to 26 feet
from a tidal wetlands boundary,where a 75 foot setback is required. The impact of this relief on the
function of tidal wetlands and precedent should be assessed.
87. Page 170,Subsection 4.2;4: The evaluation of the project with respect to the Town Trustees authority
should'address or cross reference the dredging related impacts identified in comments 74 and 82
above.
88. Page 178, Subsection 4.2.4: The permissibility of extensive fill in the AE zone should be addressed
in terms of potential impacts of the project.
89. Page 179, Subsection 4.2.4. Nitrogen load impacts with respect to the Peconic Estuary Program
should be evaluated using information from the mass-balance impact analysis in Section 4.1.2.
90. Page 179, Subsection 4.2.4: .In the last paragraph, the following sentence is unclear and should be
reworded,"The proposed dredging would increase tidal flushing of the existing basin and remove of
the existing bulkhead."
91. Page 185, Subsection 4.3.1: The area which includes landscaped native vegetation should not be
included in the total natural area,it should be itemized separately.
92. Page 185, Subsection 4.3.1: Details are needed as to the proposed plants utilized for the Japanese
garden in order to fully evaluate the impact of such a garden on the subject site.
93. Page 19 1,.Subsection 4.3.2: The last paragraph on this page discusses impacts regarding the common
and least tem. It should be noted where on site suitable habitat for these species is located. Impacts
regarding clearing and the availability of foraging habitat should also be analyzed. Correspondence
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Revievy
November 17,2008
Page 13 of 19
with the NYSDEC regarding the species populations-near the subject site.should also be provided in
order to fully analyze the impact to these species.
94. Page 193, Subsection 4.3.2: It should be indicated as to whether or not the Great blue herons
observed on site would lose significant foraging habitat or be adversely impacted.
95.Page 194,Subsection 4:3:2: It is no earlier in the section that it is expected that the population of
- gulls may increase slightly as a result of the proposed project. As this species is a knownpredatorto
piping plovers, the increase of the gull population should be evaluated in terms of the impact on the
existing piping plover population.
96. Page 196, Subsection 4.3.2: The statement "Thus, the proposed project should have a significant
positive impact on all species within this group;"should be removed or further supported as removal
of habitat would not be expected to have a positive impact on these species.
97. Page 208, Subsection 4.3: The Final Scope provided an outline which included wetland related
conditions and impacts to be addressed under Section-4.3,Ecdlogy. Some discussion of wetlands and
potential impacts is included In the DEIS under Water Resources;however,the level of analysis does
not conform to,the required scope. Some comments above.(Comments 82-86)address statements and
information presented in other sections of the DEIS. In order.to fully address these issues, it is
recommended that the scope outline be followed so that impacts.are addressed in the appropriate
section of the document, thereby causing less confusion to the reader following the DEIS and the
Scope. The following items in the scope which should have been addressed iin this section-have not
been addressed,are not adequately addressed,or are partially addressed in other sections and should
be incorporated into the document.
• The type, quantity and quality of wetlands present on, adjoining, or in the vicinity of the site shall be
mapped and described using current site conditions and recognizing that the location of high water has
moved landward; wetland jurisdiction of the Federal government, State and Town shall be established;
existing biological conditions of proposed dredging areas including submerged aquatic vegetation:
• The jurisdiction, regulatory'framework and controls of the Federal government, State and Town shall be
established.
• Hydrologic systems supporting these wetlands shall be presented.
• Federal and State wetland maps indicate that the proposed action would be under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Arany Corps of Engineers (ACOS) and the NYSDEC as well as the Town Trustees. As such, all
required wetland permit applications,to the ACOE,NYSDEC and Trustees must be made. Copies of all
existing wetland permits would also be provided (e.g., the existing maintenance dredge permit) and a
discussion of each permit will be Included.
• Potential impacts to wetlands shall be evaluated in terms of maintaining or enhancing all wetlands,
maintaining adequate setbacks and ensuring-that the hydrology of the systems (sanitary, stormwater,
erosion control,etc.)supporting wetlands:is not degraded in quality-or quantity.
• Water use impact must be evaluated including: marina impacts associated with installation and operation,
adequacy of navigation channels and boat access to site as well as boat maneuvers within site; include
assessment of available pumpout facilities.
• Historical dredging of the basin and historical depth of the basin shall be documented to establish pre-
existing conditions to support the proposed"maintenance"dredging;impact of dredging on vegetation and
wildlife including osprey nests shall be evaluated.
• Dredging and bulkhead project impacts of construction; installation/spoil removal; dewatering (odor and
vector control); dredge spoil placement/disposal; dredge spoil quality (grain size, organic content,
voladle/semivolatile organic compounds, metals, PCB's and related contaminants) shall. be included;
impact of the proposed revetment on surrounding properties shall be determined; analysis shall include .
physical and biological littoral processes and impact on submerged aquatic vegetation.
Shizen(aka Gais Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 14 of 19
• Setbacks required by State andTown wetland-review shall be located and evaluated in terms of compliance
with maintaining setbacks for disturbanee&rtilized vegetation,structures and sanitary installation.
• Management of the land within wetland setback areas shall be formulated to ensure conformance with the
code requirements.
98. Page 209,Section 4.4: The land use consistency and potential impact on surrounding land use has not
been adequately-addressed-and isnotconsistent-with-'the Final Scope. The following items in the
scope which should have been addressed:in this section have not been addressed, are not adequately
addressed, or are partially addressed in other sections and should be collectively addressed in this
section pursuant to the Final Scope.
• The DEIS will assess the impacts of the proposedaction on land use and zoning. The impact assessment
will concentrate on evaluating the consistency of the proposed action with prevailing land use and zoning.
The compatibility of the proposed action with area land use will be assessed Information on buffers,
retention of existing.trees and other buffering techniques shall be Identified as well as adequacy of
screening of dumpsters,recreational activities and parking,impact of the manager residence access road on
adjacent properties shall be evaluated.
• Impact associated with the marina operation shall be evaluated in terms of activity, lights, noise and
community land use compatibility impacts.
• Noise of the operation of the project shall be included as an impact analysis related to land use
compatibility,.specifically the parking areas,dumpster locations and pickup and internal site circulation as
related to residential receptors in proximity to the site.
• The existing zoning, requested special permit, zoning requirements, parking requirements, and special
permit criteria shall all'be evaluated in detail including required parking,loading docks and other related
-zoning dimensional and use parameters.
•
The.conformance of the project with land.use plans shall be evaluated and discussed. The DEIS shall
address and demonstrate compliance with all applicable rules, regulations and policy-guidelines found
within the Town Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy, 208 Study, Suffolk
County Sanitary Code,: Long" Island Groundwater Management Program, USEPA Phase I Rule as
administered by NYSDEC under SPDES GP42-01 (now.GP-M8-001); NURP Study. and Nonpoint
Source Management.Handbook,NYSDEC SPDES regulations and local objectives to include Town of
Southold Code requirements. The-intent of these studies and applicability to the project site shall be
determined.
99. Page 215, Subsection 4.4.3: The only land use plan identified and summarized was the Town's
LWRP. Several studies identified in the scope were omitted.
100. Page 217, Subsection 4.4.3, Developed Coast Policy 2: "Correspondence with NYS OPRHP
indicates that additional testing is required in order to concur with the results of the archeological
survey done for the site. Therefore, it is not known at this time whether the proposed action would
have any impacts on historic resources within the Town. This should be addressed so that the full
impacts of the project can be-evaluated.
101. Page 217, Subsection 4.4.3, Developed Coast Policy 3: The visual quality of the site will be
significantly changed and will include a large- modern building that is not consistent with the
character of other structures in the area. Further qualitative evaluation and reference to visual
renderings provided in the DEIS is needed to support the statement that the project is consistent with
Developed Coast Policy 3.
102. Page 220, Section 4.5: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in
this section have not been addressed,or are not adequately addressed, and should be incorporated into
the document.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 15 of 19
• The trip generation analysis prepared by Dunn uses the ITE database whereas the scoping document called
for a more detailed analysis based upon the specific usage recognizing the different trip generation
characteristics of the proposed use.
• The alternative site access configurations are discussed in the TIS without supporting qualitative analysis.
The analysis should include the various_trip distributions for each of the alternates and capacity analyses if
appropriate.
• The TIS includes a parking summary demonstrating that the parking required by code is met;however,it
does_not-demonstrate'that die demands of the proposed use,as to adequacy and convenience;will be met.
• The following potential:impacts shall be included in the traffic study:
Day use of on-site facilities such as the spa.
➢ Public occupancy of restaurant:seats;feasibility of restricting public use to 72-of 98 seats.
➢ Accurate trip generation factor more specific to proposed use than hotel due to intense support for
amenities specific to this use and not characteristic of a hotel.
Justify any credit taken for LEED certification rideshare-or public transportation.
➢ Impact of driveway locations and specifically impact to the Cleaves-Point Condominiums shall be
assessed and disclosed.
➢ Potential adverse environmental impacts related to traffic improvements/mitigation recommended by
the TIS must be,evaluated.
103. Page 239;Section 4.6: The following community service providers were excluded from analysis:
• School district
• Ambulance services
• Sanitary
• Solid waste
104. Page 239, Section 4.6: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in
this section have not been addressed,.or are not adequately addressed,and should be incorporated into
the document.
• The document shall address job creation and the number of employees;and determine the impact if a large
number of employees from outside of the area may be necessary to operate the facility(housing,schools,
etc.).
• The DEIS will include detailed projections of service demand with supporting documentation.
• The DEIS shall consider future taxes,and if it Is expected that the use will not be taxed,a determination
shall be made to determine If payment in lieu of taxes(PILOT) is necessary to offset potential impact to
community service providers.
• The emergency services(ambulance,police and fire)which serve the site shall be identified and contacted
for input with respect to continued ability to serve the site.
• Changes associated with the proposed project shall be evaluated in terms of emergency service access; a
practical approach shall betaken to ensure that safe and efficient emergency service vehicle access to the
site can be provided to the site.
• Hydrant iristallation/location and other development considerations-which assist in addressing emergency
services shall be included.
105. Page 240,Subsection 4.7: The following items in the scope which should.have been addressed in
this section have not been addressed,or are not.adequately addressed,and should be incorporated into
the document.
• Cross sections illustrating visual impacts associated with the proposed project.
• Impact of shadows of large buildings shall be evaluated.
The impact.of use of fill,increase in site elevations,and visual appearance of structures will be evaluated.
The significance of visual impacts will be assessed and mitigation proposed. Lighting impacts will be
discussed from a visual impact perspective; the "dark sky" compliance shall be evaluated as well as the
potential for a"glow"or"bald' effect from parking areas,the restaurant or other site improvements shall
be addressed.
Shizen(aka Gain Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,.2008
Page 16 of 19
• The change in character and visual setting shall be determined in terms of landscape vegetation, lighting
and utilities.
106. Page 241, Subsection.4.7.1, last paragraph: The visual quality of the site will be significantly
changed and will include a large modern building that is not consistent with the character of other
structures in the area. Further qualitative evaluation and reference to visual renderings provided in
the DEIS is needed to support the statement that,the proposed development would be consistent with
the waterfront character and would not result in significant adverse impacts to the character or visual
quality of the community." The document received by this office appeared to have the Appendices
intended to be included. in.Appendix M, located in the binder in Appendix B. Impacts related to
reflections from the glass structure should be addressed. A qualitative description of what viewers
will see from the Bay, from neighboring residences and from adjoining roads should be provided in
connection with each .of the renderings. This section should be supplemented with information
contained in the above.comment tb provide a full evaluation.
107. Page 242, Section 4.7.2, first paragraph: The lighting plan included in Appendix B shows
illumination off the site and areas that may exceed 1 foot candle beyond the property line.
Insufficient information is contained on the lighting plan to make the statements included in this
section with respect to the northwest property line,adjoining existing residences.
108.. Page.244, Section 4.8: Potential noise impacts should also relate to traffic volumes and activity
within the proposed marina, and should address the Noise Ordinance and potential impacts to
residential communities as a result of conditions that may change as a result of the proposed project.
109. Page 245,Section 4.9,second paragraph: This section is identical to the information provided in
Section 3.9, Existing Conditions. No information on the status of the additional work requested by
SHPO was indicated.
110. Page 245, Subsection 4.10.1: The following items in the scope which should have been
addressed in this section have not been addressed, or are not adequately addressed, and should be
incorporated into the document.
• Describe the impacts related to construction,dredge operations,dredge spoil disposal,noise,dust,erosion
and sedimentation, area receptors, .applicable nuisance regulations, applicable agency oversight and
safeguards,phasing of the project,staging areas,parking areas;operation areas,duration,hours,and related
mitigation measures to reduce construction impacts
Section 5.0 Mitigation Measures
111. Beginning Page 247, Subsection 5.0: Mitigation should be provided for any impacts not
previously disclosed, but included.in the revised DEIS as a result of conformance to the Final Scope
and this comment letter.
112. Page 247, Subsection 5.1: Provide mitigation for poor quality subsoils below the water table as
needed based on the analysis of potential impacts.
113. Page 248,Subsection 5.1: How areas which are proposed to be paved will be stabilized should be
disclosed as part of this mitigation measure.
114. Page 249, Subsection 5.2: The value and load reduction of nitrogen reduction due to the
CromaglassTM system should be disclosed in this mitigation measure.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 17 of 19
115. Page 250,Subsection 5.3: The fifth mitigation measure presented cannot be utilized as mitigation
as no details are provided regarding.the proposed.Japariese garden, and as such,the quantity of native
vs. ornamental species is currently not known.
116. Page 250, Subsection 5.3: .Species to which nesting boxes and platforms will be provided and
which will benefit from such structures should be identified.
112 Page 251, Subsection 5.4: This subsection should include mitigation for zoning, land use and
plans.
118. Page 253, Subsection 5.6: This section does not provide mitigation for all community service
providers indicated in the Final Scope.
119. Page 254,Subsection 5.7: It is unclear how the final mitigation measure listed in this section is a
mitigation measure for aesthetic resources and community character. This should be clarified or
removed.
120. Page 255, Subsection 5.9: As:NYS OPRFIP requested that additional testing be conducted, it is
unknown at this time whether any significant adverse impacts to historic or archaeological resources
would result from the project and if mitigation is necessary.
Section 6.0 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
121. Beginning Page 256, Subsection 6.0: Unavoidable Adverse Impacts should be provided for any
impacts not previously disclosed,but included in the revised DEIS as a result of conformance.to the
Final Scope and this review document.
Section 7.0 Alternatives and Their Impacts
122. Page 259: Table 11 should include references as to values utilized in the calculation of water
consumption of each alternative. In addition, a comparison of solid waste generated, tax revenue
generated, stormwater generated, and nitrogen inputs created by each alternative should be included.
The source of information for parking and trip generation for alternatives in the comparison table
should be referenced.
123. Page 262, Subsection 7.2: The Preferred Alternative shares many of the same impacts as the
proposed project. As with the comments in this review document, once revisions are made with
respect to impacts of the proposed project, similar impacts which may result from this alternative
should be disclosed, and/or, the reduction in impacts resulting from this alternative should be
discussed/quantified. Examples include:
• Soils and Topography - Impacts related to site remediation, soil importation; poor quality subsoils below
groundwater,etc.
• Water Resources-Impacts related to nitrogen load,etc.
• Ecology—Impacts related to dredging;impact on wetlands,etc.
• Land Uses and Zoning—Land use compatibility and assessment of conformance with land use plans,etc.
• Transportation—Adequacy of parking;use specific trip generation,etc.
• Community Services — Evaluation of impact on other community service providers not included in the
document.
• Aesthetic Resources and Community Character—Visual,noise, light and related impacts which will be
further evaluated per the Final Scope.
0 Historic and Archaeological Resources—Impacts to archaeological/historic resources identified by SHPO.
Shizen(aka Gala Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 18 of 19
• Construction Impacts—Impacts related to site preparation for development,and community impacts.
124. Page 262, Subsection 7:2: The statement "The Preferred Alternative plan would result in less
land disturbance than that of the proposed action..."should be modified or removed,-as the amount of
clearing necessary for the preferred alternative is the same as that.of the proposed project.
125. Page 262, Subsection 7.2: Supporting information should-be provided stating that there is an
adequate depth below the proposed hotel for a subsurface parking structure.
126. Page 262, Subsection 7.2: The potential construction impacts related to the "preferred
alternative"in connection with dewatering for the subgrade parking should be evaluated.
127.. Page 262,Subsection 7.2: The amount of imported fill associated with the"preferred alternative"
should be provided.
128. Page 264, Subsection 7.2: The last sentence in the first paragraph is unclear and should be
reworded for clarity.
129. Page 274,Subsection 7.4: The last sentence in the last paragraph should be reworded for clarity.
130. Page 293, Subsection 7.6: The last paragraph is a duplicate of the second to last paragraph,and
should be removed.
131. Page 293: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this section
have not been addressed.
Alternative parking layout to provide convenience to proposed use areas and reduce impact to neighboring
residential properties(more interspersed parking.
• Alternative to remove separate cottages neat east property line.
• Alternative with reduced building mass of the large bullding to reduce visual impact.
• Alternative dumpster locations to reduce impact on.neighboring properties.
• Consideration for the use of the Gillette Drive driveway for emergency access only.
132. The alternative site access configurations are discussed in the TIS without supporting qualitative
analysis. The analysis should include the various trip distributions for each of the alternates and
capacity analyses if appropriate.
Section 10.0 Use and Conservation of Energy and Solid Waste Management
133. Page 296: Letters should be provided from both LIPA and National Grid to confirm that both
ample gas and electricity will be available for the subject site.
Appendices
134. Appendix B is referred to as containing the Marine Plan; however, Appendix B contains a
reduced rendered site plan and architectural renderings-of the visual appearance of the project. This
should be clarified in the text references that are provided.
Shizen(aka Gaia$olistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 19 of 19
If the Planning Board is in agreement,the applicant should be directed to incorporate appropriate
changes in the DEIS as outlined herein. The revised document should be submitted to the
Planning Board office for review in conformance with SEQRA procedures to determine
completeness. If acceptable to the Planning Board, it would be helpful and could expedite
review if the applicant submits a "track changes" copy of the main text for review. We are
prepared to assist with f n-ther review upon resubmission of the document. Please contact our
office if you have any questions or wish to discuss this review.
Easf Marion_
Community Association
PO Box 536, East Marion, NY 11939
November 3, 2008
Jerilyn B.Woodhouse, Chair
Planning Board,Town Of Southold
Southold Town Hall
P.O.Box 1179
Southold NewYork 11971
Dear Ms.Woodhouse:
The old Oyster Farm, one of the few remaining beachfront properties on Orient Harbor,is
of great concern to the residents of East Marion. The East Marion Community Association
(EMCA) represents 535 East Marion residents who are committed to seeing the Oyster Farm
property utilized in a way that:has minimal negative impact on the quality of life of the resi-
dents of East Marion, protects the environment,respects the rural character of the hamlet,
preserves open space and,preserves and protects public access to the bay waters for East
Marion residents.
As soon as the DEIS for the Shizen Hotel Wellness Center and Spa was received.by the Town
and made available to the public by the Planning Board,many of our EMCA members be-
came involved in reading the document and commenting on its completeness or incomplete-
ness. I am attaching the result of this community review process.
The document that accompanies this letter represents a significant demonstration of citizen
interest and effort. Since September 13,2008 there have been over 350 downloads of the 900+
page document from www emca.us, the East Marion Community Association website. Forty-
two community members attended an EMCA meeting devoted to reviewing the document
and many signed up to read and closely review various parts of the document for complete-
ness. Comments have been received from 14 community members. The enclosed document
is a compendium of this community review process of the DEIS against the Final Scope and
commenting on the completeness of the Shizen DEIS.
Our enclosed document follows the outline that the developer was directed to follow by the
Organization and Overall Content of the DEIS Document in the Final Scope (page 6). You will
find that our community members have identified significant omissions in the DEIS. We par-
ticularly call your attention to the following sections,which we find glaringly incomplete:
Project Background, Need, Objectives and Benefits
1.4.2 Operation
3.1 Transportation
3.4 Aesthetic Resources and Community Character
4.2 Water Resources
Unfortunately, the organization of the Shizen DEIS does not conform consistently to the basic
outline for the Table of Contents as contained in 6NYCRR Part 6179(b) 93) and directed in the
continued on next page
continued from previous page
Final Scope. This failure to align the DEIS with the prescribed outline makes it unneces-
sarily difficult for a reader to determine the completeness of the DEIS document.When
this DEIS is sent back to the property owner for rewriting to address omissions, as we be-
lieve it should be,the property owner should be directed to resubmit it in a form that fol-
lows the prescribed outline. This project is of extreme interest to a broad base of citizens
in our community. This is a very detailed and complex project proposal. When citizens
have to look in multiple places in the document to determine whether required informa-
tion has been provided, it raises citizen suspicions that the preparers of the document
were attempting to obfuscate rather than be open and transparent.This is not helpful to a
productive review process.
The East Marion Community Association is committed to participating in the review and
decision making process regarding the Oyster Farm property. We understand that the
DEIS has not been deemed complete by the Lead Agency and we hope that the Planning
Board will consider our input as it goes about this process. Please call on us if there is any
way our organization can be of assistance to the Planning Board as it goes about its delib-
erations.
Sincerely,
Ruth Ann Bramson,President
East Marion Community Association
East Marion
Community Association
PO Box 625, East Marion, NY 11939
November 3, 2008
COMMENTS REGARDING COMPLETENESS OF SHIZEN DEIS
Prepared by the East Marion Community Association
Note; This document follows the outline in the Final Scope
prepared for the Town of Southold by Nelson, Pope and Voorhis. --- - - -- -_
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
1.1 Project Background, Need,Objectives and Benefits
1.1.1 Background and History
•What is the status regarding the securing of the property per the December 4, 2007
letter to the property owner from the Town? On December 12, 2007 the Town Trustees
and NYDEC granted approval for the owner to undertake securing the property.Why
has this not been done?The site remains hazardous.(p. 4)
• Have enough widespread soil borings been conducted?
• Has water testing been done near the contaminated buildings?
• Has the soil surrounding the old buildings been contaminated with lead and asbestos?
If so how will it be removed?
• On or about Oct 10, 2008, DEC is reported to have received information necessary to
process the permit that will allow remediation of hazardous violations issued by the Town
of Southold. DEC is presently analyzing and a decision on a permit will follow.The DEIS
promises safeguards of hazardous material in many places but no concrete safeguards
are mentioned.
1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives
• It is stated on p.5 of the DEIS that the proposed action would result in an increased tax
levy of$166,563.99 and generate 200 new jobs. What proportion of those jobs would
be administration?Sales? Marketing?Clerical? Property maintenance? Food services?
Other services? How many of the jobs would go to people currently living in East Marion
or Southold Town?Insufficiently Addressed
•The Feasibility Study(Appendix C page 32) notes"it is fairly apparent that the major-
ity of staff will come from Riverhead and West."How was this determined?Page 33
fails to mention the employment of a certified plant engineer on site 24/7 to avoid any
malfunction of the sewage treatment plant,which could be disastrous to groundwater or
Gardiner's Bay.The study notes (page 36) "personnel facilities will be located in an as
yet to be determined location. Not addressed in the document is the increased water
and square footage necessary for the locker room, bathroom and break area for the 100
employees proposed on site.
• How does this proposed project address the goals of Southold Town? Consistency
with the I-WRP, State Coastal Zone Management Program, Peconic Estuary Program
(PEP), East Marion Stakeholders-not addressed. For example,the PEP's goals for
toxic areas are "improve the ambient environment"where there is evidence of toxins.
Who will monitor this high density site to achieve this goal?
•Population to be served.(This is only addressed in the Young feasibility study Appendix C.)
EastMarion CommunityAssociation comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page I of 10 pages
• Current market study to assess need and viability of facility(This is only addressed in
the Young feasibility study Appendix C-which is not current and possibly not feasible in
this economy.)
• Public access to the waterfront-not addressed. In fact, Figure 7, Proposed Habitats,
shows a red line representing a structure that would block public access to the shoreline.
• Potential for conversion of the site to another use based on non-viability of facility or
lack of need - not addressed.
1.1.3 Objectives of the Project sponsor
• Gaia Holistic Circle form of treatment/lifestyle to be described (This is only addressed
in the Young feasibility study Appendix C.)
1.1.4 Benefits of the Project
• Benefits are addressed from the perspective of the developer, not the community,as
directed by the Scoping document. Insufficiently addressed.
• The only community benefits discussed are the espoused economic benefits.What are
the potential social benefits to the community? In what ways does the proposed project
enhance the historic character of the community?What are the environmental benefits?
How is this project going to enhance the quality of life of the people who live in East
Marion?(p.8) Insufficiently addressed..
1.2 Location and Site Conditions
• "Using appropriate mapping and/or tables,describe location of site, in terms of adjacent/
nearby significant properties, zoning and service districts, available services,etc"-not ad-
dressed.The size of other commercial enterprises in East Marion also should be included.
• "The existing conditions of the site in terms of bulkheads, mean high water, mean low water,
site survey, structures,vegetative cover shall be provided as an overall background of existing
site conditions"Not addressed.
• "A summary of subsurface conditions and features, suspected contamination on the site and
in the area proposed for development,as well as remediation initiatives"The Phase II Ex-
panded EAS/UST Closure Report by Long Shore Environmental Report(Appendix L)shows
leaching structures contaminated with copper and zinc. Still needed (as noted on page 38 of
DEIS) is a UST Closure Report in regard to analysis of STARS target compounds for the DEC.
- The adverse impact of bottom sediments within underground leaching structures would rep-
resent a violation of the USEPA UTC Program.See page 30 of DEIS.
1.3 Project Design and Layout
1.3.1 Overall Site Layout
• "Use/Design Description. Address breakdown of use areas from a structural stand-
point. Indicate if the patio will be covered. Describe any retail activities on site(sale
items,access to the public)"- not addressed. For example,there is no loading dock
shown in the DEIS.
• "Architecture.The architecture, height,and appearance of structures shall be identi-
fied"-not addressed.
• "LEED. Details on the LEED green building certification being sought for this project"
Not addressed.
- "Regulations.ADA compliance features and FEMA Flood Plain development compli-
ance as related to structural improvements; indicate requirements,design parameters
and proposed design, indicate first floor elevations of buildings required and proposed"
—not addressed. For example,the base flood elevation with Zone AE as per the FEMA
map is 9 feet above mean sea level.This would place the height of the first floor at
10-feet or more. How would the 2-story building come under 35-feet in height? If a sub-
grade garage is used, how would it conform to FEMA regulations?
East Marion Community Association comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 2 of 10 pages
1.3.2 Grading and Drainage
•There is a diagram of a drainage plan in Appendix B, but there is no discussion of
storm water and erosion control or compliance with regulations as required. How will
excessive rain,storms and hurricanes affect the site?
• Is an annual inspection (p. 15 of DEIS)of drainage structures sufficient?
• How will pavement for 189 parking spaces and driveways affect grading and drainage?
1.3.3 Access, Road System and Parking .
-The DEIS Executive Summary states access driveways have been reduced from three
to two. In this section (p. 8) it says there are to be three access points on Shipyard Lane.
Which is it?
-There are no internal road system or traffic circulation_indicators in_Appendix B.
- Congestion and conditions on Shipyard Lane,the access road, are not addressed.
1.3.4 Sanitary Disposal and Water supply
• "Utilities.The sizes and locations of all utilities shall be described along with status of
future possible connection"-not addressed except for waste treatment system in Ap-
pendix K.
• Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply
•The applicant proposed to mitigate the effects of the higher than allowed water usage
by installing a Cromaglass wastewater treatment system which would treat sewage on
site. The applicant claims that this system will be noiseless and odorless.We are not told,
however, how often the sludge which collects in these tanks would have to be pumped
out and what the effect of that pumping on the neighbors would be.
• Even more worrisome than the sludge pumping, however, is the fact that while the
Cromaglass system may alleviate some water quality concerns, it does absolutely noth-
ing to allay our fears about the quantity of water this proposed development would pump
in and discharge into a fragile and already nearly saturated area'
•The Preliminary Draft Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement requires
that the applicant address the"change in hydrology of the site in terms of quantity of
recharge under existing and future conditions" as well as "issues regarding increased
water table elevations"and "potential to increase flooding in the area"None of these
issues have been addressed and are of vital interest to us.
• In the last decade many of the vacant lots in Marion Manor have been developed. In-
herent in this residential development of single family homes has been the cutting down
of the second growth stands that were there even just six or seven years ago.These
wooded lots used to absorb a lot of rainwater and the trees prevented runoff. Now,
instead of wooded lots we have houses connected to SCWA water supply, and all of us
have experienced more basement flooding and increased street flooding.
•This has happened with just the addition of about 20 single family homes.What is
going to happen if a behemoth development cuts down almost every tree on the adjoin-
ing 18 acres, and then starts pumping in 15,000 gallons a day of water that the earth is
supposed to absorb?This is a recipe for disaster and there are no answers in this DEIS.
•The applicant proposes to move in great quantities of earth in order to bring the ground
level higher above the water table.Almost all existing vegetation with its deep root sys-
tem would be removed."Hay bales"and"temporary plantings"are proposed as mitigating
measures.It would take years for the newly planted landscaping to develop a root system
strong enough to hold the soil in place. In the meantime, the roads,the neighbors and the
bay will be dealing with not only rising water tables but also increased silt runoff.
• One mitigation measure that the applicant proposes is in the preferred alternative plan— a
subsurface parking garage in order to minimize the paved surfaces on the property.How-
East Marion CommunityAssociation comments on the September2008 Shizen DEIS Page 3 of 10 pages
ever, no where in the DEIS is the feasibility of a parking garage below the water table
discussed, nor the additional adverse impact that such a submerged structure might
have on the water table itself. Parking garages are not generally built below water level,
so obviously if this one is going to be built below the water line, precautions and special
measures must be necessary to prevent flooding.The applicant presents this measure
as if it were an everyday occurrence.
1.3.5 Site Landscaping and Lighting
• Compliance with dark skies-not addressed.
1.3.6 Open Space
• "Amenities. Describe all amenities on site including outdoor use,tennis courts,arena,
playgrounds,use of beach and limits on off-site use of facilities,etc"-not addressed.
1.4 Construction and Operation
1.4.1 Construction
•"Demolition of existing buildings and steps to protect neighborhood properties"—not
addressed.
• "Remediation based on Phase 1/11 ESA"-not addressed. For example,who will su-
pervise demolition and the correct disposal and remediation of contaminants and toxic
wastes on site?
-Construction schedule does not specify days of the week nor are Town code restric-
tions of nuisance activities and compliance addressed.
• Hours of operation -Noted in several places to be from 7 a.m.to 7 p.m. How will this be
regulated and enforced?
•Evaluation of protection of workers and worker safety during construction-not ad-
dressed,
• Need to modify overhanging trees on Shipyard Lane- not addressed.
• Dredging and bulkhead project details-not addressed,
1.4.2 Operation
•There are 21 bullets in the Scope and NONE of those issues are addressed in the
DEIS summary.
• In the property description in the Scope document there is a description of"a large
man made pond,containing a landscaped island,several recreational bridges and
wooden decks There is no mention of"floating stage"for theater, music and other en-
tertainment.This has been added in the DEIS,Shizen Feasibility Study page 4 and again
on page 15 the Shizen Feasibility Study mentions evening activities including music.
• Under the heading "Other Activities"section on page 21 it states,"In the center of the
pond is a floating theater that is the stage for performances ... in addition to the the-
ater,other entertainment will be brought in on a periodic basis and may perform in this
location" Further on the same page it states,"There will be entertainment every evening
including live music" Also on page 21 it states,"When not in use it[outdoor theater] is
simply a peaceful place to be"This gives the impression that it will not be a peaceful
place when used for entertainment. They also mention artists who perform at Shizen
will have their music CDs sold in the on premises retail store. (p. 22).The DEIS states
that the development is a"destination spa retreat"and,"the nature of this use would not
be expected to be a significant source of noise, The DEIS further states, according to
the applicant,there would be no outdoor events that would have a noise impact on the
neighborhood" East Marion residents have had lots of experience with outdoor music,
as is known and documented by many police reports of neighbor's complaints about the
Blue Dolphin where outdoor music and entertainment can be heard for up to one mile
from the source. In addition, live music from Claudio's can be heard all the way across
East Marion CommunityAssociation comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 4 of 10 pages
the Bay to Shelter Island. Outdoor entertainment emanating from the location of Shi-
zen Hotel Center will most likely be heard not only across the water to Shelter Island,
but within a one mile radius of the facility. This is most definitely a significant source of
noise.
• In the Executive Summary under Mitigation Measures the Noise section states,"as
no significant noise impacts would result, no mitigation is proposed° How have they
determined that there would be no significant noise? Has it been measured? Have
they documented an instance where amplified music was played and could not be heard
by the neighbors? There are no grounds and no proof of the statement, "no significant
noise impacts would result"
•The Scoping document asked the applicant to specify (p.10-11 under heading:Opera-
tion),seasons of use, intensity of use,whether the site would be open to special events
such as weddings,conferences or catering events. This request was not answered. In
addition they were to indicate activities such as, "outdoor parties, placement and use of
loudspeakers, concerts or special events including frequency, location,time periods and
schedule°This request was not answered.
1.5 Permits and Approvals Required
• "Indicate the filing date and status of submissions to the lead and involved agencies"-not
addressed.
-The fact that a Coastal Erosion Hazard permit is required is missing from the document
• The application for a sewage disposal permit to the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services is deficient In section 4, number 2 of the application it states the property is not in a
Coastal Erosion Hazard area,which is incorrect
• There is no application/request for the required Reduction/Waiver of Minimum Separation
Distances. Exhibit I is missing.
2.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
2.1 Soils and Topography
2.1.1 Existing Conditions
• Constraints in terms of depth of groundwater-not addressed,
2.1.2 Anticipated Impacts
• "Impact on surrounding properties of completely re-sculpting the existing topography
and creating of two large hills"-not addresed.
2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation
• "Mitigation in terms of soil remediation, erosion control, retention of soils, fugitive dust
and related impacts"-not addressed.
2.2 Water Resources
2.2.1 Existing Conditions
2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts
• Consistency of proposed project with Non Point Source Management Handbook is to
be evaluated.The handbook calls for limited removal of natural vegetation and creation
of lawn areas. Currently, 15.3 acres of the overall 18.27 acres are naturally vegetated.
Upon implementation there will be only 2.03 acres with natural vegetation and intertidal
beach. How can this be called limited removal of natural vegetation?
• Non-Point Source Management Handbook calls for minimum grade changes and site
clearing.The proposed project calls for steep incline in northeast corner of the property
-from 9' to 16' creating a waterfall.This is inconsistent with existing grades.
East Marion CommunityAssociation comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 5 of 10 pages
• Marina and boat pollution (DEIS p. 160) Does this mean overnight and live-aboards
will not be permitted?
• "Nitrogen budget for site (considering all potential sources of nitrogen).shall be deter-
mined using mass balance modeling methods— not addressed.
• If existing buildings are to be removed (DEIS p. 168)why is new structure not required
to observe the 75'setback required by Environmental Conservation Law Article 25?
• "Impact of flood on sanitary system function,generator function, and restaurant/hotel/
cottage evacuation"— not addressed,
•Table 5 in Section 4.2.1 lists projected water usage.
• How did the applicant come up with the difference between restaurant seats which
generate 30 gals per seat water usage and cafeteria seats which seem to use only 2.5
gallons per seat, which is barely enough for a person to wash his/her hands and use a
low-flush toilet once.What are these cafeteria seats?Are they served by food automats
that are stocked with prefabricated wrapped snacks?
• Look at the 46 showers in the bath house.The generally accepted water usage for a
shower is 12.5 gallons per shower.Why are these listed at 5 gallons and is each shower
meant to be used by only one guest per day?
•The figure for the boat slips is actually laughable. If you have ever watched a boat
owner hose off his beloved craft for 20 minutes when he brings it into the marina,you
will realize that allocating only 10 gallons per slip means that it takes less water to wash
off a boat than it does for a person to shower. Indeed, any use of toilets or showers by
marina visitors seems to have been omitted.
•Also questionable is the idea that a facility this large will operate without any laundry
facilities.While indeed the applicant may promise at this point in the permitting process
not to do laundry on site, how would this provision ever be enforced?What is to stop this
owner or a subsequent one from installing washers and dryers?
•We believe that actual water usage would be higher than the roughly 15,000 gallons
per day that the applicant claims.
.2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation
•What is the noise level of circulation pumps?
•What would prevent this or future owners from adding laundry facilities?
2:3 Ecology
2.3.1 Existing Conditions
2.3.2 Anticipated Impacts
• Impact of introducing freshwater habitat to area in which it does not exist naturally-
not addressed.
• Impact of loss of approximately 87%of natural vegetation and 72%increase in struc-
tures and paving and structures on the ecology of the site -incompletely addressed
•See p.14 of Scope.All items from 4th bullet to next to last are not addressed in DEIS.
2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation
• "Mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts shall be identified and method of
implementation determined"This project proposes such wide scale disturbance to the
site that mitigation to reduce impacts don't even seem to apply.
• "Details on erosion control to protect ecology shall be included"-not addressed.
• The proposal does not conform to the Peconic Estuary Program's goals of maintaining
current linear feet of natural shoreline and over the next 15 years reducing hardening
structure by 5 percent, measured by the percent change of natural vs. hardened shore-
line through GPS mapping.
East Marion Community Association comments on the September2008 Shizen DEIS Page 6 of 10 pages
•The planned revetment plus the jetty on the east side of the marina inlet will starve
beaches to the west
• The inlet to the marina experience constant wave action which will require constant
maintenance to keep it open.
3.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
3.1 Transportation
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
•Traffic Study conducted by Dunn Engineering submitted three weeks late,earlier study
does not include Sunday data,one of the busiest days of local traffic and additional
Cross Sound Ferry traffic which affect both the Main Road and Shipyard Lane.
• What is the width of Shipyard Lane (is it full 2 lane widths?)NYS Route 25 shoulders
are 8-10 feet and are not available as turn lanes,currently used as bike lanes with sig-
nage as such.
• Traffic volumes. Does not indicate volume of cars on Shipyard and Gillette. Should
include seasonal data Turning times -signal at intersections not the number of cars
•The summary of the traffic study says there are"several'homes on Shipyard Lane.
There are over 20 homes on Shipyard Lane and 30 in Summit Estates (which is not yet
fully built-out) Their only access to Route 25 is through Shipyard Lane.
• Golf Lane, directly opposite Shipyard Lane,was excluded from the traffic study.
3.1.2 Anticipated Impact
• How wide would Shipyard Lane and Gillette Drive need to be to accommodate two
formal, marked lanes of traffic? How many trips are currently typical on these two side
streets?How many trips would result with Shizen at the terminus? What is the percent-
age of increase?
•Table 7 on page 223 includes no numbers to compare to current volume
•Trip generation - hypothesizes public transportation use of"hotel vans" but no support
provided.
3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation
•The proposed widening of Shipyard Lane may encroach on private property and utility
poles.
•The proposed widening of the Main Road will affect the bicycle lane.
3.2 Land and Water Use,Zoning and Plans
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
•The Town of Southold Zoning Code defines a transient motel "not to be construed to
include a resort motel" How does this qualify?
•The Zoning Code stipulates one guest unit per 4,000-square-feet of land with public wa-
ter and sewer. This plan also includes a restaurant,marina,manager's residence,swimming
pool and maintenance facility. It is not clear this is permitted under current zoning.
3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts
• Page 16 of Scope, last bullet on the page to first 5 bullets on page 17—not ad-
dressed.
• Subsurface parking indicated in the preferred alternative where the water table is 2.5
feet below the surface is impractical and unprecedented in the area DEIS gives no
examples or specifications.
3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation
•This section (p. 251) includes no discussion of mitigation measures.
East Marion CommunityAssociation comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 7 of 10 pages
3.3 Community Facilities and Services
3.3.1 Existing Conditions
3.3.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.3.3 Mitigation Measures
•There is no mention of handicapped facilities or accommodation.
•There is no mention of winter heating.What is the source of energy?Where will fuel be
stored?
3.4 Aesthetic Resources and Community Character
3.4.1 Existing Conditions
• Disorganized in terms of aesthetics and community character. the point of view is of
the developer and not of community.
• Deals only with dilapidated site currently- no discussion of existing neighborhood
character.
• What is zoning, lot size, density per acre of nearby properties?What are aesthetics of
community? Consider Main Road typical homes,also Shipyard Lane homes. How does
proposed project fit into these aesthetics/community character?
•There is no discussion in the report of the 'commercial' uses currently in place in EM.
These are, of course, Seps and Angel's Deli.What are the respective sizes of these busi-
nesses compared to the size of Shizen?
• What is the size of the 'typical' home in EM?How does this compare with the square-
footage of the built structures at Shizen?
• Discuss the complete lack of barriers to the street(i.e.fences, hedges,etc.) in East
Marion with the closed nature of the Shizen property,typified by the 20-foot-high
planted berm and gated facility.
• Compare the population of East Marion with the projected transient population of Shi-
zen on any weekend. What is the projected population increase by percentage?
• Discuss the 'open door' atmosphere and personal recognition of neighbors that char-
acterizes East Marion. With the population increase that will be 100%composed of
transients, how will this impact the character of East Marion? Will kids be able to ride
their bikes on their streets?Will neighbors be able to take quiet walks safely?
3.4.2 Anticipated Impacts
-There has been no consideration given to the existing, neighboring structures on the
shoreline, or to the general architectural ambiance of existing buildings that characterize
Southold Town in general.The new structure represents a significant deviation from the
Cleaves Point community which occupies the site immediately to the west The design
approach in no way embraces or acknowledges the existing aesthetic of surrounding
structures.The proposed main building embodies none of the qualities or characteristics
of existing structures and in fact looks like a corporate headquarters.This does not in
anyway reflect or embrace the rural nature of the area and a quality that we believe the
Town is making an effort to protect It flies in the face of all those characteristic aesthet-
ics.There has been no effort to use or incorporate the traditional building materials(wood,
shingle,etc.) or the design approach which characterizes the Town.The large expanse of
glass is visually jarring compared to the condos it abuts as well as other existing structures
along the coastline.While it would no doubt afford those inside expansive views of the
bay,it departs significantly from the existing ambiance of the coast and produces a hard
edge visual that is inconsistent with the existing coastline. It selfishly provides those few
transients inside with a lovely view at the expense of all users of the Bay.The neighbors
will be confronted by this"corporate headquarters"aesthetic when they exit their homes.
They as well as all residents on the street will be subjected to the increased traffic com-
East Marion Community Association comments on the September2008 Shizen DEIS Page 8 of 10 pages
ing and going,which will contribute negatively to the community character of the area The
shoreline residents of Shelter Island will be subjected to a wall of glass that will,depending
on the weather,either reflect the sun in a blinding strip, or appear a dark black stripe along
the opposite shore. Interestingly,the main building has no aesthetic connection with the
single/individual structures in its proposal. Not only does the main building fly in the face
of local aesthetics, it bears no relationship to the other proposed buildings on the site.
• How can a large hotel and restaurant operation create"no significant adverse noise
impacts"?
3.4.3 Proposed Mitigation
•The proposed public road alterations to accommodate additional traffic will also change
the character of the area.These modifications are for the exclusive convenience of the
proposed spa visitors and strike us as intrusive to the nature of the community in general
• "Non-business hours"are not specified
3.5 Historical and Archaeological Resources
3.5.1 Existing Conditions
3.5.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.5.3 Proposed Mitigation
• Correspondence from SHPO recommended close interval shovel testing of the area
to provide data on the distribution of prehistoric materials across the site.There is no
followup in the DEIS.
4.0 OTHER REQUIRED SECTIONS
4.1 Construction Related Impacts
• Will construction activity be restricted to week days?
4.2 Cumulative Impacts -not addressed.
4.3 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided
The applicant cites increased storm water runoff, increased water use and additional vehicle
trips.These will have a permanent adverse effect on the hamlet of East Marion and can be
avoided by not approving this project.
4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources -Not addressed.
4.5 Growth Inducing Aspects - Not addressed.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 No Action Alternative
5.2 Alternative Site Designs
• Why has there been no alternative offered other than those which are totally unacceptable to
the community?Why not an alternative that is aligned with the priorities set forth in the I_WRP
(such as public access to the bay?)Why not an alternative that respects the history of the site
and the aesthetics and character of the community?Why not an alternative which is compat-
ible with the population density of East Marion?
• The LWRP recommended use of this site as a public marina.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE:
• The Preferred alternative design does NOT address the following issues:
• The plan's parking —a sub-grade garage-could contaminate groundwater and the bay dur-
ing a storm or flood;the excavation could contaminate groundwater.
-The plan to remove separate cottages near the east property line is not addressed..
East Marion Community Association comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 9 of 10 pages
•Alternative building locations to ensure FEMA compliance with less use of fill is not ad-
dressed
• Page 297 notes the complex will generate 19 tons of garbage per month,yet the dumpster
locations to reduce impact on neighboring properties are not addressed.
-The traffic generated will combine with hourly Cross Sound Ferry traffic estimated at 400
cars per hour passing the intersection of Shipyard Lane and Route 25..This creates additional
safety hazards for the community.This issue was not addressed.
•A winter heating source, a water heating source and a restaurant energy source for cooking
have not been addressed.
• In the preferred alternative site plan the square-footage for the 114 motel units exceeds the
30 percent allowance for site development.
• What is the setback from the basin wetlands for the east side cottage buildings?
• In conclusion,there is nothing in the proposed project or the preferred alternative site plans
that is consistent with the waterfront character and visual quality of the community. Either pro-
posal would result in significant adverse impacts.This is an out-sized,commercial,24/7 com-
plex that will add nothing but disturbance and irrevocable damage to the quality of life of our
community.The goals of the LWRP include protecting sensitive coastal areas and maximizing
public access to.the waterfront These proposals only address public access on a pay-as-you-
go basis.This site is one of the only areas in East Marion that would give residents access to
the bay.
East Marion Community Association comments on the September2008 Shizen DEIS Page 10 of 10 pages
East Marion
Community Association
PO Box 625 East Marion,NY 11939 - www.emca.us
Email:Board@EMCA.us RMCDBYREGULATORY
September 6,2014 SEP 15 2014
Jodi M.McDonald _ WAST. rCMOFENGNM
Chief Regulatory Branch
US Army Corps of Engineers
New York District
Jacob K.Javits Federal Building
New York,N.Y.10278-0090
Dear Ms.McDonald,
The East Marion Community Association strongly objects to the granting of a permit to Oki-Do,
Ltd.,file Number:NAN-2013-01475-EYA for dredging with 10 year maintenance,bulkhead
replacement,rock revetment construction and new dock construction for the following reasons:
We believe the applicant is attempting to circumvent,a thorough environmental review of its
Intent-a proposed spa,motel,restaurant and marina-which should be completed under State
Environmental Quality Review(SEQR) by the lead agency,the Planning Board of the Town of
Southold. The applicant's original Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)for this huge
project Was sent back to the applicant for revision by the Town of Southold Planning Board back
in 2008 because it was deemed inadequate. To date,the applicant has never resubmitted a
revised DEIS for review as requested by the lead agency.
Should your agency grant the permit,it will be splitting this larger proposed project into a
smaller project(dredging)which should be subject to a thorough Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS). We believe that granting this permit would be considered segmentation
contrary to the intent of SEAR.
We are committed to monitoring any actions involving this project and its impact on our
community. We trust that you will keep us advised of any actions or decisions made by your
agency regarding Oki-Do, Ltd.,file Number: NAN-2013-01475-EYA and its waterfront property
on Shipyard Lane.
Sincerely,
6��- YU4,4,L37777t��7's
Member,
East Marion Community Association
a
John M.Bredemeyer III,President 0f 30(/Tyo Town Hall Annex
Michael J.Domino,Vice-President h0 lQ 54 Main Road
P.O54376..Box 1179
James F.King,Trustee Southold,New York 11971-0969
Dave Bergen,Trustee
• �O Telephone(631)765-1892
Charles J.Sanders,-Trustee Fax(631) 765-6641
yCOUNTI,�
OARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RMENEO gY REGULATORY
_'$ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SEP 15 2014
- September 9, 2014
NY DST.GAPS OF ENGINEERS
Oki-Do Ltd.
Attr1: Dr. Kazuko Tatsumura Hillyer, President
20 W. 64 Street, Unit 24E
New York, NY 10023
RE: 2835 SHIPYARD LANE, EAST MARION
SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1
Dear Mr. Tatsumara Hillyer:
This office is in receipt of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice Number: NAN-
2013-01475-EYA for Oki-Do Ltd. for proposed activity of dredging with 10 year
maintenance, bulkhead replacement, rock revetment construction, and new dock
construction.
Please be advised that in addition to the regulatory requirements of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, this office has jurisdiction over aspects of this project under
Chapter 275 and Chapter 111 of the Southold Town Code.
Please complete an application for this project which is enclosed along with a copy of
the Town Codes for your convenience.
Sincerely,
RbhnM. Bredemeyer III, President
Board of Trustees
Cc: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
Town of Southold Planning Dept.
Enclosures
To: US Army Corps of Engineers September 9, 2014
New York District
Jacob KJavits Federal Building MCENEDBYREGUiATM
New York, NY 10278-0090 SEP 15 2014
Attn: Regulatory Branch NA'D T-WRPSOFENUNEERS
Re: NAN-2013-01475-EYA
To Whom It May Concern:
The Marion Manor Property Owners Association represents all the homeowners on Gillette
Drive, East Gillette Drive, and Cleaves Point Road, which constitute the Marion Manor
subdivision immediately adjacent to the proposed Oki-Do project. All our members want to
join with the Town of Southold and the East Marion Community Association in registering our
deeply felt opposition to the proposed Oki-Do development. We strongly urge you to reject
Oki-Do's application for a permit to dredge the old marina and rebuild the bulkhead.
We believe that no permit should be granted by your agency until and unless Southold Town
approves the development plan for the site. Segmenting approval by allowing the dredging and
bulkhead rebuilding prior to overall determination of the project's future makes no sense
whatsoever. The surrounding community is united in our opposition to the size and type of
development that has been suggested. We will continue to do everything in our power to stop
the current proposal. We fear that if you approve the dredging before the town determines the
fate of the Oki-Do proposal,your agency might strengthen Oki-Do's prospects.
Resp fully submitted,
Candida Harper, Executive Committee Chairperson
Marion Manor Property Owners Association
290 Cleaves Point Road
East Marion, NY 11939
Cleaves Point Condominiums
Cleaves Point Club and Marina, Inc.
CP C 2820 Shipyard Lane
East Marion,N.Y. 11939
Tel/Fax 631477-8657 cleavespointgoptonline.net
RECEIVED BY REGULATORY
September 8th 2014 SEP 0*9 2014
NY District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WISL:OORP&OFENGINEERS
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1937
New York, NY 10278
Attention: Jun Yan, P.E.
Project Manager, Eastern Section
Regulatory Branch
RE: Public Notice Number NAN- 2013-01475-EYA
Applicant: Oki Do Ltd
I am writing on behalf of the owners of the 62 condominium units known as Cleaves Point
Condominiums on Gardiners Bay located at 2820 Shipyard Lane, East Marion, New York
11939. Our property is immediately adjacent (to the west)to the Oki Do planned project.
Cleaves Point Condominiums opposes the application of Oki Do Ltd for dredging,
bulkhead replacement, rock.revetment construction and new dock construction.
Our unit owners respectfully suggest that the Corps consider this application in the context
of the entire scope of the proposed Oki Do project and not just the scope of work as stated
M your Notice.
The.applicant's proposal for the project, which dates back to 2003, is for the development
of an 18.3 acre site on Gardiners Bay, at the south end of Shipyard Lane in East Marion
NY 11939, with a "transient motel". The motel units would be housed in 24 different
buildings on the site, including one 51,422 square foot, two-story building, a 3,834 square
foot restaurant, a 1,987 square foot "managers residence", a 7,205 square foot
maintenance/utility building, and a 1,373 square foot pool house with an indoor.pool.,The
applicant also has proposed to construct a Marina with 16 private boat slips within the
existing 1.3 8 acre dredged basin, a wooden bulkhead boardwalk, and three timber floating
dock systems. This description was contained in a DEIS submitted by the applicant to the
Town of Southold. In 2008, the Town of Southold requested revisions to the DEIS that
were never submitted by the applicant.
" Five years later, in 2013, the applicant informed the Town of Southold that they would like
to proceed with their various applications. The Town informed the applicant that it could
not proceed with its original application nor submit a revised DEIS because such a long
time had elapsed from the time of the original submission. Among other things pointed
out by the Town, the Town Code had changed and.the condition of the property had
changed since the originally DEIS was submitted, all of which were factors that led to the .
Town's determination to require the applicant to start the process anew.
Instead of renewing its application with the Town,the.applicant has applied to the DEC
and Army Corp. of Engineers, however, those agencies have not been informed of the.
scope and magnitude bf the applicant's project.
It seems clear that the application currently before the Corps concerns just a small part of
their entire project. As such, the applicant is clearly trying to "segment" this project into
small parts, and this type of"segmentation" is cleanly in violation of the SEQRA process
and has been struck down by the New York Courts.
Should the Corps require any additional information, please feel free to contact the
undersigned or our.counsel, David M. Dubin, Esq., at Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley,
Dubin& Quartararo, LLP, (631) 727-2180.
Sincerely,
Howard Weisler, President
cc: Town of Southold Planning Department
David M. Dubin, Esq.
Yan, Jun NAN1
From: McKee Jackie[mcdesigner@optonline.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:25 PM
To: Yan, Jun NAN1
Cc: EMCA Board
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Oki-Do, Ltd., file Number. NAN-2013-01475-EYA
Attachments: Oki-Do, Ltd., file Number- NAN-2013-01475-EYA.pdf
Re: Oki-Do, Ltd., file Number NAN-2013-01475-EYA
I strongly object to the granting of the above permit for dredging [with 10 year maintenance,
bulkhead replacement, rock revetment construction and new dock construction] for the reasons
stated by the East Marion Community Assn. in their letter of Sept. 6, 2014 (attached) to Jodi
M. McDonald, US Army Corps of Engineers. As a member of EMCA I support the organization's
efforts to monitor this project with regard to its impact on our community.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline A. McKee
715 Old Orchard Lane
East Marion, NY 11939
1
' East Marion
Community Association
PO Box 625 East Marion, NY 11939 • www.emca.us
Email: Board@EMCA.us
September 6,2014
Jodi M. McDonald
Chief Regulatory Branch _
US Army Corps of Engineers
New York District
Jacob K.Javits Federal Building
New York, N.Y. 10278-0090 .
Dear Ms. McDonald,
The East Marion Community Association strongly objects to the granting of a permit to Oki-Do,
Ltd.,file Number: NAN-2013-01475-EYA for dredging with 10 year maintenance, bulkhead
replacement,rock revetment construction and new dock construction for the following reasons:
We believe the applicant is attempting to circumvent a thorough environmental review of its
intent-a proposed spa, motel, restaurant and marina-which should be completed under State
Environmental Quality Review(SEQR) by the lead agency,the Planning Board of the Town of
Southold. The applicant's original Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)for this huge
project was sent back to the applicant for revision by the Town of Southold Planning Board back
in 2008 because it was deemed inadequate. To date,the applicant has never resubmitted a
revised DEIS for review as requested by the lead agency.
Should your agency grant the permit, it will be splitting this larger proposed project into a
smaller project(dredging)which should be subject to a thorough Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS). We believe that granting this permit would be considered segmentation
contrary to the intent of SEQR.
We are committed to monitoring any actions involving this project and its impact on our
community. We trust that you will keep us advised of any actions or decisions made by your
agency regarding Oki-Do, Ltd.,file Number: NAN-2013-01475-EYA and its waterfront property
on Shipyard Lane.
Sincerely,
Member,
East Marion Community Association
Yan, Jun NAN1
From: Louis Wirtz[loucar987@9mail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:04 AM
To: Yan, Jun NAN1
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Dredging of Peconic Bay New York in the town of East Mariom.
Please stop the dredging permit being applied for in the above.
Peconic bay, its estuarys and the intrusion of bay water into the only source of water the
east end of Long Island A amd is in trouble must be stoped.
Sincerely,
Carol & Louis Wirtz
1 .
Yan, Jun NAN1
From: Karen Sauvigne[karenlee7a@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 9:55 AM
To: Yan, Jun NAN1
Subject: [EXTERNAL]opposed to dredging in East Marion NY by Oki-Do
Hello,
It would be wrong to give Oki-Do a permit to dredge when what they really are doing is
weaseling their way -incrementally-toward an-immense-spa on that property. Doesn't the EPA -
have to review this kind of dredging and land use? Dredging destroys shellfish and their
habitat. Without the spa there is no reason for Oki-Do (or anyone) to dredge the harbor so
thein request should be denied.
Sincerely, Karen Sauvigne, 350 Marion Lane, East Marion, NY
Karen Sauvigne
646-229-9808
1
Yan, Jun NAN1
From: Martin Audrey Green [mandapiussix@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 11:58 AM
To: Yan, Jun NAN1
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Dredging of Property on Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY
As residents of East Marion, we hereby request that you deny the application for a dredging
permit to Oki-Do, Ltd.
The owners of the property in question have yet to comply in any way with the town's
requirements to clean up the property under their ownership in compliance with environmental
requirements prior to beginning any work. The dredging would constitute a conflict of the
stated requirements by the Town of Southold.
The area in question is abutted by residential homes and condominiums on both sides and the
impact of this dredging without the required clean up would be detrimental to the properties
adjacent to the property in question. The current owners have in no way provided the basic
maintenance to this property and the buildings and grounds are a hazard which must be dealt
with prior to any consideration of dredging.
We thank you for your review and consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
Martin and Audrey Green
2820 Shipyard Lane, 2E2
East Marion, NY 11939
1
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Building.40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356
Telephone (516) 444-0365
Facsimile (516) 444-0373
Langdon Marsh
Commissioner
March 3, 1995
Aquafood Properties Ltd. Partnership
330 South Street
Morristown, NJ 07962
RE: 1-4738-00728/00004-0
Dear Permittee:
. In conformance with the requirements of the State Uniform
Procedures Act (Article 70, ECL) and its implementing regulations
(6NYCRR, Part 621) we are enclosing your permit. Please read all
conditions carefully. If you are unable to comply with any
conditions, please contact us at the above address.
Also enclosed is a permit sign rAnalyst
be con picuously
posted at the project site a� proteer.
Vely trJohn A.Environ
JAW:cg
enclosure
i) printed on recycled paper
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
DEC PERMIT NUMBER EFFECTIVE DATE
1-4738-00728/00004-0 March 3, 1995
FACILITY/PROGRAM NUMBERS) P E 1 T EXPIRATION DATES)
Under the Envir m-ntat March 31, 2000
Conservation Lary
TYPE OF PERMIT ■ New 0 Renewal 0 Modification 0 Permit to Construct 0 Permit to Operate
■ 6NYCRR 608: Water Quality 0 Article 27, Title 7; 6NYCRR 360:
1 Article 15, Title 5: Protection Certification Solid Waste Management
of Waters
0 Article 17, Titles 7, 8: SPDES 0 Article 27, Title 9; 6NYCRR 373:
0 Article 15, Title 15: Water Hazardous Waste Management
SUPPLY 0 Article 19: Air Pollution
Control ❑ Article 34: Coastal Erosion
0 Article 15, Title 15: Water _ _ _ Management
Transport 0 Article 23, Title 27: Mined Land
Reclamation 0 Article 36: Floodplain
0 Article 15, Title 15: Long Management
Island Wells 0 Article 24: Freshwater Wetlands
0 Articles 1, 3; 17, 19, 27, 37,
0 Article 15, Title 27: Wild, 0 Article 25: Tidal Wetlands 6NYCRR 380: Radiation Control
Scenic and Recreational Rivers
0. other:
PERMIT ISSUED TO TELEPHONE NUMBER
Aquafood Properties, Ltd. Partnership (516). 728-1450
ADDRESS OF PERMITTEE
330 South Street
Morristown, NJ 07962
CONTACT PERSON FOR PERMITTED WORK TELEPHONE NUMBER
En-Consultants Inc. 1329 North Sea Rd. Southampton NY 11968 (516) 283-6360
NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT/FACILITY
Aquafood Properties Ltd. Partnership Property
2835 Shipyard Lane East Marion NY 11939
LOCATION OF PROJECT/FACILITY
SCTM 001000-038-07-07.1 (Cleves Point)
COUNTY TOWN WATERCOURSE MYTH COORDINATES
Suffolk Southold Greenport Harbor E: 723.2 N: 4554.3
CE IPTIW CF ALHFMI?E) AcrIVITY
Replace within 1811, 1,438t, of existing timber bulkhead. Maintenance dredge a 2201 x 2041 basin and a 50' x 2701
channel to 101 below mean tow water. The.resultant 3,8001 cubic yards of dredge spoil will both be used as backfill for
the 1,438t, of replacement bulkhead or temporarily dewatered in.a 1501 x 2701 diked spoil area to .the east of the
channel. Ultimately, the dewatered spoil will be removed further upland to an approved site for final disposal. The
project shall be in accordance with plans stamped NYSDEC approved on 03-02-95.
By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent.upon strict compliance with the
ECL, at applicable regulations, the General Conditions specified (see page 2) and any Special Conditions included as part of
this permit.
DEPUTY REGIONAL PERMIT ADMINISTRA- ADDRESS
TOR:
George W. Hammarth Bldg. 40, SUNY, Room 219, Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE DATE
�S�G• �(�, r� March 3, 1995 Page 1 of 5
Get. UTDITICNS
Inspections
1 . The permitted site or facility, including relevant records, is subject to in-
spection at , reasonable hours and intervals by an authorized representative of
the Department of Envirom-ental Conservation (the Departrmnt) to determine
Wiether the permittee is ca-rplying with this permit and the ECL. Such represen-
tative may order the v%ork suspended pursuant to ECL 71-0301 and SADA 401 (3) .
copy of this permit, including .all referenced asps, drawings and special
cond i t i ons, crust be ava i I ab I e. for inspection by the Department at all t irres at
the project site. Failure to produce a copy of the permit upon request by a
Department representative is a violation of this permit.
Permit Changes and Renem I s
2. The Department reserves the right to modify, suspend-or revoke this permit Men,
a) the scope of the permitted activity is exceeded or a violation of any
condition of the permit or provisions of the ECL and pertinent regula-
tions is found;
b) the permit vyas obtained by misrepresentation or failure to disclose
relevant facts;
c) neNrraterial information is discovered; or
d) env I rorTmnta I conditions, relevant technology, or applicable Ianr or
regulation have rrater1a1 .1y changed since the permit vyas issued.
3. The permittee must submit a separate written application to the Department for
reneAel , nvdification or transfer of this permit. Such application crust include
any forms, fees or supplemental info m-ation the Department requires. Any
rermnaI , mA lfication or transfer granted by the Department rrust be in writing:
4. The permittee must submit a rer oI application at Ieast:
a) 180 days before expiration of permits for State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (SMES) , Hazardous VlAste Ntnagerrent Faci1.ities
(F'y'Dl/F) , rre j or Ai r Po I I ut i on Cont ro I (APC) and So I i d Was te Ntnagamnt
Facilities (S%F) ; and
b) 30 days before expiration of all other permit types.
5. Lhless expressly provided for by the Depar"nt, issuance of this permit .does
not modify, supersede or rescind any order or determination perviously issued by
the Departmnt or any of the to ars, conditions or requirenents contained in such
order or determination.
Other Legal CbIigat ions of Permittee
6. The permittee has accepted expressly, by the execution of the application, the
full legal * responsibility for all damges, direct or indirect, of Matever
nature and by Wxrriever suffered, arising out of the project described in this
permit and has agreed to indem ify and save harmless the State from suits,
actions, daTages and costs of every rare and description resulting frcm this
project.
7. This permit does not convey to the permittee any right to trespass upon the
lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others in order to perform the
permitted vork nor does it authorize the inpaim-ent of any rights, title, or
interest in real or personal property held or vested in. a person not a party to
the permit .
8. The permittee is responsible for obtaining any other permits, approvals, lands,
easerents and rights-of-v%ey that may be requ-ired for this project.
Page 2of 5
1)51041aV92) Tidal Wetland
ADDITIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR ARTICLES 15 (Title 5),24, 25, 33 and 6 NYCRR Part 608 ( )
9 That if future operations by the State of New York require an al- other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the
teration in the position of the structure or work herein,authorized, or project.
if, in the opinion of the Department of Environmental Conservation 13 Any material dredged in the prosecution of the work herein permitted
it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of said shall be removed evenly,without leaving large refuse piles,ridges across
waters or flood floe. or endanger the health, safety or%%elfare of the bed of a waterway or floodplain or deep holes that may have a
the people of the.State, or cause loss or destruction of the natural tendency to cause damage to navigable channels or to the banks of
resources of the State,the owner ma► be ordered by the Department to a waterway.
remove or alter the structural work,obstructions,or hazards caused
thereby without expense to the State, and if, upon the expiration or 14 There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the work
revocation of this permit, the structure, fill, excavation, or other herein authorized.
modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shall not be com- 15. If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit,the project hereby
pleted, the owners, shall, without expense to the State, and to such authorized has not been completed,the applicant shall,without expense
-extent and in such time'and manner as the Department of Environmental to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the
Conservation may require,remove all or any portion of the uncompleted Department of Environmental Conservation may require,remove all Or
structure or fill and restore to its former condition the navigable any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site
and flood capacity of the watercourse.No claim shall be made against to its forrper condition. No claim shall be made against the State of
the State of New York on account of any such removal or.alteration. New York on account of any such removal or alteration.
W That the'Stdte of New York shall in no case be liable for any damage 16. If granted under 6 NYCRR Part 608, the NYS Department of Environ-
or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused mental Conservation hereby certifies that the subject project will not
by or result from future operations undertaken by the State for the contravene effluent limitations or other limitations or standards under
conservation or improvement of na%igation,or for other purposes,and Sections 301,302.303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act of 1977
no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from any such damage. (PL 95-217)provided that all of the conditions listed herein are met.
11. Granting of this permit does not relie%e the applicant of the responsi- 17. All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance
bility of obtaining any other permission, consent or approval from with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or his agent as part
the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.U.S.Coast Guard, New York State of the permit application.
Office of General Services or local government which may be required. pp p prepared b S tamped NYSDEC
12. All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination Such approved lams were y
of any wetland or waterway by suspended solids, sediments, fuels. _Approved on ?/g5
solvents,lubricants,epoxy coatings.paints,concrete,leachate or any
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. During construction, concrete or leachate shall not escape
or be discharged, nor shall washings from transit mix
trucks, mixers, or other devices enter tidal wetlands and or
protected buffer areas.
2. Any debris or excess material from construction of this
project shall be completely removed from the adjacent area.
(upland) and removed to an approved upland area for
disposal. No debris is permitted in tidal wetlands and or
' protected buffer areas.
3. There shall be no disturbance to vegetated tidal wetlands or
protected buffer areas as a result of the permitted
' activity.
4. All peripheral berms, cofferdams, rock revetments, seawalls,
gabions, bulkheads etc. shall be completed prior to-
placement of any fill material behind such structures.
5. Equipment operation below apparent high water is strictly
i prohibited.
1 6. The new bulkhead shall be constructed within a maximum of
1811 seaward of the structure, measured from face of old
j sheathing to face of new sheathing (as shown on the approved
x-section) .
MC PERMIT Nt mJ3ER
i 1-4738-00728/00004-0
PROGRAxt FACILITY NUMBER
i
Page —3-- of
95-206f(7/87)-25c NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
For Article 25 Tidal Wetland
7. There shall be. no discharge of runoff or other effluent over
or through any bulkhead .or shoreline stabilization structure
or into any tidal wetland or adjacent area.
8. All dredged material shall be disposed on an approved upland
site and be retained so as to not re-enter any water body,
tidal wetland, or protected buffer area. - -
9. Excavated sediments shall be placed directly into the
approved disposal site or conveyance vehicle. No
sidecasting (double dipping) or temporary storage of dredge
material is authorized.
10. The use of a dragline for dredging' is strictly prohibited.
11. For maintenance dredging projects, permittee shall submit a
Notice of Commencement prior to each dredging occurrence,
specifying the disposal site (including an updated site
plan) . Upon completion a Notice of Completion specifying
the amount of dredged material deposited at the approved
disposal site must be submitted.
12. The permittee shall remove all derelict vessels from the
boat basin prior to the dredging operation. The debris
shall be removed to an 'approved upland disposal facility.
13 . The 12" diameter pipe through the bulkhead shall be
eliminated. The discharge shall be redirected to upland
drywells.
Supplementary Special Conditions (A) through (F) attached
DEC PERMIT NUMBER
1-4738-00728/00004-0
FACILITY ID NUMBER PROCRAM NUMBER
Page 4 of 5
SUFFOLK CO. HAGTTROM MAP 32 I I 1
EAST MARION
.,�o dvW, h�+'(I .�..►. "� P.S. �2S
` 4/ L CEM.
DArvAf;AW
l: 2.FuRA05E'EROS/o�/Co�l7Z'oL •C,PEA1�'SUFFC/EiJT Wi47F�Q �e
OEPTN W/l,d.&W d O1An/1E•E Fok G,1,47F9C?AFT
S.Aa SUBJECT&aPEA SE MATS (6.-11,V01C,47ZP
6Y LZV6l T9)7a 8c R -r,-4 ACCP(W/ll//S
4.Ai)JAcW7-owdERs: �' \ 7sN.VAd W VeK � 6* 40,07A4 ,
VO-
MOR
• S)J.�WAI1,�re 6)�'.6'�GD �Q�� � —9I'cc'so'
M v SITE
a HAtJoal.V 8)A WATT- 'ljjq ,o ' \ Cteves Pf
Tsos
/3)H.WANRW606 1 j R.MUlk /x)T».OFScvMa�
s PRQIECT, 7 '835 SA1rryW J)m,,
' $Cmf Ala, /Ow-38-
• ��e � � `•( Cyd `
in �Or
z N Q
~ ' 8
;JL-1 ANTS
SZEA RD.
+,`c��-_ Cr.usee:.` �—-':` i:vo: �• � n. : I I �d! I•, l_Q 0 SO /q�
pa!�q uurlVF.+Ia�•a•Iv O L 1 t 1 �1 Q, �..;'t...%t ..
�D;T'.�+%I.-TO-I N-Y. 11963
6360
1
N
I PROPOSED 6v4kgEAD
- - - - • IIA Al o )L1Q/,v NQNcE DREDGi��
• rn.os.oe.c_�'N - Fo rQ A 4 UA FOOD Oeo OE eri,rS I_TL
v�d,�drHs /
10
A127NFiQSNIP Q/`l GREE/JPORT
---- ,t P 4R,B02 AT(;gF i IPoRT;5uFFOtK,A
SAIFET 1. OF 3 1.•13_.9S_.
•0 e
N ,
ps6:1
4
1 1
✓'// lk
j (/1
C
y o_
• Il
`6 1
NYSDEC
APPROVED AS PER TERb4S
AND :ID1T10NS OF 6
loi ,? OPV C:o G y U
PE T' NO.I-Y2 !1 -
DdD
:SULTANT.
L PROPOSED ,6v1.l`9,,cAD
� � - REPLACEMENT �h/I/Nib"'
� � ;4nI D �-J,4/n/TENANCE pRF'OGI�G
o w ( FOR AQ UAFOOD PROPERr/ES ,LTz
ow GREEy l PORT
or2rve IM9, 0P. A l GRE�NPORT-,s(lFFOLX,P
�• EX ew�Dii•1G -
sEcr►onl THRO SASW
AVU-9VD REP44 Gcf-f-Al T W///V/6 &AN4
k4 W=3'-a"
Nrq,
VARIA61C
W 14X)
7a BE D2ED�ED (APPRO,Y 390(f.Y. SAAtD,COMUC)
; 4 psortmol
IO'AEPP4 DF
• /o'x3c'P�,cs
Ex 8vavinlG SCt OA3 TNRU 94MA SIGI^ &WO
1 '
A)4W"3'-bn
i9 AL. =0'-v�
D�ppt/r�
I-16"A jq'7ja
-
v►cr
1D' N Y S D E C Tgnl3S
aND CONI5 OF
nErafi i C.O.
ii^tiTE
At Diva$A a G
DIKE
PI(ePe JL.O
' SPO t L s►TE PIKE
f .210 NOUP RDS
5'CT/oN TH/j v /N l-rl AL -5PO L Qc pp, 3 i 31 �l.Y. 11968
2•113-53
F,41,41A
BVD.Kfl�'AD
��►=10' Nr lW//,//$�,rHV4NCE DRFDGIn/GFOOD PROPERTIES
iGREriM097SUFFOLK,N
3 OF 3 9. 7.94
New Voile 'SW6 0-- Am+�n�o`Envlioome' at C�r��ie v�tit
oIV
l,WQn of Eh rwnmmontal Pot`rnito,;fttO6�mot
8l11V'!!' toyi i . k, ; 0rcls R,o1: $ti�rny' 4k � ' `
; si�e;roinavvar�.�n�
- ius�Qif
*wYloi. 1 102 ;.
fie; p #�
Doi(PiOMltt
s0000
tioul
xd 'tt Wit.}$;gid µ is Y� 40 ff A
jnvur RermtIeurl��r �Qt ld per�
sal
Qot
.ca inec `tn t Ci r or _dUd-O r[ # e�rrr
�� to' ip �+ ► '►'�ra� �����E ice`�tl�i1�',
rrr�it r u�! o : ' relesial;t 'ate gimes aid
, $� ��c�n� .�I�a � ��.a`�ett�� ,�uhi ��`t� oci►x��lc�usly
attha c?� �`stt�arl� per frim#ba a her.
true, -
BOWTV
fidall,�'. Klett
E�v�r�nmet�tal analt
C M
' r
r
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION U
Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00728
PERMIT
Under the Environmental Conservation Law ECL
Permittee and Facility Information
Permit Issued To: Facility:
OKI-DO LTD OKI-DO LTD PROPERTY
C/O DR KAZUKO TATSUMURA - 2835 SHIPYARD LNISCTM 1000-38-7-7.1 --
20 WE 64TH STE 24E EAST MARION, NY 11939
NEW YORK,NY 10023
(212) 799-9711
Facility Application Contact:
VHB ENGINEERING SURVEYING AND
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUR
2150 JOSHUA'S PATH STE 300
HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788
(631) 234-3444
Facility Location: in SOUTHOLD in SUFFOLK COUNTY Village: East Marion
Facility Principal Reference Point: NYTM-E: 723.2 NYTM-N: 4554.5
Latitude: 41°06'40.1" Longitude: 72°20'30.2"
Project Location: 2835 Shipyard Lane
Authorized Activity: Remove and replace 1323 linear feet of existing functional and non-functional
bulkhead. 305 linear feet of the bulkhead along Gardiner's Bay is to be constructed in place and
landward of the existing bulkhead, and 85 linear feet near the channel will be constructed seaward of the
existing bulkhead, above mean high water. Place 600 cubic yards of material excavated during the
bulkhead construction behind bulkhead as backfill.The remainder of the bulkhead in the boat basin and
along the channel is to be replaced in place. 300 cubic yards of dredged material will be placed behind
this portion as backfill. Install 505 linear feet of rock revetment along the Gardiners Bay portion of the
bulkhead. Dredge boat channel to-5'mean low water placing resultant 4,022 cubic yards of dredged
material in(2) dredge spoil drying areas to dewater. 300 cubic yards of this dredge spoil will be used as
bulkhead backfill as noted previously, the remainder will be disposed of on site within several inactive
settling lagoons. Replace 61', 106', and 19'of the(3) existing jetties, abandoning the portions of the
existing jetties below mean low water. Remove existing dock within boat basin and construct new 8'x
132' dock. All work must be completed as shown on plans stamped "NYSDEC Approved" on 5/7/14.
Page 1 of 9
Alm
`/
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Now
Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00728
Permit Authorizations
Tidal Wetlands -Under Article 25
Permit ID 1-4738-00728/00012
New Permit . Effective Date: 5/6/2014 Expiration Date: 5/5/2019
Excavation&Fill in Navigable Waters-Under Article 15,Title 5
Permit ID 1-473 8-00728/00013
New Permit Effective Date: 5/6/2014 Expiration Date: 5/5/2019
Water Quality Certification-Under Section 401- Clean Water Act
Permit ID 1-4738-00728/00014
New Permit Effective Date: 5/6/2014 Expiration Date: 5/5/2019
NYSDEC Approval
By acceptance of this permit,the permittee agrees that r is tingent upon strict
compliance with the ECL, all applicable regulations id all conditions cluded as part of this
permit.
Permit Administrator:JOHN A W LA D, uty Regional Permit Admi ' trator
Address: NYSDEC EGIO� ADQUARTERS
UNY STON� ROOK150 CIRCLE RD
TONY BROO 1 90-3409
Authorized Signature DateC'�))/77/ 2-0
11
Disri ution List
VHB ENGINEERING SURVEYING AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUR
Permit Components
NATURAL RESOURCE PERMIT CONDITIONS
WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION SPECIFIC CONDITION
GENERAL CONDITIONS,APPLY TO ALL AUTHORIZED PERMITS
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER PERMITTEE OBLIGATIONS
NATURAL RESOURCE PERMIT CONDITIONS - Apply to the Following
Permits: TIDAL WETLANDS• EXCAVATION & FILL IN NAVIGABLE
Page 2 of 9
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION r
Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00728
WATERS• WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
1. Notice of Commencement At least 48 hours prior to commencement of the project,the permittee
and contractor shall sign and return the top portion of the enclosed notification form certifying that they
are fully aware of and understand all terms and conditions of this permit. Within 30 days of completion
of project, the bottom portion of the form must also be signed and returned, along with photographs of
the completed work.
2. Post Permit Sign The permit sign enclosed with this permit shall be posted in a conspicuous
location on the worksite and adequately protected from the weather.
3. Conformance With Plans All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance
with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or applicant's agent as part of the permit application.
Such approved plans were prepared by Douglas Edward Adams, last revised 2/12/14.
4. Notice of Maintenance Dredging For maintenance dredging projects,the permittee shall submit a
Notice of Commencement prior to each dredging occurrence, specifying the disposal site(including an
updated site plan). Upon completion, a Notice of Completion shall be submitted to the address indicated
on that notice form, including the amount of material dredged and deposited at the approved disposal
site.
5. Filter Fabric Curtain Around Dredging Area A filter fabric(turbidity) curtain weighted across
the bottom and suspended at the top by floats shall be positioned to enclose the work site before
commencing dredging. The curtain shall remain-in place and in functional condition during all phases of
the dredging operations and remain in place for two hours after dredging termination and turbidity inside
the curtain no longer exceeds ambient levels.
6. No Interference With Navigation There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by
the work herein authorized.
7. Dredged Depth Survey Within 30 days of completion of the dredging operation, an as-dredged
depth survey of the dredged area shall be submitted to
Regional Habitat-TW
NYSDEC REGION 1 HEADQUARTERS
SUNY @ STONY BROOKI50 CIRCLE RD
STONY BROOK,NY11790-3409
Attn: Compliance
8. Dredged Materials above AHW All material shall be placed landward of apparent high water.
9. Dragline Prohibited The use of a dragline for dredging is strictly prohibited.
10. Grade Channel Side Slopes All side slopes of the dredge channel will have a maximum of 1:3
slope.
11. Prohibition Period for Fish, Shellfish,Birds To protect spawning finfish, shellfish and nesting
shorebirds, including threatened and/or endangered species,no regulated activities may occur between
April 1 and September 30, inclusive, of any calendar year.
Page 3 of 9
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00728
12. Dredge Bucket Operation The bucket shall be lowered to the level of the barge gunwales prior to
release of the load.
13. No Barge Overflow There shall be no barge overflow.
14. Dredge Bucket Operations The bucket shall be lifted in a continuous motion through the water
column and into the barge, disposal site or conveyance vehicle.
15. Leave a Uniform Bottom Elevation All dredging shall be conducted so as to leave a uniform
bottom_elevation free of mounds or holes. _
16. No Side-casting or Temporary Storage Excavated sediment shall be placed directly into the
approved disposal/dewatering site or conveyance vehicle: No side-casting(double dipping) or
temporary storage of dredged material is authorized.
17. Restrict Spillage,Use Closed Bucket During the dredging operation,the permittee and his
contractor shall prevent spillage of sediment during excavation and haulage. Dredging shall be
accomplished with a clam shell or other closed bucket equipment.
18. Dredgings to Remain On-Site/Within Wetland Dredge material approved to remain on-site
and/or within the NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands jurisdiction shall be retained so as not to enter any water
body,tidal wetlands,or protected buffer areas. Off-site,upland disposal of dredged material beyond
NYSDEC Tidal Wetland jurisdiction requires the additional guidance of the Division of Materials
Management(631)444-0375 and is not covered by this permit. _
19. No Structures on Pilings No structures,other than structures specifically authorized by this
permit, shall be constructed on pilings without further authorization from the department(permit,
modification or amendment).
20. No Permanent Structures on Dock No permanent structures shall be installed on
dock/catwalk/float without first obtaining written Department approval(permit,modification, or
amendment).
21. No Prop Dredging Prop dredging, or the act of utilizing and/or directing the propeller or
propulsion system of a motorized vessel and/or the water-borne forces created by said propeller or
propulsion system,to excavate or displace existing bottom sediment and benthic habitat for the direct or
indirect purpose of establishing or increasing water depth, is a regulated activity and is not authorized by
this permit. Prop dredging is strictly prohibited without further written authorization(permit,
modification or amendment)from the department.
22. No Floats,Ramps in Vegetated Tidal Wetlands Floats and ramps may not rest on or be stored in
any vegetated tidal wetland.
23. Wood Preservatives
a. Pressure treated wood used for construction of in-water structures must have undergone a
treatment process approved (stamped or otherwise marked as certified) by the American Wood
Preservative Association.
b. Wood treated with Pentachlorophenol (PCP)must not be used in wetlands or surface waters.
Page 4 of 9
Aft
MOO
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 'Now
Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00728
c. The use of creosote treated wood is prohibited both in the water and upland areas.
d. Chromated Copper Arsenate(CCA)pressure treated wood must be clean and free of CCA surface
deposits.Wood with surface deposits must be washed for at least 5 minutes under running water
prior to use. The washing must occur greater than 100 feet landward of any regulated wetland
and/or water body. (Note"E."below for handling wash water.)
e. Any wood debris such as sawdust or wash water must not enter any water body, including wetlands
or protected buffer areas.
24. No Runoff Over or Through Bulkhead or into Wetland There shall be no discharge of runoff or
other effluent over or through any bulkhead or shoreline stabilization structure or into any tidal wetland
or protected buffer area.
25. Excavation for Bulkhead/Structure Prior to any construction or removal of bulkheads and other
shoreline stabilization structures all backfill shall be excavated landward of the structure and retained so
as not to enter the waterway,tidal wetland or protected buffer area.
26. No Structures on Bulkhead No permanent structures shall be installed on the authorized bulkhead
without first obtaining written department approval(permit,modification, amendment).
27. No Structures on Groin No permanent structures shall be installed on the authorized groin
without first obtaining written department approval(permit,modification, amendment). .
28. Extent of Groin The authorized groin shall not extend beyond property lines,interfere with
navigation, and/or interfere with other landowners riparian rights.
29. Groin Construction The authorized groin shall not exceed 18" in height over the existing grade of
the downdrift beach and shall not extend seaward of apparent low water.
30. Revetment Rock revetment shall consist of natural capstone a minimum of 3-8 tons in size,
corestone a minimum of 4-8 tons,underlain with 5-151b.blanket stone in size and the toe shall be
installed a minimum of 2 feet below apparent low water or 3 feet below mean sea level and all shall be
underlain with filter cloth.
31. New Bulkhead Landward of Existing Structure The new bulkhead shall be constructed
landward of the existing structure. The existing sheathing shall not be removed until the landward
sheathing is securely in place. Once the new sheathing has been appropriately installed, the old
sheathing shall be cut to grade or removed in its entirety.
32. No Equipment below Apparent High Water Equipment operation below(seaward) apparent high
water is strictly prohibited.
33. Bulkhead Height The new bulkhead height shall not exceed the height of the adjacent bulkheads.
34. Backfilling All peripheral berms, cofferdams,rock revetments, seawalls, gabions,bulkheads or
other approved shoreline stabilization structures shall be completed prior to placement of any fill
material behind such structures.
Page 5 of 9
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION low
Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00728
35. Grade to Match That Adjacent to Bulkhead All fill must be graded to match the elevation of the
land immediately adjacent to the bulkhead.
36. No Beach Excavation For Fill No excavation of the beach is authorized for the purpose of
obtaining fill or stone materials.
37. Clean Fill Only All fill shall consist of clean sand, gravel, or soil (not asphalt, slag, flyash,broken
concrete or demolition debris).
38. Seeding Disturbed Areas All areas of soil disturbance resulting from the approved project shall be --
stabilized with appropriate vegetation(grasses, etc.)immediately following project completion or prior
to permit expiration,whichever comes first. If the project site remains inactive for more than 48 hours
or planting is impractical due to the season,then the area shall be stabilized with straw or hay mulch or
jute matting until weather conditions favor germination.
39. Storage of Equipment,Materials The storage of construction equipment and materials shall be
confined to the upland area landward of the bulkhead or on a barge.
40. No Disturbance to Vegetated Tidal Wetlands There shall be no disturbance to vegetated tidal
wetlands or protected buffer areas as a result of the permitted activities.
41. No Construction Debris in Wetland or Adjacent Area Any debris or excess material from
construction of this project shall be completely removed from the adjacent area(upland) and removed to
an approved upland area for disposal. No debris is permitted in wetlands and/or protected buffer areas.
42. Concrete Leachate During construction,no wet or fresh concrete or leachate shall be allowed to
escape into any wetlands or waters of New York State,nor shall washings from ready-mixed concrete
trucks,mixers, or other devices be allowed to enter any wetland or waters. Only watertight or
waterproof forms shall be used. Wet concrete shall.not be poured to displace water within the forms.
43. State Not Liable for Damage The State of New York shall in no case be liable for any damage or
injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused by or result from future operations
undertaken by the State for the conservation or improvement of navigation,or for other purposes, and no
claim or right to compensation shall accrue from any such damage.
44. State May Order Removal or Alteration of Work If future operations by the State of New York
require an alteration in the position of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the
Department of Environmental Conservation it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation
of said waters or flood flows or endanger the health,safety or welfare of the people of the State, or cause
loss or destruction of the natural resources of the State, the owner may be ordered by the Department to
remove or alter the structural work, obstructions, or hazards caused thereby without expense to the State,
and if, upon the expiration or revocation of this permit,the structure, fill,excavation, or other
modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shall not be completed, the owners, shall, without
expense to the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of
Environmental Conservation may require,remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill
and restore to its former condition the navigable and flood capacity of the watercourse. No claim shall
be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration.
Page 6 of 9
Am
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00728
45. State May Require Site Restoration If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit,the
project hereby authorized has not been completed,the applicant shall,without expense to the State, and
to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may
lawfully require,remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site to its
former condition. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account of any such
removal or alteration.
46. Precautions Against Contamination of Waters All necessary precautions shall betaken to
preclude contamination of any wetland or waterway by suspended solids, sediments, fuels, solvents,
lubricants, epoxy coatings,paints, concrete, leachate or any other environmentally deleterious materials
associated with the project.
WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
1. Water Quality Certification The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation hereby certifies.
that the subject project will not contravene effluent limitations or other limitations or standards under.
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217)provided that all of the
conditions listed herein are met.
GENERAL CONDITIONS - Apply to ALL Authorized Permits:
1. Facility Inspection by The Department The permitted site or facility, including relevant records,is
subject to inspection at reasonable hours and intervals by an authorized representative of the Department
of Environmental Conservation(the Department)to determine whether the permittee is complying with
this permit and the ECL. Such representative may order the work suspended pursuant to ECL 71- 0.301
and SAPA 401(3).
The permittee shall provide a person to accompany the Department's representative during an inspection
to the permit area when requested by the Department.
A copy of this permit, including all referenced maps, drawings and special conditions,must be available
for inspection by the Department at all times at the project site or facility. Failure to produce a copy of
the permit upon request by a Department representative is a violation of this permit.
2. Relationship of this Permit to Other Department Orders and Determinations Unless expressly
provided for by the Department, issuance of this permit does not modify, supersede or rescind any order
or determination previously issued by the Department or any of the terms, conditions or requirements
contained in such order or determination.
3. Applications For Permit Renewals,Modifications or Transfers The permittee must submit a
separate written application to the Department for permit renewal, modification or transfer of this
permit. Such application must include any forms or supplemental information the Department requires.
Any renewal,modification or transfer granted by the Department must be in writing. Submission of
Page 7 of 9
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00728
applications for permit renewal,modification or transfer are to be submitted to:
Regional Permit Administrator
NYSDEC REGION 1 HEADQUARTERS
SUNY @ STONY BROOK150 CIRCLE RD
STONY BROOK,NY11790 -3409
4. Submission of Renewal Application The permittee must submit a renewal application at least 30
days before permit expiration for the following permit authorizations:Tidal Wetlands, Excavation&
Fill in Navigable Waters, Water Quality Certification.
5. Permit Modifications, Suspensions and Revocations by the Department The Department
reserves the right to exercise all available authority to modify, suspend or revoke this permit. The
grounds for modification, suspension or revocation.include:
a. materially false or inaccurate statements in the permit application or supporting papers;
b. failure by the permittee to comply with any terms or conditions of the permit;
c. exceeding the scope of the project as described in the permit application;
d. newly discovered material information or a material change in environmental conditions,relevant
technology or applicable law or regulations since the issuance of the existing permit;
e. noncompliance with previously issued permit conditions, orders of the commissioner, any
provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law or regulations of the Department related to
the permitted activity.
6. Permit Transfer Permits are transferrable unless specifically prohibited by statute,regulation or
another permit condition. Applications for permit transfer should be submitted prior to actual transfer of
ownership.
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER PERMITTEE OBLIGATIONS
Item A: Permittee Accepts Legal Responsibility and Agrees to Indemnification
The permittee,excepting state or federal agencies, expressly agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York,its representatives, employees,
and agents("DEC") for all claims, suits, actions, and damages, to the extent attributable to the
permittee's acts or omissions in connection with the permittee's undertaking of activities in connection
with, or operation and maintenance of, the facility or facilities authorized by the permit whether in
compliance or not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. This indemnification does
not extend to any claims, suits, actions, or damages to the extent attributable to DEC's own negligent or
intentional acts or omissions, or to any claims, suits, or actions naming the DEC and arising under
Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules or any citizen suit or civil rights provision
under federal or state laws.
Page 8of9
A&
w
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION low
Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00728
Item B: Permittee's Contractors to Comply with Permit
The permittee is responsible for informing its independent contractors, employees, agents and assigns of
their responsibility to comply with this permit, including all special conditions while acting as the
permittee's agent with respect to the permitted activities, and such persons shall be subject to the same
sanctions for violations of the Environmental Conservation Law as those prescribed for the permittee.
Item C: Permittee Responsible for Obtaining Other Required Permits
The permittee is responsible for obtaining any other permits, approvals, lands, easements and rights-of-
way that may be required to carry out the activities that are authorized by this permit.
Item D: No Right to Trespass or Interfere with Riparian Rights
This permit does not convey to the permittee any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the
,riparian rights of others in order to perform the permitted work nor does it authorize the impairment of
any rights,title, or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a person not a party to the
permit.
Page 9 of 9
95-20-1 (8/87)-s0-
New York .State
Department of. Environment I Conservation
NOW . ' ' N0TCIE
The Department of Environmental Conservation DEC) ha .
issued
permit-(s). pursuant to . the, Environmental Conservation Law
for work - being conducted at this s.ite-. For' further information
regarding the nature and . extent of work .approved .and . any
Departmental conditions on jt, contact the Regional Permit
Administrator listed below.. Please .refer to ' the. permit number .
shown when 'contacting the .DEC. .
Regional Permit Administrator
X73p-o0-'fa
Permit Number , o00/a--.,
ROGER EVANS
.Expiration Date
NOTE: This notice is. NOT a permit
aw.imp
' t' H ,' ° •� }�Q}��r '" „.{� ,� � °e N i t,y ar t s�sj$j+j. + E t
R�F�_ •+Y d ; d r`, y T r fir ' I k T F' ^' �n�� �,;� a
:.�. F +.;..:,t•: r.+ .:: � 'a" h{; �'e*'ey,`is"M N'�: VU
`� si^.. }?+q' 4'r* w-r .SS�.' t�a ,':+ri*hfh 3+'�-t`'w�"i* KEG
r�' v,"•':
V
AWL
la ......
,s �z•, ,-_t -•°�-°a �� � r,+s.` -_a...r -` � .. '^r_ f La�,'�m-,-+i�.e�C:•n ,,E:,-t .r � �., F
yh�' �3Fy ',' `l ¢' ,, a:a'" s'�' 'X' i �•F •`�'a*#
too 1
4
•t��: .�:� �zT a++:E: 1'�, FA y E� + ,.#�" apr. +++ :a w •.+�-;..� a"+ � -V `�j�r s� � rx�+'�tw-Yaa�r�ki�,_,,,+ Ck,� � r
�: y+uw+-+.�aar�ce�a�.5 r :'�:•}y av-# s. �`�,iE-x'11� �'i'^.A�1`tiC�i� `'"+r a 6+'�„d r a a, .�;.a 1•r 'r`TM4�f t p, A '6'.�+. '�r� .c"<
k
��. * �'��'t"'� .u,..`+ r � '`°�'-'�` i.', a _: -'' 7`�'.:'.7+#" ..sk. F• t4 C3�*. K �r.
' %tpc' ►._-
�"�"'te'; * a � tar*•+c*Y'^ "x a xa.l i, .. Zr -+.'r.��+es�r"^�`r .� f
mossyNOW
Y � a," rr t a ��•"< v �' �a�' � LAY r
�`� .'..-a r ��.,.9� *` �;� >�,�,''�° .w w{� � r:�f .;}r�� +,. � ';. # `s3•'�cw+fir } s
F� K
p � u T�•s'P'� *z S .R 2 {#S :� A .:v% •+4r+ `�' 4 Y
MCI xv
PSze",
tip' #F S { :� ; H•#i�`+1*#tiF6iuT' yr�,< j Y t .^r r,:S' . 'fpd.Sti. 7 `:•.,tk$i` ` j t too
J At
ri .rwa IWv.q st'' •y`*+ " 4...:,.'"•r y > .. . 4+H... y` inn
''Y..�4 a :;� �'•Pc ��r*�i,� YE,' '" t s '� r "� � � '�.F`n'�,:+F' �"C rk � .^ .#at +
If
t� ,fir, }�_ ;`i�" �'n ,� g�c? � .�,� �"� >��`'". 4;�;I p•�: �a t,'.
a
U;...._y, 4Euk '�i.;' �' to li f �:�M.iX..:.P iY:`•+ Ne w:� i.
{ )
r
x' V. ���
� F�x� h t'� 't r,i r} ., :- '� t`�a i "t.e�r'1 x .�z• i � r a �
�t3 s si'. ����c�2*F°*� & �,� E � ..:� *� +" .� x �fl w�" r � �k: .��`� s�,y�e •.� �i `
� 'f' t^,• ,'K,�rXrt' •fi' Cy }9, ;. iky
c
s r rj'r r i5 }ct+ a� 1❑ s1 t yi r'�* a rr; u r 3 ? 3'
F1 �M .^t r.:ry '^hr 4 ER I t7+'kE
..:,ar ra 'k •fi„,v 9 #�'t",''eId
MW�
t' �' ° S a ,}t. r'h+a'cr: 4k,,ps ' 'n•'o+,Y y�1 ', , >2:
sir -r .z
b e :a L erC { y, '' Y (-c cv
x _
�sf?'. •�3tu •4}.. y t k
ri#.' •,6 lot
"r :,; `r K I q3,�` x a 1 3 a +a k '?w .''. p'tlx s .rDYS
4 gx
p +' r 3'L" y r ems r` a+r + ws..:a. t +F T• �°
I �Ek �9 *T :��' v*}`t-.:kv' ,� c Ct up'� 'r a I e rr +3 ".IAR9+r�+rr~w—�++` 'f `y+.+ a• 5 r . i E ,�'
ye MIT
MPH
�„-r > it.+..• ,,�}`�+' t 'E. -yk��.. t-ar.4 � i?W � r r r p�r. '�r `,v", �6 `
•f�pEi/��+f T R"�� I i's�' � TN 1 Y _F i '�i]�jyf� y�y�f.,�j'(p�•t6.�`k<��� �f k. �� {�.
t *W:
t � "
+ . ,3.. .ir'*i�_4'tx µPI'•..,ysy. »3W n —R %t+l; ,..%v7,F,. ....4. gzY_i4 ry{ldv. ,i• C+ `.t2.. c1i}.6.
- u � a�a t+MX+Fk dA'd'.✓- x
At
i
-sr
>'
k
e E
� f H
<
\
e QUANTITIES \ \` `•\ 'K
p� rI..W.fO11MMJ Y9 uY, \
11
LOCATION MAP
f �..,...,....�.,......o.u.-..e....aae ,e«ew -. 'F % �� i i � i / /". •\ t.
sw4.r.goo• eoo t� /% % 'f 1 \ 1 I y.. -'+°x ,�' •\\ 1Y
ll
rue90Ro�,o}ti ;tiOM .xra�+� s+.�,� 1 `�.- t' ��.;;?Y;; ": .�...... � ,i'1•
roa�ie+c�rnp;Ks�er��b�Y�,;E•t;^�?r� � � ' i,'- ; i - _ ' %,j//.
.ire.uoa n.ae.e ��v / '„ •` - '- / 9� � ;
°! ior+owu�" tm�sam. �, ��.�.w..w n..uee w � s•
ONN
�I,=...S.a►m. - ."."' F wdiew «.:.rears / ...m
� � 3 _ ,., �� ✓./.fir' - wr:n°reccn�ro
r .srnwtn
5i
sSTABILIZW CONSTRUCTION e+TRNwe - x 6 1 nrr..newa.ae f•i
y pPLN .
� ;��,.✓ ' �'yn sr�s mx ne.«nenx n nuN
' � rr S afeON?0. lw4l'•!O' �rAr�sr raw.mw ow
f 1�
Q�n�
2855 Shipyard Lana�` C �
\ I ASMWED INTMi*%,E.'.ZONE 1'%ISTIN6 NIGH MAR3N
sa oo.mx sn _ \I ODD SF)FOLLONNS,BQAT
\ I !L DREp61N6
'Pan--ND(6.461 9P) \
D6V4TERED DREDGE SPOILS TO
14=1Z �y.....u•...•. .
•�l • ••�•••• / BE DEPOSITED NTMIN M
1, •.u,m wu _ ..y f....................
•T.•....ACCESS... +•�•• •• •' I��" 'ACC / ON-Sfi!9ETILIN6 11,600NS OR
... f 1.9••" ESS• oMR AL"O.A 11 UPLAND
F l • I D LOGATONS
'�{! a°..vne.. -._-.�__ .�o• i f r.'� i I �a•/ .� //. � •'•h~�•• \ b -____/, i,,
SILT FeWlf+s AND/oR 9TRAY/YBALE9 • '� 1 �• •� b, �• ,
TO'EC M9TALLW Nb MNWAIMM ve.,. W ` l�'•' /'
G o •Uro /µOF D M DOIM XOFE/oF M • j I A \
f PROJECT AREA LIMITD,AS •• %••• /
tiGE96ARYi J••• • WA .... NS
AT
;, .•.s•.wa wv.�» .%/ ,�' ••N•'r•• ''•r / 1NTERTroA.201E Ea MARINA TO \�- •C ,t /'
.f - N.A' ••'• VESETA�WT11 LOW MARSN 1 '
I o�n ne woo \� niaa. VOLIRE TO BeOREDO ••" •. • GORD6RAS6(SFRI I� a arsj -? \'�j, i I
EOAT DPROMONANE. ,.�;�•M..••'••••f� (DE 'EnA+o PLANnNs M / _ TIDAL AIY9OLMARY
VOLUMRO
E TO X (APP %.400]C.YJ •``•.��•• ""' d�A 1 % _A%MLI DAVIM p
++f sou.oe,.wun EXCAVATED AND : �• ,.n Q VNB I/*719!
1. SACKPILLED �•O- • ,yl YO ! )Y
(APPROX 900 C.Y) ' rel
p SECTION A-A-TYPICAL TIMBER BULKHEAD _ y �` p- _ j \\
w.nw 1'
,.•..m-----' — ------------------- —�—" 5 kf' 6 ...gn"4.w •y+ c >/�Q.x7�6 < .. y �
'. TIMSM
JETTY
-- ,b moo' TIMMR
----------- -- ,?------ -- � I � / � R'* .rTTY
EXCAVATED
(APPROX.400 C.v1 \``, •71
• .s
\ �' L • NEY'/
PROTECTdD AND ,,•,�\,
••..... •'•••• MMaT IVE o
ARMOIVENT
5ECTION-BULKHEAD AND ROCK REVETMENT .•y r�
M• t I /� +t�r.1 oREoero cNANNEL ,ads
(A.71;.G3 9.F.V.4.O10 G1•) 91.
/ 1 ✓ �.'1'r�4l b� �(.9 PROTECTIVE ARMORfBIT e.
• •D�,,f•' ,��� waN- (AREA.9b405P) u
DETAILED PLAN
SECTION 5-5 CHANNELQ
M• _ 6.a1•,1'.4C Mon,MghU wa!vsn.•non,n„
! n•...bll. R�.wm
D. f,yt A.n+.n•nwvnci••...+.ww+
2855 Shlpyard Lone
n 9' . . . IEwW?.Ik Temw Y-k IE
)i ✓ r ���
.,..... ...,..,.....,..,n o.na„ .mow .. _ MO*.ld,ReV b—t-A Dodging Pl-
..u�. �. SECTION-DREDGE SPOIL DRYING AREA® .,ay.`r•.,ro�.MnA
...,.u...� .oro wEw
InM'd
' ti w.TMN ■
`ST
DETAIL-TYPICAL BULKHEAD PLAN.VIEW -
�
Mm
lh- i
ry, in PLAN
x
� 1
• f s'a
• kx� ., is �•.
..S} e^• ELEVATION
DETAIL-TIMBER JETTY ELEVATION 'TYPICAL BUL ° DETAIL-TIMBER FLOAT AND GANGAAY
2835 Shipyard Lane
erZ.
smkmnc-64�m—-a
' ENkh•od,R•vtm•nt and 17 D•ta11.
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ONE COMMERCE PLAZA
ANDREW M. CUOMO 99 WASHINGTON AVENUE CESAR A. PERALES
GOVERNOR ALBANY, NY 12231-0001 SECRETARY OF STATE
March 25,2014
Mr. David Kennedy
VHB Engineering
2150 Joshua's Path, Suite 300
Hauppauge,NY 11788
RE: F-2013-0873
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/New York District Permit
Application- Oki-Do Ltd.c/o Dr.Kazuko Tatsumura
Hillyer,President-In-kind replacement of 1,323±linear
feet of bulkheading located along the Gardiners Bay
shoreline and an existing marina basin. Recovery dredging
of—900 cy for backfill at this location. Installation of a
455±-linear foot rock revetment seaward of the bulkhead.
Recovery dredging of—600 cy for backfill at this location.
In-kind replacement of 186±linear feet of timber jetties.
Removal of an existing fixed boat dock and installation of a
132^linear foot floating dock within the marina basin.
Dredging of 4,022±cubic yards of sediment from the
existing marina basin boat channel,with—300 cy used as
backfill and the remainder dewatered and placed upland.
Planting of Spartina alternaflora along the eastern shoreline
within the boat basin. Gardiners Bay, Town of Southold,
Suffolk County.
General Concurrence-Proposal Modified To Be
Consistent
Dear Mr. David Kennedy:
The Department of State received your modified proposal on March 21, 2014 for the above referenced
project.
The modified proposal involves the following:the size of the proposed revetment has been reduced to 3,640
sf and now consists of a row of two toe-armor stones to be installed along the base of the bulkhead. The
proposed base layer of blanket stones and upper layer of capping stones have been reduced proportionately
as shown on the project plans dated last revised 02/12/2014.
The Department of State has determined that this proposed activity,which has been modified to be consistent
with the New York Coastal Management Program,meets the Department's general consistency concurrence
criteria. Therefore, further review of the proposed activity by the Department of State, and Department's
concurrence with an individual consistency certification, are not required.
This General Concurrence is without prejudice to and does not obviate the need to obtain all other applicable
MMMOS.NY.GOV E-MAIL:INFO@DOS.NY.GOV
F-2013-0873 GCM
OKI-Do,LLC
p.2
licenses,permits,other forms of authorization or approval that may be required pursuant to existing State
statutes. Specifically, it appears that you may require authorization from the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation(DEC). Please contact the DEC Region 1 office to determine if their
authorization is required.
When communicating with us regarding this matter,please contact Jennifer Street at(518)474-6000 (e-mail:
Jennifer.Street@dos.ny.gov)and refer to our file#F-2013-0873.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Zappieri
Supervisor, Consistency Review Unit
Division of Coastal Resources
JZ/jls
cc: COE/New York District—Jun Yan(NAN-2013-01475-EYA)
DEC/Region 1 —Kendall P.Klett(1-4738-00728/00012)
"::�) uk.N)�-
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY D r In r �c��,
NEWYORK DISTRICT,
ORS
JACOB K.JAVITS FEDERAL
26 FEDERAL PLAZA SEP 2 2 2014
NEW YORK,NEW YORK 10278-0080
Southoin Tc„Nn
Planning Board 46
Regulatory Branch— Eastern Permit Section SEP 19 2014 -
Subject: Permit Application Number NAN-2013-01475-EYA
by Oki-Do Ltd
Oki-Do Ltd.
20 West 64th Street, Suite 24E
New York, NY 10023
Dear Sir:
Correspondence from the Town of Southold expressing concerns regarding the
Public Notice issued for your proposal has been received by this office. A copy of the
letter is enclosed. You must demonstrate to this office that you have satisfied the Town of
Southold's request to complete the SEQRA process.
Please note that in order for us to continue processing your application you must
submit the above requested information to this office within 30 days of this letter.
If any questions should arise concerning this matter, please contact Jun Yan at
(917) 790- 8092.
Sincerely,
un Yan,
Proje nager
East n Section
Enclosure
Cc:
Mr. David Kennedy—VHB Engineering
Mr. Donald Wilcenski -Town of Southold
John M.Bredemeyer III,President so Hall Annex
Michael J.Domino,Vice-President 'l0 lQ 54375 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
James F. King,Trustee Southold,New York 11971-0959
Dave Bergen,Trustee G
Charles J.Sanders,Trustee Telephone(631) 765-1892
O! Fax(631) 765-6641
��4UNT'I,�c�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD u
SEN 10c�,.+ L :
September 9, 2014 Othoic, .,11.11
ginning f3o r
Oki-Do Ltd.
Attq: Dr. Kazuko Tatsumura Hillyer, President
20 W. 64 Street, Unit 24E
New York, NY 10023
RE: 2835 SHIPYARD LANE, EAST MARION
SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1
Dear Mr. Tatsumara Hillyer:
This office is in receipt of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice Number: NAN-
2013-01475-EYA for Oki-Do Ltd. for proposed activity of dredging with 10 year
maintenance, bulkhead replacement, rock revetment construction, and new dock
construction.
Please be advised that in addition to the regulatory requirements of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, this office has jurisdiction over aspects of this project under
Chapter 275 and Chapter 111 of the Southold Town Code.
Please complete an application for this project which is enclosed along with a copy of
the Town Codes for your convenience.
Sincerely,
�ohn M. Bredemeyer III, President
Board of Trustees
Cc: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
Town of Southold Planning Dept.
Enclosures
• • MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS OF SU(/r P.O. Box 1179
DONALD J.WILCENSKI �o�� yp�o Southold, NY 11971
Chair OFFICE LOCATION:
WILLIAM J.CREMERS Town Hall Annex
PIERCE RAFFERTY G • Q 54375 State Route 25
JAMES H.RICH IIIp (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
MARTIN H.SIDOR y('Qu � Southold, NY
Telephone: 631 765-1938
www.southoldtownny.gov
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Via Federal Express
September 9, 2014
Ms. Jodi M. McDonald, Chief, Regulatory Branch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New York District
Rm. 1937, 26 Federal Plaza
Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
New York, NY 10278-0090
Re: Public Notice Number: NAN-2013-01475-EYA
Dear Ms. McDonald:
The Town of Southold Planning Board is in receipt of the Public Notice, dated
August 12, 2014, in connection with the Oki-Do Ltd. Department of the Army application
and objects to its issuance at this time for the reasons set forth below:
1. In 2003, the Town of Southold Planning Board accepted a Site Plan
Application to construct a holistic health center located at the southerly
end of Shipyard Lane on Gardener's Bay, in the hamlet of East Marion,
Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, on an 18.7-acre parcel in the MII
Zone also identified as SCTM #1000-38-7-7.1. The proposed Site Plan
included a total of 114 transient motel rooms consisting of 23 guest lodges
totaling 87 accessory motel units, a main spa building along with a 185-
seat restaurant (103 private guest seats, 72 public guest seats), 10 public
bar seats, office space, retail gift shop, 27 personal service treatment
suites and accessory uses. The proposed project also involved a 3,864
sq. ft. private restaurant annex with 45-99 private guest seats and a
covered 758 sq. ft. deck, 1,987 sq. ft. Manager's residence with a 687 sq.
ft. deck, pool, a 7,205 sq. ft. maintenance and utility building, a sanitary
waste treatment facility, 1,160 sq. ft. for three (3) gazebos and man-made
water features. Additionally, and most pertinent for your review, the
subject project also included the replacement of the existing bulkhead,
dredging of the 16-slip private marina basin, and various outdoor
amenities.
Ms. Jodi M. McDonald
Page 2
September 9, 2014
2. In 2006, the Town of Southold Planning Board was established as Lead
Agency for the action and, as such, conducted a coordinated review and
issued a Positive Declaration. In connection with its review, the Planning
Board required scoping and a Final Scope, dated November 6, 2006, was
adopted (copy attached). Thereafter, a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (hereinafter referred to as "DEIS") was submitted, but was
found to be incomplete with respect to the aforementioned Final Scope. A
letter requesting revisions to the DEIS was sent to the applicant on
November 18, 2008, and no further action was taken by the applicant for
approximately five (5) years.
3. On February 26, 2013, the Planning Board issued a letter to the applicant
indicating that the application would be considered withdrawn due to
inactivity, unless a letter was submitted within 60 days stating the reasons
for the delay. On March 8, 2013, the applicant submitted a response to
the Planning Board indicating that it was the intent of the applicant to
continue with the Site Plan, however, to date, we have not received any
further communication from the applicant.
Based on the foregoing, the Planning Board respectfully requests that you suspend your
review of the Oki-Do Ltd. permit application until the applicant completes the pending
SEQRA process. The Planning Board is awaiting a DEIS it requested in 2006 and
cannot continue its review until receipt. Further, it is the position of this Board that the
cumulative impact analysis required by SEQR cannot be adequately satisfied if the
project is segmented as defined by Part 617.2(ag), to wit "... the division of the
environmental review of an action so that various activities or stages are addressed as
though they were independent, unrelated activities needing individual determinations of
significance".
Here, the approval sought from the Army Corps is part of the "whole action" and
any issuance of a Dept. of the Army permit would be premature as the full
environmental impact analysis as identified by the Final Scope is incomplete.
Please contact this office if you have any further questions.
Very truly yours,
Donald J. Wilcenski
Chairman
Enclosure
Ms. Jodi M. McDonald
Page 2
September 9, 2014
cc: Joseph Martens, NYS DEC Commissioner
Sheri Aicher, NYS DEC, Stony Brook, NY
Mark Wolfgang, NYS Department of Transportation
Jennifer Street, NYS Department of State
Christopher Lubicich, PE, Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Kimberly Kennedy, Suffolk County Water Authority
Andrew Freleng, Suffolk County Planning Commission
Honorable Scott A. Russell, Supervisor
Martin Finnegan, Town Attorney
Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk
Leslie Weisman, Chairperson, Zoning Board of Appeals
Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector
John Bredemeyer, Chairman, Board of Trustees
Michael Collins, Town Engineer
Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator
Southold Town Architectural Review Committee
MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Q�SOUr P.O. Box 1179
JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE �o�� y�lO Southold, NY 11971
Chair
OFFICE LOCATION:
KENNETH L. EDWARDSCA Town Hall Annex
MARTIN H.SIDOR • Q 54375 State Route 25
GEORGE D.SOLOMON �lp (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
JOSEPH L.TOWNSEND �/`'vtpny Southold,NY
t i
Telephone: 631765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
November 6, 2006
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Proposed Site Pian for Gaia Holistic Circle, Oki-Do Ltd.
Located approximately 3,278 ft. s/o New York State Road 25 at the s/e end of Shipyard
Lane known as 2835 Shipyard Lane in East Marion
SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1 Zone: M-ll, Marine 11 District
Dear Mrs. Moore:
The following resolution was adopted at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on
Monday, November 6, 2006:
WHEREAS, this proposed action requires a special exception and site plan to construct a holistic
health center with a total of 114 transient motel rooms consisting of 23 guest lodges totaling 87
accessory motel units (14 lodges containing 3 unit motel rooms & 9 guest lodges containing 5 unit
motel rooms). The remaining 27 motel units are to be located in the main spa building along with a
185 seat restaurant (103 private guest seats, 72 public guest seats), 10 public bar seats, office
space, retail gift shop, 27 personal service treatment suites and accessory uses. The proposed
action also involves a 3,864 sq. ft. private restaurant annex with 45-99 private guest seats and a
covered 758 sq. ft. deck, 1,987 sq. ft. manager's residence with a 687 sq. ft. deck, pool, a 7,205 sq.
ft. maintenance and utility building, a sanitary waste treatment facility, 1,160 sq. ft. for three (3)
gazebos, man-made water features, replacement of the existing bulkhead, dredging of the 16 slip
private marina basin, and various outdoor amenities on a 18.7 acre parcel in the MII Zone located
approximately 3,278 ft. south of New York State Road 25 at the south east end of Shipyard Lane
known as 2835 Shipyard Lane in East Marion. SCTM # 1000-38-7-7.1, and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617, Article 6 of
the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
initiated the SEQR lead agency coordination process for this Type I action pursuant to Part 617.4
(b) (6)(i); and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board assumed lead agency for this
Type I action; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2006, the Southold Planning Board adopted a Positive
Declaration for the proposed action; and
r
GALA Holistic Circle (OKI-DO) Page Two November 6, 2006
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2006, that pursuant to Article 617.13 of the 6NYCC, Part 617
State Environmental Quality Review Act the applicant agents will be financially responsible for
costs incurred for the review and posting of the draft and final Environmental Impact
Statements by the Town of Southold; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2006, the Southold Planning Board pursuant to Article 617.8 held
a public scoping meeting from 4:30p-6:00pm and allowed for comments to be received at the
Planning Department up to October 26, 2006; be it therefore
RESOLVED, pursuant to Article 617.13 of the 6NYCC, Part 617 State Environmental Quality
Review Act the applicant will be financially responsible for costs incurred for the review and
website posting of the draft and final Environmental Impact Statements by the Town'of
Southold as reflected in the estimate of Nelson Pope & Voorhis dated October 30, 2006,
subject to modification; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board pursuant to Article 617.8 adopts the
FINAL SCOPE FOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT prepared by Nelson Pope &
Voorhis, LLC dated November 6, 2006 and require that the agent address all issues.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
?eril'yn B. Woodhouse
Chairperson
cc:
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Southold Town Building Department NYSDEC-Stony Brook
Southold Town Clerk for Southold Town Board New York State Department of Transportation
Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Suffolk County Water Authority
Southold Town Board of Trustees Suffolk County Planning Department
Southold Town Engineer Architectural Review Committee
Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator Army Corps of Engineers
Commissioner, NYS DEC Suffolk County Department of Public Works
New York State Department of State Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Environmental Notice Bulletin Department of Ecology, Kimberly Shaw
File
Enc: Final Scope
- i1V
NELSON,POPE & VOORHIS, LLC
Environmental Consultant to the Planning Board ENVIRONMENTAL • PLANNING • CONSULTING
Environmental
n .ental Co New York 572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD,MELVILLE.NY 11747-2188
Town (631)427-5665 FAX(631) 427-5620
npv@nelsonpope.cim
FINAL SCOPE FOR
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
"GALA HOLISTIC CIRCLE"
Proposed Special Exception Permit for Transient Motel
Shipyard Lane,East Marion,Town of Southold
Suffolk County,New York
Prepared for: Town of Southold
Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
(631) 765-1938
Prepared by: Nelson, Pope&Voorhis, LLC
572 Walt Whitman Road
Melville,New York 11747
(631)427-5665
Contact: Charles J.Voorhis,CEP,AICP
Date: November 6,2006
1..0 Introduction
This document is the Final Scope of the issues and analyses to be included in the DEIS for the
proposed transient motel on a 17.325-acre parcel located at the southerly end of Shipyard Lane
on Gardener's Bay, in the hamlet of East Marion, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk known
as Gaia Holistic Circle.
The analysis of the Gaia Holistic Circle project in a DEIS has been required by the Town of
Southold Planning Board, as Lead Agency for administration of the subdivision review and as
required by the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The requirement
for a DEIS was contained in a Positive Declaration issued by the Planning Board on September
11, 2006.
The information prepared in conformance with this scope and the SEQRA process is intended to
provide comprehensive input in the decision-making process for use by involved agencies in
preparing their own findings and issuing decisions on their respective permits. The document
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
must be concise but thorough, well documented, accurate and consistent. Figures and tables will
be presented in support of the discussions and analyses contained in the document. Technical
information will be summarized in the body of the DEIS and attached in their entirety in an
appendix.
2.0 Brief Description of the Proposed Project
The proposed action requires a special exception and site plan to construct a holistic health
center with a total of 114 transient motel rooms consisting of 23 guest lodges totaling 87
accessory motel units (14 lodges containing 3 unit motel rooms & 9 guest lodges containing 5
unit motel rooms). The remaining 27 motel units are to be located in the main spa building along
with a 185 seat restaurant (103 private guest seats, 72 public guest seats), 10 public bar seats,
office space, retail gift shop, 27 personal service treatment suites and accessory uses. The
proposed action also involves a 3,864 sq. ft. private restaurant annex with 45-99 private guest
seats and a covered 758 sq. ft. deck, 1,987 sq. ft. manager's residence with a 687 sq. ft. deck,
pool, a 7,205 sq. ft, maintenance and utility building, a sanitary waste treatment facility, 1,160
sq. ft. for three (3) gazebos, man-made water features, replacement of the existing bulkhead,
dredging of the 16 slip private marina basin, and various outdoor amenities on a 18.7 acre parcel
in the MIl Zone located approximately 3,278 ft. south of New York State Road 25 at the south
east end of Shipyard Lane known as 2835 Shipyard Lane in East Marion.
A parking area containing 162 spaces is proposed along the length of the western property line
and extending into the northwest portion of the site. A total of 27 stalls will be landbanked for
future parking area expansion. The practicality and adequacy of the proposed parking lot
location is not known at this time, and may vai), based on the proposed site uses and duration of
guest stay. Three (3) ingress/egress points are proposed along Shipyard Lane. An additional
gated ingress/egress point is proposed from Cleaves Point Road along the eastern property
boundary. A loading dock will be provided at the transient hotel building and will be accessible
from the proposed access point located at the southwestem comer of the property. A 20-foot
wide interior, gravel roadway is proposed along the northern and eastern property line to connect
the parking lot area to the Cleave Point Road entrance. It is not known if the Cleave Point Road
access will be utilized for emergency access only, or if this access will be utilized for through
traffic and maintenance vehicles. Ornamental landscaping is proposed throughout the site,
including the required minimum twenty-foot buffer of supplemental landscaping and natural
vegetation maintained along the eastern and northern property perimeters and required minimum
15-foot buffer is proposed along the western property line.
The proposed project also includes repairing/replacing the existing wooden bulkhead that
extends along the western half of the boat basin and adding boat slips along a new dock. This
portion of the bulkhead is in fair to poor condition. The wooden bulkhead indicated on the Site
Plan along the southwest property boundary fronting Gardiners Bay is dilapidated and no longer
functioning. This portion of bulkhead will be replaced with a rock revetment to match that
located on the adjacent Cleaves Point Village property. Information regarding NYSDEC
jurisdiction and permitting is discussed in the Wetlands section below. Any dredging or removal
of fill from the access channel or the boat basin will require acquisition of all the applicable
tee, .•a�� Page 2
Q.nnycrwl�r:!t.• n.r�tlniTxic
MGaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
permits from the Town Board of Trustees, the Army Corps of Engineers, the NYSDEC, and the
NYS Department of State (discussed in the Wetlands section below).
A large manmade pond, containing a landscaped island, several recreational bridges and wooden
decks are proposed in the central portion of the property. The water feature will be accessible
from several different paths throughout the site and will be surrounded by Japanese Gardens and
native landscaping.
A drainage system of catch basins, leaching pools and piping is proposed throughout the site. A
wastewater treatment facility is proposed for the northwest corner of the site. However, no
sanitary calculations are provided in the plans. Additionally, a series of leaching pools and catch
basins are proposed for Cleaves Point Road, in the vicinity of the proposed entrance. The
proposed density and design will be subject to review and approval by the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services.
Site History
The subject property was improved with an oyster-processing facility circa 1964, together with
three smaller detached wooden and metal buildings. One or more of these detached buildings
was used for maintenance and/or repair activities,since equipped with waste oil and other oil
USTs, and as a machine shop. In addition, an existing metal storage and maintenance building,
likely used for boat maintenance, was completed in 1983 and East End Diesel, Inc., a diesel
engine repair and remanufacturing company, occupied the southernmost building from the late
1980s to circa 1996. The oyster-processing facility ceased operations circa 1988 and the subject
property is currently vacant. Single-family homes and crop fields historically surrounded the
subject property.
Approvals
In order to develop the site as proposed, the following approvals are required:
Town of Southold Board of Appeals Special Exception Use
Town of Southold Planning Board Site Plan
Town of Southold Highway Department Road Work Permit
Town of Southold Town Trustees Wetlands Permit
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Article 4 Water Supply
Article 6 Sewage Treatment PIant
Suffolk County Water Authority Water Supply Connection
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 1. Notice of Intent—SPDES General
Permit for Stormwater Discharges
During Construction Activities
2. SPDES Discharge Permit
3. Tidal Wetlands Permit
4. Mining Permit for Ponds(if
applicable)
NYS Department of State Coastal Consistent
U.S.Amy Corps of Engineers Individual Permit
Page 3
�ra�.r�wnr«•cs.cane:uTwcs
• Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.0 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts
The following description of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed project has been taken
verbatim from the Planning Board's Positive Declaration of September 11, 2006:
1. The site has been evaluated in accordance with the Criteria for Determining Significance as contained
in SEQRA 6NYCRR Part 617.7 (c). The proposed action has been evaluated through review of the
following materials:
• Site and architectural plan and architectural elevation drawing prepared by Butt, Otruba-
O'Connor Architects,
• Part I and II of the Environmental Assessment Form(EAF),
• Site plan application,
• Traffic Impact Study prepared by Dunn Engineering,
• Environmental Site Assessment(ESA)Report prepared by Longshore Environmental,
• Site plan use diagram,
• Informational letter from Butt, Otruba-O'Connor Architects,
• Independent site inspection,
• Planning Board deliberation on materials supplied by the applicant, the consultant, and planning
staff.
Based upon this thorough review, the Planning Board identified potential significant adverse
environmental impacts in connection with the proposed project. Additional supporting findings are
provided below.
2. The Criteria for Determining Significance are specifically evaluated with respect to this action, as
follows:
a. Substantial adverse change in existing ground or surface water quality or quantity, traffic or noise
levels; increase in solid waste production; leaching or drainage problems.
The proposed action may significantly change the subject site such groundwater or surface water
quality, traffic, noise levels, solid waste production, leaching or drainage problems may occur.
Insufficient information has been provided in which to accurately assess these impacts.
b. The removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation or other significant adverse impact to
natural resources.
The NYS Heritage Program Database Records indicates there are no known rare species or
ecological communities located within the project area; however, historical and recent records
indicate the presence of several threatened and endangered vascular plants and birds in the
vicinity of the project site.
c. The impairment of the environmental characteristics of a Critical Environmental Area as
designated pursuant to subdivision 617.14(g).
The EAF indicates that the subject site is not located within a Critical Environmental Area
(CEA). However, due to the site's location on Gardiners Bay / Orient Harbor, potential
Page
Gais Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
significant adverse impacts were identified as a result of the proposed project, particularly as it
relates to water quality, harbor use and scenic resources.
d. The creation of a material conflict with a community's current plans or goals as officially
approved or adopted.
The proposed project had a preliminary evaluation in terms of land use, zoning, and land use
plans that establish a community's plans and goals. The overall size and scope of the project
appears to be in conflict with adjoining land uses and zoning. The project's consistency with the
East Marion Hamlet Study, Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, State Coastal Management
Program, etc. shall also be evaluated.
e. The impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural, or
aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character.
NYS OPRHP has noted that the area of the proposed project has not been comprehensively
surveyed and recommended that a Phase 1 archeological survey be conducted unless sufficient
evidence of substantial prior ground disturbance can be documented.
f. A major change in the use of either the quantity or type of energy.
The proposed project involves a significant increase in energy use. Impacts to local facilities
shall be analyzed.
g. The creation of a hazard to human health.
The proposed project may result in unsafe pedestrian movement throughout the site in addition to
use of public streets for site operations.
h. A substantial change in the use, or intensity of use, of land including agricultural, open space or
recreational resources,or in its capacity to support existing uses.
The proposed project significantly increases the intensity of use on the site, resulting in potential
adverse impacts to traffic, sanitary and water generation/use, water quality, noise and visual
resources, as well as community character.
i. The encouraging or attracting of a large number of people to a place or places for more than a few
days,compared to the number of people who would come to such place absent the action.
It is expected that the proposed action would attract a significant number of people for more than
a few days; however, proposed site uses, possible public access to site facilities like the
restaurants and duration of guest stay have not been specified.
j. The creation of a material demand for other actions that would result in one of the above
consequences.
The proposed project is not expected to create a material demand for other actions that would
exacerbate or create other impacts.
aa,� s vr�a Page 5
�MIRCtJIVNJTJL• �.C'.df•4l1_t TIKE
Caia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
k. Changes in two or more elements of the environment, no one of which has a significant impact on
the environment, but when considered together result in a substantial adverse impact on the
environment.
The proposed project does propose a significant physical site alteration and the intensity of
proposed use may have combined adverse impacts on the environment.
1. Two or more related actions undertaken, funded or approved by an agency, none of which has or
would have a significant impact on the environment, but when considered cumulatively would
meet one or more of the criteria.
There are no other pending projects in the vicinity of the project site which when considered
cumulatively with the proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental
impacts.
3. The site's sensitive waterfront location and area resources may be affected by the proposed project
and insufficient information has been provided in which to accurately assess significant
environmental impacts that may be associated with the proposed project. Anticipated adverse
impacts do not appear to be minimized or mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Alternatives
to the proposed action that will reduce potential impacts shall be examined.
4.0 Ore anization and Overall Content of the DEIS Document
The DEIS must conform with the basic content requirements as contained in 6NYCRR Part
617.9 (b)(3). The outline of the DEIS shall include the following sections:
COVER SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED Aci,m
1.1 Project Background,Need,Objectives and Benefits
1.1.1 Background and History
1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives
1.1.3 Objectives of the Project Sponsor
1.1.4 Benefits of the Project
1.2 Location and Site Conditions
1.3 Project Design and Layout
1.3.1 Overall Site Layout
1.3.2 Grading and Drainage
1.3.3 Access,Road System and Parking
1.3.4 Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply
1.3.5 Site Landscaping and Lighting
1.3.6 Open Space
1.4 Construction and Operation
1.4.1 Construction
1.4.2 Operation
1.5 Permits and Approvals Required
:...- "�CONM-L rV40 Page 6
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
2.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
2.1 Soils and Topography
2.1.1 Existing Conditions
2.1.2 Anticipated Impacts
2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation
2.2 Water Resources
2.2.1 Existing Conditions
2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts
2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation
2.3 Ecology
2.3.1 Existing Conditions
2.3.2 Anticipated Impacts
2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
3.1 Transportation
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
3.1.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.2 Land avid Water Use,Zoning and Plans
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.3 Community Facilities and Services
3.3.1 Existing Conditions
3.3.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.3.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.4 Aesthetic Resources and Community Character
3.4.1 Existing Conditions
3.4.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.4.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources
3.5.1 Existing Conditions
3.5.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.5.3 Proposed Mitigation
4.0 OTHER REQUIRED SECTIONS
4.1 Construction Related Impacts
4.2 Cumulative Impacts
4.3 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided
4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
4.5 Growth-Inducing Aspects
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 No Action Alternative
5.2 Alternative Site Designs
6.0 REFERENCES
APPENDICES
Page 7
CRSJ�I.TIM']
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
5.0 Extent and Quality of Information Existing and Needed
As required under SEQRA, the DEIS shall include "a statement and evaluation of potential significant
adverse impacts at a level of detail that reflects the severity of the impacts and the reasonable likelihood
of their occurrence". Included in this evaluation shall be reasonably related short-term and Iong-term
impacts, with other required sections identified in the Section 6.0 of this scoping document. This section
further describes the level of analysis and the type of analysis expected with respect to the key
environmental impacts of the project as outlined in the Positive Declaration. Each major section is
followed by a description of the extent and quality of information needed to perform the evaluation of
each of the impacted resources.
Description of the Proposed Project
Background and History
• There shall be a brief description of the site and application history; this shall include a
full description of the existing and historic use of the site, dredging and site
improvements, status of current use, site ownership and related background and history.
• Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments related to site conditions shall be
summarized and attached or excerpts attached to establish background conditions; site
remediation shall be identified.
Public Need and Municipality Objectives
• Include justification of proposed project in terms of Town goals for site.
• Public need for the project shall be discussed; indicate market study used to assess the
need and viability of the facility; indicate potential for conversion of site to other use
based on non-viability of facility or lack of need.
• Population served by the project shall be identified.
• Public access to the waterfront shall be discussed.
Objectives of the Project Sponsor
• The objectives of the project sponsor shall be included and discussed.
• The objectives of the project sponsor shall indicate the Gaia Holistic Circle form of
treatment/lifestyle as related to site use and design.
Benefits of the Project
• Include a discussion of the community benefits expected to accrue from the proposed
project.
Location and Site Conditions
• Using appropriate mapping and/or tables, describe location of site, in terms
adjacent/nearby significant properties, zoning and service districts, available services, etc.
• The existing conditions of the site in terms of bulkheads, mean high water, mean low
water, site survey, structures, vegetative cover shall be provided as an overall background
of existing site conditions.
• A summary of subsurface conditions and features, suspected contamination on the site
and in the area proposed for development, as well as remediation initiatives.
�'" .� .a�"c orML TrAN Page 8
Gaia holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Prgject Design and Layout
• Overall Site Layout - include a brief description of the site and project layout; describe
basis for site yield, proposed structures, services, utilities, access points, road system,
drainage, marina and include a site quantities table.
• Use Design/Description - address breakdown of use areas from a structural standpoint;
indicate if the "patio' will be covered; describe any retail activities on site (sale items,
access to public).
• Architecture- the architecture, height and appearance of structures shall be identified.
• LEED -Details on the LEED green building certification being sought for this project.
• Regulations -ADA compliance features and FEMA Flood Plain development compliance
as related to structural improvements; indicate requirements, design parameters and
proposed design; indicate first floor elevations of buildings required and proposed.
• Dredging - details on dredging and bulkhead project; dredge spoil, volume and quality;
dredge spoil dewatering, dredge spoil disposal.
• Marina and Bulkhead/Revetment - the marina installation shall be fully described
including bulkheading and revetment (including cross sections, materials used, stone size,
bulkhead type, backfill, etc.), dredging, piles and floats, access, function; etc.; indicate if
fuel tanks will be installed anywhere on premises and who will have access.
• Grading - the grading program and associated areas disturbed shall be discussed along
with volumes of soil excavated, cut/filled, removed from site and maximum depths of
cut/fill; fill needed for sanitary, drainage or structures shall be identified; grading for the
proposed access to the managers residence shall be outlined; quantity of fill behind
proposed bulkhead.
• Drainage - site drainage and proposed drainage system and provide capacity and function
information shall be provided along with a discussion of conformance to NYSDEC
SPDES stormwater and erosion control regulations for construction and post-construction
conditions; use of the lake/stream system for drainage shall be identified if intended as
well as function, capacity and viability in view of depth to groundwater constraints.
• Lake/Stream System - details on the lake and stream system, method of
construction/lining; water supply; soil removal/re-grading, design and depth of features,
make-up water and source, vector control, filtration/treatment equipment, stocking with
fish and species, wildfowl control, stormwater retention qualities if applicable; vegetation
and landscaping.
• Access - the vehicle access points, internal roadway layout and traffic circulation shall be
identified.
• Parking - the adequacy of on-site parking shall be discussed; required parking as required
by a breakdown of parking requirements for each sub-use shall be provided; this will
establish the basis for the parking variance; the amount and adequacy of proposed
parking shall be determined; use of permeable pavement shall be described in detail in
terms of location and use; identify the location of loading docks and dumpster locations.
• Water Supply - include a description of water supply source, infrastructure and
availability, water main routing to access the site; irrigation well water supply,
lake/stream "make up" water, and proposed wastewater handling and corresponding use
of water supply and sanitary design flow.
4.
Page
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Utilities - the sizes and locations of all utilities and services shall be described along with
the status of future possible connection.
• Lighting - the Town lighting requirements, proposed lighting and an illumination analysis
shall be provided and described for all aspects of the project including parking areas, the
restaurant and other site improvements; compliance with"dark skies"shall be identified.
• Landscaping - information on the type, amount and location of landscaping proposed
shall be provided as well as information on maintenance requirements such as irrigation
and fertilization under operation and maintenance; information on buffers around the site
perimeter, retention of existing trees and other buffering techniques shall be identified;
the plant list shall be reviewed and described to ensure that "invasive" species are not
introduced to the site; screening of dumpsters, recreational activities and parking shall be
addressed.
• Amenities — describe all amenities on site including outdoor use, tennis courts, arenas,
playgrounds, use of beach and limits on off-site use of facilities, etc.
• Open Space Management • include a discussion on retained open space areas; areas of
dedication, areas of retention by applicant; easements or restrictions to ensure retention of
open space.
Construction
• The construction and operation/maintenance of the site shall be fully discussed.
• Demolition of the existing buildings including safety and protection of neighboring
properties.
• Remediation based on the Phase I/II ESA.
• Project phasing(if applicable).
• Method of construction, construction schedule/timetable, days of the week; indicate
Town code restrictions of nuisance activities and compliance.
• Construction management, equipment storage/staging, delivery routes, hours of
operation,workers' parking,protection of natural and sensitive areas.
• Protection of workers and worker safety during construction shall be evaluated.
• Need to modify overhanging trees on Shipyard Lane for construction or operation.
• Quantity of soil import/export, truck routes,management and mitigation.
• Dredging and bulkhead project details; staging areas; construction methods; dewatering
areas; disposal areas; dredge removal truck trips; time frames for construction.
Operation
• In terms of operation, describe the management and protection of open space; describe
Organization management and operation; describe road, landscape and open space
maintenance practice, describe any special conditions which may apply.
• Detailed description identifying which of the site uses (if any) will be open to the public
(i.e., the marina, restaurant, spa, etc.) and which will be exclusive for hotel guests.
• Uses expected of various locations and facilities within the site; seasons of use, intcnsity
of use, whether the site will be open to special events such as weddings, conferences or
catering events,retail sales.
• Projected number of employees required for the various uses for weekdays, weekends
and seasonal peak periods.
��o Page 10
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Indicate activities such as outdoor parties, placement and use of loudspeakers, concerts or
special events including frequency, location time periods and schedule.
• Truck sizes expected for deliveries and delivery routing, delivery times and truck
unloading areas.
• Location of dumpsters, truck access to dumpsters, hours of dumpster pickup shall be
addressed; indicate if trash compactors will be used.
• Details on internal traffic circulation plan, use of gravel road and general on-site
activities.
• Description of use of golf carts on site.
• Valet parking shall be fully described.
• Description of any generators proposed for the facility.
• Description of operation of the proposed marina, users, frequency of use, etc.
• Seasons of operation of various components of the facility.
• Lighting operations in terms of type, hours lit and.controls shall be discussed.
• Snow removal shall be described as related to parking surfaces and operation.
• Entity responsible for site operations.
• Restrictions on Emergency Access (if proposed) and how the restrictions will be ensured.
• Lake/stream system operation and maintenance; lake "make-up" water; fish stocking;
wildfowl population control; nutrient influx control; mosquito/vector control; aesthetics.
• Water use shall be fully described including: maximum size of vessels, turning radius,
depths, vessel speeds in marina, potential for increased number of private vessels
docking, channel enhancements (increased dredging potential, navigation aids), and
access to existing navigation channels.
• Use and management of open space areas.
• Operation of the marina shall be identified; indicate if fuel storage will occur for marina
patrons.
Permits and Approvals Required
• Identify all required permits and reviews
• Indicate the filing date and status of submissions to the lead and involved agencies.
Natural Environmental Resources
Soils and Topography
• Existing soil, subsoil and topographic conditions shall be analyzed in terms of existing
conditions, proposed conditions and measures which may be employed to minimize
potential significant adverse environmental impacts.
• The existing soil types shall be determined pursuant to the Suffolk County Soil Survey.
• Soil borings shall be described to deterniine subsurface soil quality and depth to
groundwater.
• The topography of the site shall be deterniined using site specific topographic surveys of
the property.
• The soil quality shall be described in terns of analytical results from Phase II sampling.
Page I I
Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Impact to soils shall be discussed in terms of soil constraints pursuant to the Suffolk
County Soil Survey based on the type of land use proposed and the constraints for each
soil type.
• Constraints in terms of depth to groundwater shall be evaluated by establishing that
sanitary and drainage systems can function property; vertical profiles of these systems
establishing minimum surface elevation, maximum groundwater elevation and system
installation to required design standards shall be included.
• Topographic alteration of the site shall be determined through evaluation of the grading
proposed for the site and determination of resultant slopes, volume and disposition/origin
of cut or fill, and proposed changes to topographic elevations; impact of fill for sanitary,
drainage and buildings shall be evaluated; evaluation may include description, profiles,
contour maps and/or other methods to perform effective evaluation; impact of grading for
the proposed managers residence road shall be evaluated.
• Mitigation in terms of soil remediation, erosion control, retention of soils, fugitive dust
and related impacts shall be identified.
Water Resources
• The groundwater management zone as classified under Article 6 of the Suffolk County
Sanitary Code shall be referenced.
• The depth to groundwater in key development locations of the site shall be determined by
use of on-site soil borings; soil borings in all areas of proposed leaching must be included
given constrained site soils, fill,oyster shell, etc.
• The expected direction of groundwater flow based on hydrologic interpolation shall be
identified.
• The existing groundwater quality shall be referenced from existing literature.
• The water supply source, infrastructure and availability, service provider and capacity of
systems shall be established through communication with the water district and analysis
of impacts; water main routing and growth impacts must be evaluated; irrigation water,
well installation and impacts must be examined.
• The expected impact of the project with respect to water quality shall be fully examined
in terms of sanitary discharge compliance, wastewater treatment system operation and
regulatory requirements.
• Applicable Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) regulations and
requirements will be identified in terms of density and current policy on the proposed
wastewater system, and the compliance of the action with same will be evaluated.
• Calculations of projected sanitary flow and consistency with the Suffolk County Sanitary
Code will also be provided.
• The nitrogen budget for the site (considering all potential sources of nitrogen) shall be
determined using mass-balance modeling methods.
• Other water quality impacts related to pesticides, snow melt chemicals (if applicable),
chemical storage and any other sources shall be analyzed.
• The consistency of the proposed action with the findings of the Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program (NURP) and Nonpoint Source Management Handbook will be evaluated as
related to stormwater management and discharge.
• The existing stormwater management system and surface drainage conditions on the site
Page 12
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
will be described. This will include, but not be limited to: stormwater generated,
available information relative to collection and management systems, and system
capacity. In addition, post-development stormwater management conditions will be
evaluated. This evaluation will include: calculations of stornwater to be generated,
details of the proposed collection and management systems, system capacity, future
maintenance practices for stormwater collection and leaching structures and analysis of
how the proposed stormwater management system will comply with applicable
regulatory requirements, including the NYSDEC SPDES GP 02-01 Phase 2 stormwater
regulations.
• The change in hydrology of the site in terns of quantity of recharge under existing and
future conditions shall be established using appropriate hydrologic analysis methods; use
of the irrigation well, drawdown and potential for salt-water intrusion shall be included;
drought conditions water consumption and impact to neighboring private wells; issues
regarding increased water table elevations, functioning of sanitary/drainage recharge
systems and potential to increase flooding in the area shall be addressed.
• Constraints and impacts related to depth to groundwater must be evaluated; depth of
leaching structures (sanitary and stormwater) placement to ensure minimum 2-3' above
the water table, capacity and function shall be considered.
• The DEIS will provide calculations of projected water consumption for each use
proposed and, in consultation with the Suffolk County Water Authority, will evaluate the
ability to meet this projected water demand; the evaporative loss of water from new
surface water features, pond "make up" water, irrigation and all water use shall be
included.
• As the proposed action includes the installation of an irrigation well, the yield of the well
must be provided to determine the need for a Long Island Well Pen-nit and to evaluate the
potential impacts associated therewith.
• Area conditions in terms of drainage and potential for or reported flooding shall be
described.
• As the site is situated in Zone AE, base elevations as promulgated by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would be identified, and a consistency
analysis with same would be included; the Flood Zone line shall be interpolated based on .
"on-site"topography and shall align with the nine(9) foot contour.
• Impact of flooding on sanitary system function, generator function, and
restaurant/hotel/cottage evaculation.
• Mitigation measures which may reduce potential water quality impacts shall be
identified; measures to correct existing flooding and assurance that flooding will not be
exacerbated shall be included; resurfacing of Shipyard Lane and installation of drainage
in the Town right-of-way shall be considered as mitigation; drainage mitigation for area
of Cleaves Point Road near east part of site.
Ecology
• Existing upland habitats shall be inventoried through an inspection of the site by a
qualified biologist/ecologist to detennine the vegetation, wildlife, and general habitat
character. An inventory of flora and fauna observed and expected will be provided in this
section of the DEIS.
.g«L
=='Wl/1�. Fnlrlfl.C.ON%_A.TV.1i9 Page 13
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• In addition, protected native plants, plant and animal species listed as endangered,
threatened, special concern (or with other protective status) and significant habitat areas
on or in the vicinity of the project site will be identified.
• The NY Natural Heritage Program shall be contacted for site file information concerning
habitats, plant and animal species.
• Impact to upland habitats shall be quantified and discussed qualitatively in terms
ecological impact to plants and animals.
• The type, quantity and quality of wetlands present on, adjoining, or in the vicinity of the
site shall be mapped and described using current site conditions and recognizing that the
location of high water has moved landward; wetland jurisdiction of the Federal
government, State and Town shall be established; existing biological conditions of
proposed dredging areas including submerged aquatic vegetation.
• The jurisdiction, regulatory framework and controls of the Federal government, State and
Town shall be established.
• Hydrologic systems supporting these wetlands shall be presented.
• Federal and State wetland maps indicate that the proposed action would be under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ALOE) and the NYSDEC as well as
the Town Trustees. As such, all required wetland permit applications to the ACOS,
NYSDEC and Trustees must be made. Copies of all existing wetland permits would also
be provided (e.g., the existing maintenance dredge permit) and a discussion of each
permit will be included.
• Potential impacts to wetlands shall be evaluated in terms of maintaining or enhancing all
wetlands, maintaining adequate setbacks and ensuring that the hydrology of the systems
(sanitary, stormwater, erosion control, etc.) supporting wetlands is not degraded in
quality or quantity.
• Water use impact must be evaluated including: .marina impacts associated with
installation and operation, adequacy of navigation channels and boat access to site as well
as boat maneuvers within site; include assessment of available pumpout facilities.
• Historical dredging of the basin and historical depth of the basin shall be documented to
establish pre-existing conditions to support the proposed"maintenance"dredging; impact
of dredging on vegetation and wildlife including osprey nests shall be evaluated.
• Dredging and bulkhead project impacts of construction; installation/spoil removal;
dewatering (odor and vector control); dredge spoil placement/disposal; dredge spoil
quality (grain size, organic content, volatile/semivolatile organic compounds, metals,
PCB's and related contaminants) shall be included; impact of the proposed revetment on
surrounding properties shall be determined; analysis shall include physical and biological
littoral processes and impact on submerged aquatic vegetation.
• Setbacks required by State and Town wetland review shall be located and evaluated in
terms of compliance with maintaining setbacks for disturbance/fertilized vegetation,
structures and sanitary installation.
• Management of the land within wetland setback areas shall be formulated to ensure
conformance with the code requirements.
• Mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts shall be identified and method of
implementation determined; details on erosion control to protect site ecology shall be
included.
�,� Page 14
.t: ..,,1—
0 Gain Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Human Resources
Transportation
• Provide a thorough analysis of the traffic impacts of the proposed development on the
area's roadway system. The study shall consider future traffic associated with
employees, guests, visitors, and all aspects of site operations.
• Include analyses of the proposed plan and internal roadway system and a full traffic
impact study assessing the proposed development's impact on the surrounding roadways.
• Sight distance at site and Shipyard Lane and Route 25, road/lane width, circulation and
parking shall be included in this analysis.
• The Traffic Impact Study will include: collection of data regarding planned roadway
improvements and other developments, field surveys and counts of existing traffic
volumes, estimates of future traffic volumes, analyses of existing and future traffic
volumes and identification and timing of required roadway improvements and the entity
responsible for initiating those improvements. The following specific tasks will be
undertaken and documented in the traffic and transportation section of the DEIS:
1. Several personal, on-site field observations to observe the traffic movements under
various conditions.
2. A physical inventory of the adjacent street network.
3. The hourly volume report of the NYSDOT traffic count on Main Road shall be obtained
and included in the traffic study. A review of the count should be performed and the peak
hours occurring on the weekday and weekend should be identified.
4. The following should be included as study intersections with turning movement counts
and analysis conducted during all the time periods:
• Shipyard Lane and Main Road:
• Gillette Drive and Main Road;
• Cleaves Point Condominium driveway and Shipyard Lane.
5. In addition to weekday AM and PM peak period counts, Saturday peak period
intersection turning movement counts at the study intersections should be conducted
during the afternoon and/or evening peak periods identified by review of the Main Road
hourly volumes. Sunday is not typically the busiest weekend day. However, the hourly
volumes should identify which day should be included in the study.
6. Hourly volumes for a seven day period should be collected on Gillette Chive and
Shipyard Lane.
7. Perform a gap study at the study intersections during the peak periods to record available
gaps in traffic along Main Road.
8. The accident analysis should include a rcquest for accident records along Shipyard Lane
and Gillette Drive, at both intersections with Main Road and along Main Road for an
appropriate distance in either direction from each intersection. The accident records
should be reviewed and tabulated.
9. The trip generation calculation should be conducted based upon each of the separate uses
on the site, such as, the restaurant, marina, spa and hotel. The hours of operation, size of
each facility, maximum employees during peak activity, and whether the facility is open
to the public should be identified. Any credit assumed for internal trips should be
supported with documentation. The data from the Hotel I.and Use Code provided by ITE
is not appropriate.
10. A directional distribution analysis to distribute the site-generated traffic onto the
Page 15
MM Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental impact Statement
operate the facility(housing, schools, etc.).
• The DEIS will include detailed projections of service demand with supporting
documentation.
• The existing tax revenue of the site shall be established.
• The DEIS shall consider future taxes, and if it is expected that the use will not be taxed, a
determination shall be made to determine if payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) is
necessary to offset potential impact to community service providers. .
• The emergency services (ambulance, police and fire) which serve the site shall be
identified and contacted for input with respect to continued ability to serve the site.
• Changes associated with the proposed project shall be evaluated in terms of emergency
service access; a practical approach shall be taken to ensure that safe and efficient
emergency service vehicle access to the site can be provided to the site.
• Hydrant instal lation/location and other development considerations which assist in
addressing emergency services shall be included.
• Mitigation for emergency service access to ensure that equipment can ingress/egress the
site shall be included.
Page 18
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Aesthetic Resources and Community Character
• The importance of the site in terms of open space character in the community shall be
established; the type of open space which the site represents and locations of other open
space in the community shall be used in this evaluation.
• The visual character of the existing site conditions shall be identified through ground and
aerial photography using a key for locations of all ground photography.
• The significance of visual character shall be established in terns of the viewing public
and view accessibility.
• Other aspects of the existing visual character in terms of vegetation, lighting, utilities, etc.
shall be identified. "Dark sky"compliance shall be addressed.
• Impacts of the proposed project in terms of community character and visual setting shall
be determined by discussion as well as graphic methods. Locations shall be determined
through analysis of significance to the viewing public, but at a minimum shall include the
view of the site from Gardiners Bay. "To scale" photographic and architectural
renderings are anticipated, with supporting cross-section evaluation and descriptive text
to fully disclose the change of visual character of the site.
• Impact of shadows of large buildings shall be evaluated.
• The impact of use of fill, increase in site elevations, and visual appearance of structures
will be evaluated. The significance of visual impacts will be assessed and mitigation
proposed. Lighting impacts will be discussed from a visual impact perspective; the"dark
sky" compliance shall be evaluated as well as the potential for a "glow" or "halo" effect
from parking areas, the restaurant or other site improvements shall be addressed.
• The change in character and visual setting shall be determined in terms of landscape
vegetation, lighting and utilities.
• Impact associated with the marina operation shall be evaluated in terms of activity, lights,
noise and community land use compatibility impacts.
• The existing noise environment will be evaluated in ternis of ambient noise, sensitive
receptors and community character. The potential noise impacts of the project will be
assessed through identification of source areas, traffic circulation/volume, golf carts, car
doors, backup alarms, building/grounds maintenance, restaurant, waterfall, generator use,
dumpster location, trash compactors (if used) and use, proximity to receptors, distance
and other attenuation, and the significance of potential noise impacts will be assessed.
• Impact of special events (if proposed) shall be evaluated in terms of community
character.
• Impact of gas dock (if proposed) on community safety and pollution potential in
consideration of the surrounding area.
• Population/demographic impacts associated with the use of the site.
• Measures to minimize the impact of loss of open space and change in visual character
and the means for their implementation shall be provided.
Historic and Archaeological Resources
• The historic and archaeological resources of the site will be addressed through a
determination of historic and archaeological sensitivity and preparation of a Stage IA/IB
Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA). The site is within an arca of archaeological
.1:fCMJPIMLLO Page 19
�L�_ � _�.
Gaia Holistic Circle `
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
sensitivity and therefore a Stage IA/IB is required, unless significant ground disturbance
is documented to the satisfaction of the OPRHP. Any mitigation which may be needed
shall be identified.
6.0 Other Required Sections
In addition to the key resources identified in the Positive Declaration, SEQRA identifies other
required sections for a complete DEIS as included in 6NYCRR Part 617.9 (b)(3). Mitigation
measures shall be included with respect to each key impact area as noted in Section 5.0.
Alternatives to be studied are identified in Section 7.0. The following Other Required Sections
and evaluations shall be provided in the DEIS.
• Construction Impacts (Describe the impacts related to construction demolition,
construction, dredge operations, dredge spoil disposal, noise, dust, erosion and
sedimentation, area receptors, applicable nuisance regulations, applicable agency
oversight and safeguards, phasing of the project, staging areas, parking areas, operation
areas, duration,hours, and related mitigation measures to reduce construction impacts).
• Cumulative Impacts (Describe other pending or approved projects in vicinity (East
Marion), determine potential for impacts due to implementation of proposed project in
combination with others and discuss/analyze impacts).
• Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided (Provide brief listing of those adverse
environmental impacts described/discussed previously which are anticipated to occur,
which cannot be completely mitigated).
• Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources (Provide brief discussion of
those natural and human resources which will be committed to and/or consumed by the
proposed project).
• Growth-Inducing Aspects (Provide brief discussion of those aspects of the proposed
project which will or may trigger or contribute to future growth in the area).
7.0 Alternatives to be Studied
SEQRA requires a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action
that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor. As noted in
SEQRA, "The description and evaluation of each alternative shall be at a level of detail sufficient
to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed". The following alternatives
and methods of evaluation are anticipated:
• No Action Alternative -Alternative whereby the site remains in its current condition).
• Potential Acquisition of the site.
• Alternative Design(s) - Design(s) which incorporate(s) features or combinations of
features to provide the following reduced impact alternatives:
➢ Alternative which conforms to LWRP.
➢ Alternative design to conform to a 75 foot impervious/structure setback from current
location of wetlands and placement of the rock revetment above mean high water.
Page 20
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
➢ Alternative parking layout to provide convenience to proposed use areas and reduce
impact to neighboring residential properties (more interspersed parking).
➢ Conversely, consider an alternative to centralize parking and provide internal operations
to provide access to user access to site uses in order to better locate and buffer parking
and reduce off-site impacts.
➢ Alternative design to reduce impervious surface area (particularly the pool patio area) to
increase indigenous landscaping and reduce stormwater, groundwater and wetlands
impacts.
➢ Alternative to remove separate cottages near east property line.
➢ Alternative with reduced building mass of the large building to reduce visual impact.
➢ Reduction in site lighting design to reduce perimeter lighting, impact to Town roads and
adjacent properties.
➢ Alternative building locations to ensure FEMA compliance with less use of fill.
➢ Alternative dumpster locations to reduce impact on neighboring properties.
➢ Alternative driveway configuration to consolidate two driveways into one located farther
north from the Cleaves Point Condominiums.
➢ Alternative south end driveway location to avoid conflicts with public access to the road
end.
➢ Consideration for the use of the Gillette Drive driveway for alternate access in addition to
employee access to distribute vehicle trips.
➢ Consideration for the use of the Gillette Drive driveway for emergency access only.
➢ Consideration for use of the combination of Shipyard Lane and Gillette Drive as a
separate ingress and egress from the site.
➢ Removal of entire length of bulkhead extending seaward of upland property.
Attachments Useful in Document Preparation
• Town Engineer Review Letter of August 25, 2006
• Town LWRP Coordinator Review Letter of October 25, 2006
• Department of State Review Letter of October 17, 2006
Comments,Issues and Scope Items Deemed Not Relevant
• Increase in sea level due to global warming.
• Eminent domain issue.
This document is intended to fulfill the lead agency requirements for issuance of a Final Scope in
accordance with SEQRA Part 617.8. The document assists the lead agency in evaluating the
DEIS for content and adequacy for public review and assists the applicant in understanding the
extent and quality of information needed to evaluate the proposed project and allow the lead
agency and involved agencies to obtain the inforniation necessary to reach an informed decision
on the project.
Page 21
AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC NOTICE
US Army Corps
of Engineers ', ' y
g� �-�) In replying refer to:
New York District • '
Jacob K.Javits Federal Building s Public Notice Number: NAN-2013-01475-EYA
New York,N.Y. 10278-0090 -�: Issue Date: 12 August 2013
ATTN: Reoulatory Branch Expiration Date: 12 September 2013
To Whom It May Concern:
The New York District,Corps of Engineers has received an application for a Department of the Army permit pursuant to
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of the Clea Act 33 U.S.C.
1344 ��--�-'� ��.
a, �� CV
_r� _ s
APPLICANT: Oki-Do Ltd. u� r
Attn: Dr. Kazuko Tatsumura Hillyer, President AUG 9 201
2835 Shipyard Lane a u
East Marion, NY 11939
F6anning 0�«riJ
ACTIVITY: Dredging with 10 year maintenance, bulkhead replacement, rock revetment construction and new
dock construction
WATERWAY: Gardiner's Bay
LOCATION: East Marion,Town of Southold,Suffolk County,New York
The detailed Public Notice has been published on the New York District, USACE website at:
http://www.nan.usace.army.millMissions/Regulatory/Regulator yPublicNofices/tabid/4166/Article/494093/nan-2013-
01475-eya.aspx
A copy of this public notice may also be obtained by calling Mr. Jun Yan Project Manager, at 917-790-8092; by email
at iun.yan .usace.army.mil;or by writing to: U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, New York District,Attn: Regulatory Branch,
Jacob K.Javits Federal Building, New York, NY 10278-0090.
Interested parties are requested to express their views,in writing,by following instructions provided in the public notice.
Jodi M. McDonald
Chief, Regulatory Branch
MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERSP.O.Box 1179
DONALD J.WILCENSHI O��OF SDUryOI Southold,NY 11971
Chair Q
OFFICE LOCATION:
WILLIAM J.CREMERS Town Hall Annex
PIERCE RAFFERTY Gr� Q 54375 State Route 25
JAMES H.RICH III iCO �� (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
MARTIN H.SIDOR `OU,M'� Southold, NY
IY'` Telephone: 631765-1938
Fax: 631765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
April 24, 2013
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Site Plan for Shizen, SCTM#1000-38-7-7.1
Dear Ms. Moore:
The Planning Board has reviewed your letter dated March 8, 2013, providing a
response to our request for a justification for your client's four and a half year
delay in submitting a revised DEIS for this application. The Board has accepted
the reason provided, however upon review of the file and surrounding
circumstances, the Board has found that too much time has passed to simply pick
up the application process where it was left in November, 2008. Since that time
there have been Southold Town Code changes, changes to FEMA flood maps, as
well as potential changes to property itself from a series of storms which were
known to have eroded shorelines in this area. These and any other changes
require that the application be updated.
To continue processing this site plan application, the applicant must update the
site plan application to ensure it is consistent with all current Town Code and any
other applicable requirements. Please update and submit all relevant Planning
Board site plan application forms and plans. This update must include a revised
Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department, as well as concurrent
updating of the applications with the other Town agencies with jurisdiction,
including the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Board of Trustees. These
applications will all be run concurrently to avoid segmentation of the SEQRA
process.
0
In addition, the SEQRA documents will also need to be updated to be consistent
with current requirements, though to what extent remains to be determined. The
Planning Board will apply the previously paid site plan application fee to the
updated application. Please, if you have any questions regarding this site plan or
its process, do not hesitate to call this office.
Very truly yours,
Donald J. Wilcenski
Chairman
cc: Michael J. Verity, Chief Building Inspector
Leslie Weisman, Chairperson, Zoning Board of Appeals
James F. King, Board of Trustees President
I
i
i
2
I
I
• orb, it
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold,N.Y. 11952 D7�1
Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 MAR — 820Southold ToPlanning Boa
March 8, 2013
Donald J. Wilcenski, Chairman and
Southold Town Planning Board
53095 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
By Hand
Re: Site Plan: Shizen/GALA Holistic Circle
Owner Oki-Do Ltd.
SCTM#1000-38-07-7.1
Dear Mr. Wilcenski:
I am in receipt of your letter dated February 26,2013. In July 2012 I spoke to your planner,Heather
Lanza to advise her that the revised DEIS is being prepared and I requested an accounting of my clients
deposit of$22,500 into an account held by the Town of Southold for NPV's review of the DEIS. The client
was billed $7,952.50 by NPV,with$11,250.00 remaining in the Town's account for the continued review
of the revised DEIS.
My client has spent over one million dollars in preparation of the first DEIS,architectural plans,site
plan, professional fees and Town processing fees associated with her project.
The reason for the delay in the re-submission of the DEIS was that during the course of preparation
of the revised DEIS, she was the victim of a"Ponzi Scheme"by her financial adviser Ed Stein. Mr. Stein
has been criminally prosecuted and is in jail. It took some time to recover financially from the fraud in order
to pay the professionals working on this project. My client has once again retained the services of the
following professionals to complete her project:
Attorney: Patricia C. Moore, Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road, Southold NY 11971
Tel. 631-765-4330
Fax. 631-765-4643
pcmoore(a)mooreattys.com
Architect: Edward P. Butt
Edward Paul Butt Architect
PO Box 2069
New Hyde Park,NY 11040
Tel. 516-625-6625
Fax 516-625-6629
ebutt(a,ebuttarch.com
Environmental Consultant: Kim A. Gennaro, M.S.,AICP, Director of Environmental Division
VHB Engineering, Surveying and Landscaping Architecture
2150 Joshua's Path, Suite 300
Hauppauge,New York 11788
Tel. 631-234-3444
Fax. 631-234-3477
emai 1:kgennaro(a Avhb.com
Transportation: Patrick L. Lenihan, PE
Transportation Team Leader
Also at VHB
email: plenihan@vhb.com
Surveys: Young&Young,
Surveying and Engineering
Douglas Adams, P.E., PLLC
P.O. Box 14
Setauket,NY 11733
631-774-3521
doujz@da-ce.com
Sanitary Design:
Michael P. Chiarelli Engineering, PC
1954 New York Avenue
Huntington Station,NY 11746-2906
Tel. 631-673-3808
Fax. 631-673-3842
email: mchiarellikmpcengineer.com
The above individuals are retained and have begun to update the data for the revised DEIS to assure
that it is both current and complete. Updating the data for the DEIS requires months of preparation and
seasonal observations, particularly for habitat and traffic counts.
My client is extremely anxious to have the professionals work quickly to submit their data for the
preparation of the revised DEIS. We have been meeting since the summer to coordinate the submission of
the DEIS and compile a professional team who can work with the Town and your environmental consultant,
NVP. We would respectfully request a meeting with NPV to discuss the re-submission. It would be
beneficial to our team of professionals to discuss the time line with NPV and your staff.
Thank you in advance for your courtesies.
Very truly yours,
Patricia C. Moore
cc: Dr. Kazuko Tatsumura Hillyer Ph.D, President Oki-Do Ltd
Butt Otruba-O'Connor,Architects
VHB
Received by hand on March 8,2013
MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ��Ot S P.O.Box 1179
DONALD J.WILCENSKI OSouthold,NY 11971
Chair ~` OFFICE LOCATION:
WILLIAM J.CREMERS Town Hall Annex
PIEVCt RAFFERTY +4C 54375 State Route 25
JAMES H.RICH III *' (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
MARTIN H.SIDORi4► Southold,NY
Telephone:631 765-1938
Fax: 631765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
February 26, 2013
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Site Plan for Shizen/GAZA Holistic Circle
SCTM#1000-38-7-7.1
Dear Ms. Moore:
The Planning Board has reviewed the application referenced above and noted that
there has been no activity on the Site Plan Application since November 17, 2008.
On November 18, 2008, the Planning Board sent a letter to you requiring revisions to
the Site Plan Application, specifically the DEIS. To date, these revisions have not been
received. Please submit the required item(s) within sixty days from the date of this letter,
or an explanation, satisfactory to the Planning Board, as to why more time is needed to
submit the required items. If the Board does not receive a satisfactory response
within sixty days of the date of this letter, the Planning Board will consider this
application withdrawn. To continue with the site plan process after the sixty-day
period, the application must be re-submitted in its entirety, including all relevant
fees.
Please, if you have any questions regarding this site plan or its process, do not hesitate.
to call this office.
Very truly yours,
Donald J. Wilcenski
Chairman
O��OF SO!/jyol ('?�
SCOTT A. RUSSELL Town Hall, 53095 Route 25 c
SUPERVISOR P.O. Box 1179
• Southold, New York 11971-0959
Fax(631) 765-1823
�yCOL110,Nct� Telephone(631) 765-1889
OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
September 13, 2010
Peter Kenny
Board of Directors
Cleaves Point Condominiums
2820 Shipyard Lane
East Marion, NY 11939
Dear Mr. Kenny:
I am in receipt of your letter concerning issues at the former Oyster Farm property in your
neighborhood.
Your letter has referred to our Code Enforcer and to the Planning Board for remediation
of outstanding violations.
Thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely y ,
S t A. Russell 2010 �, 4
Supervisor
/rbw
cc: Damon Rallis, Code Enforcer
Southold Town Planning Board
Mr. Scott Russell
F-g
Supervisor, Town of Southold t�
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179 U LAUG - 5 zuw
Southold, New York 11971
SW IRVISOR'S OFFICE
TOVsJfl OF SOUTHOLD
Dear Mr. Russell,
We are writing to express our ongoing concern about the condition of the
former Oyster Farm property on Shipyard Land in East Marion. The
property has been neglected and is quite unsafe. The fence is broken in
places and is not sufficient to keep children and trespassers out. The
structures on the property are falling apart and in any windstorm are a hazard
to people and homes on adjacent properties. Erosion from the increasing
loss of bulkhead is significant and increasing daily.
We have been burdened with the ugliness and dangers associated with this
site for years and believe it is time for the Town to condemn the property
and remove the buildings.
Peter Kenny
Member, Board of Directors
Cleaves Point Condominiums
2820 Shipyard Lane
East Marion, NY 11939
2009-02-27 13:19 N R BRAS 6317346235 >> P 1/1.�—�
• . l 1J
lam"1.
t
SOL . OLD TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
room Hall
P.0.Box t 179
53095 Main Road
Southoltl.NY i]871-08 �, ----�
Phone(631)7851936
Fax(631)765.3136 _ -
F �
TO: Heather Lanza
Director of Planning L_.,_.
FROM: Neboysha R Hrashich1
Chairman
DATE: February 26,2009
RE: Shizen Project
2835 Shipyard Lane,East Marion
SCTM#: 1000-38-7-7.1
Further to your memorandum dated January 27,the Commission reviewed subject project
proposal for the second time at its February 23 meeting.
The Commission believes that further investigation and review during an open comment
period is in order regarding the safety of pedestrian traffic on Shipyard Lane leading to
the water.
We are in agreement that"At a minimum, widen and restripe the northbound Shipyard
Cane approach to provide two lanes, a combined left turnfthru lane a separate right turn
lane." (Dunn Engineering Traffic Impact Study—August 2008—p.56—paragraph one)
With respect to the three options presented by the same study(p.56—paragraph two),the
Commission feels that the first option is the purview of the NYS DOT; does not support
the installation of a new traffic light on NYS Route 25 under option 2; and, agrees with
the two northbound lanes under option 3 but leaves the traffic control decision to the
NYS DOT.
• &bf tzloff,
MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERSSo P.O. Box 1179
JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE O��OF P.O.Southold, NY 11971
Chair OFFICE LOCATION:
KENNETH L.EDWARDS Town Hall Annex
MARTIN H.SIDOR G a 54375 State Route 25
GEORGE D.SOLOMON (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
JOSEPH L.TOWNSEND �l�'CO�nM'�," Southold,NY
ul1 Telephone: 631765-1938
Fag: 631765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Memorandum
To: Neboysha Brashich, Chairman
Southold Town Transportation Commission
From: Heather Lanza, Director of Planning
Re: Proposed Site Plans for:
SCTM#1000-38-7-7.1
Located at 2835 Shipyard Lane, approximately 3,278 ft. south of New
York State Road 25 at the south east end of Shipyard Lane, East Marion
Southwold Manor, SCTM#1000-63-3-15
Located at 56655 NYS Route 25, approximately 1,000 ft. east of Boisseau
Avenue, Southold
Date: January 27, 2009
Attached, for your review, please find Traffic Studies and Alignment Plans regarding the
above-referenced proposed site plans.
HL:ck
0 a MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS G P.O. Box 1179
JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE ti0k rjf SO�rGOI Southold, NY 11971
Chair v
OFFICE LOCATION:
KENNETH L.EDWARDS Town Hall Annex
MARTIN H.SIDOR G Q 54375 State Route 25
GEORGE D.SOLOMON '741
JOSEPH L.TOWNSEND Ol� �� (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
�OUKN, Southold,NY
Telephone: 631765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
November 18, 2008 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Shizen Hotel Wellness Center& Spa: DEIS Review
Dear Ms. Moore:
The Planning Board has determined that the DEIS is inadequate with respect to the adopted
Final Scope and content for the purpose of commencing public review.
Please revise the DEIS according to the enclosed report from Nelson, Pope &Voorhis, LLC
and submit it to the Planning Board. A"track changes" reviewer's copy of the revisions is
requested, including all appendices, on CD-ROM.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
P,�, 6. W--,,-�v
Jerilyn B. Woodhouse
Chairperson
Enc.
cc:
Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services
Southold Town Clerk, Town Board Suffolk County Planning Commission
Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Water Authority
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals NYSDEC, Commissioner, Albany
Southold Town Engineer New York State Department of Transportation
NYSDEC, Regional Office, Stony Brook, NY
(13
0 0
NELSON. POPE & VOORHIS, LLC
r�,,,•,�
ENVIRONMENTAL • PLANNING • CONSULTING
572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD,MELVILLE,NY 1 1747- 21 BB
Environmental Consultant to the Planning Board (631) 427-5665 FAX (631) 427-5620
Town of Southold, New York npvcnelsonpope.com
REVIEW OF THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT(DEIS)
SHIZEN HOTEL WELLNESS CENTER&
ON THE BEACH, SOUTHOLD,NY
(a.k.a.GAIA Holistic Circle) - -
Proposed Special Exception Permit for Transient Motel 1 7 2008
Shipyard Lane,East Marion,Town of Southold
Suffolk County,New York I -- - -
Prepared for: Town of Southold
Planning Board
Town Hall,53095 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
(631)765-1938
Prepared by: Nelson,Pope&Voorhis,LLC
572 Walt Whitman Road
Melville,New York 11747
(631)427-5665
Date: November 17,2008
At the request of the Town of Southold Planning Board, and pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617.9(a)(2),
Nelson, Pope &Voorhis, LLC (NP&V) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
prepared by Cramer Consulting Group dated September 8, 2008 (hereafter the DEIS), submitted
on behalf of the above referenced applicant. This review is for the purpose of making a
recommendation to the Planning Board whether the DEIS is adequate with respect to scope and
content for the purpose of commencing public review. At this time, and if the Planning Board is
in agreement, we recommend that the Planning Board require revisions to the DEIS prior to its
acceptance as complete and adequate for public review. Comments included herein primarily
address the need to conform to the Final Scope issued by the Planning Board, dated November 6,
2006, as well as inaccurate or confusing information requiring clarification and revision. The
recommended revisions are provided below:
Shinn(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 2 of 19
General Comments:
1. A track changes reviewer's copy of the revisions is recommended, along with complete documents to
be resubmitted. The document should be reviewed for punctuation, grammatical errors, page number
consistency, consistency of data between sections and Table of Contents uniformity, items that are
noted to be flaws in the current draft.
2. The DEIS format should follow the format specified in Section 4.0 of the Final Scope adopted by the
Planning Board. This would assist in ensuring that the preparer addresses each of the required items
contained in the scope and will facilitate the review of the document. The current document is
confusing in format,and lacks information required in the Final Scope.
3. All figures should have a cited source as well as a date of publication.
4. The project is referred differently on the cover of the DEIS than what is shown on the plans and the
Scope.
5. There should be consistency with the naming and references to the proposed buildings. Using the
letters referenced on the site plan to refer to buildings in the DEIS would be helpful.
6. It would be helpful if the List of Appendices should indicate which Appendices are included in the
manila folders as an addendum to the document,and which are included in the binders.
7. In the document received by this office, the renderings referenced to be in Appendix M, were
included in Appendix B. Final documents should be checked to ensure that Appendices are in the
correct locations.
8. There is no clearly defined indoor pool on the site plans, although it is mentioned several times
throughout the DEIS.
Section 1.0 Executive Summary:
9. All revisions requested for the main text of the DEIS should be carried through to the DEIS Summary
contained in Section 1.0.
Section 2.0 Description of the Proposed Action:
10. Page 1, first title: Remove one"2.0".
11. Page 1, Subsection 2.1, first sentence: The subject property is initially listed as 18.27 acres, but the
subsequent description of the site which divides the areas between surface water and upland area
totals 18.26 acres. Clarification of the actual site acreage is necessary.
12. Page 1, Subsection 2.1, second paragraph: The conditions of the structures currently existing on the
subject site should be disclosed in this paragraph.
13. Page 1, Subsection 2.1, second paragraph: A one-story metal building situated in the approximate
center of the parcel is mentioned,but not shown on the existing conditions survey.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 3 of 19
14. Page 1, Subsection 2.1, second paragraph, last sentence: The term "tie line" is utilized here. The
meaning of this term is unclear,and the sentence should be reworded for clarification.
15. Page 1, Subsection 2.2.1: Details on the historic dredging and use of the boat basin should be
included in this section,if available.
16. Page 4, Subsection 2.2.1, first paragraph: The magnitude of relief requested from the ZBA for the
area variance for setback from bulkhead in the boat basin and from the deteriorated bulkhead should
be indicated. The required and proposed setbacks should be identified.
17. Page 4, Subsection 2.2.1, second paragraph: It is stated that permission was granted for securing the
property;however,it is unclear if or when this was undertaken. Please clarify.
18. Page 5, Subsection 2.2.2: The primary benefits of the proposed project that are identified are property
tax-related and redevelopment of a vacant developed site. Are any additional benefits of the project
expected,and if so,these should be identified.
19. Page 5, Subsection 2.2.2, third paragraph, last sentence: The type of jobs included in the DEIS that
will be offered do not mention any jobs related to the spa.
20. Page 5, Subsection 2.2.2: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are not adequately addressed, or are partially addressed in other
sections or Appendices. This information should be collectively provided in this section in
conformance with the Final Scope.
• Include justification of proposed project in terms of Town goals for site.
• Public need for the project shall be discussed;indicate market study used to assess the need and viability of
the facility; indicate potential for conversion of site to other use based on non-viability of facility or lack of
need.
• Population served by the project shall be identified.
• Public access to the waterfront shall be discussed.
21. Page 6, Subsection 2.3.1: The allowable uses in the M-11 zone should be indicated in order to
establish the appropriateness of the zoning district for the defined transient motel.
22. Page 6, Subsection 2.3.1, first paragraph, second sentence: The DEIS states that the proposed 51,422
SF building will be located in the southeast corner of the site; however, the proposed structure
appears to be located on the southwest corner of the site on the plans. This mistake is carried on
throughout the document.
23. The DEIS does not include a section on"Location and Site Conditions", and therefore items included
in the scope have not been included collectively in one section as indicated in the scope.
24. Page 6, Subsection 2.3.1: The Marine Plan should be described in detail so that a full understanding
of the scope of the project is identified in the Project Description and Layout section. SCDHS
requirements for a holding tank serving the pumpout facility should be identified.
25. Page 6, Subsection 2.3.1: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed or are partially addressed in other areas of the document. This
section should describe the entire project including the marine plan and other issues/details note
below:
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 4 of 19
• Overall Site Layout-describe basis for site yield,proposed structures,services,utilities,access points,road
system,drainage,marina and include a site quantities table.
• Use Design/Description - address breakdown of use areas from a structural standpoint; indicate if the
"patio"will be covered;describe any retail activities on site(sale items,access to public).
• Architecture-the architecture,height and appearance of structures shall be identified.
• LEED-Details on the LEED green building certification being sought for this project.
• Regulations - ADA compliance features and FEMA Flood Plain development compliance as related to
structural improvements; indicate requirements,design parameters and proposed design;indicate first floor
elevations of buildings required and proposed.
• Dredging - details on dredging and bulkhead project; dredge spoil, volume and quality; dredge spoil
dewatering,dredge spoil disposal.
• Marina and Bulkhead/Revetment - the marina installation shall be fully described including bulkheading
and revetment(including cross sections,materials used,stone size,bulkhead type,backfill,etc.),dredging,
piles and floats,access,function;etc.;indicate if fuel tanks will be installed anywhere on premises and who
will have access.
26. Page 7, Table l: Areas of natural vegetation versus native landscaping should be individually
calculated. In note 3,how much of the beach area is vegetated, if any?
27. Page 7, Subsection 2.4: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are not adequately addressed, or are partially addressed in other
sections.
• Grading-the grading program and associated areas disturbed shall be discussed along with volumes of soil
excavated, cut/filled,removed from site and maximum depths of cut/fill; fill needed for sanitary, drainage
or structures shall be identified; grading for the proposed access to the managers residence shall be
outlined;quantity of fill behind proposed bulkhead.
• Drainage-site drainage and proposed drainage system and provide capacity and function information shall
be provided along with a discussion of conformance to NYSDEC SPDES stormwater and erosion control
regulations for construction and post-construction conditions; use of the lake/stream system for drainage
shall be identified if intended as well as function, capacity and viability in view of depth to groundwater
constraints.
• Lake/Stream System- details on the lake and stream system, method of construction/lining; water supply;
soil removal/re-grading, design and depth of features, make-up water and source, vector control,
filtration/treatment equipment, stocking with fish and species, wildfowl control, stormwater retention
qualities if applicable;vegetation and landscaping.
28. Page 8, Subsection 2.5, second sentence: "Infrequent"should be changed to"infrequently."
29. Page 8, Subsection 2.5: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are inadequately addressed or are partially addressed in other
sections and should be collectively described here for a full understanding of the proposed project.
• Parking-the adequacy of on-site parking shall be discussed; required parking as required by a breakdown
of parking requirements for each sub-use shall be provided; this will establish the basis for the parking
variance; the amount and adequacy of proposed parking shall be determined; use of permeable pavement
shall be described in detail in terms of location and use;identify the location of loading docks and dumpster
locations.
30. Page 8, Subsection 2.6: The location of the wastewater treatment facility should be described,and the
treatment capacity estimate of 14,876 gpd of sanitary waste should be referenced as to how that
volume was determined. It is noted that this information is presented in Table 5 on Page 152,and it is
recommended that this be provided in Section 2.6. In addition, the required setbacks and conformity
to setbacks should be indicated to determine if any variances are needed for placement of the facility.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 5 of 19
31. Page 8, Subsection 2.6: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are inadequately addressed or are partially addressed in other
sections and should be collectively described here for a full understanding of the proposed project.
• Water Supply - include a description of water supply source, infrastructure and availability, water main
routing to access the site; irrigation well water supply, lake/stream "make up" water, and proposed
wastewater handling and corresponding use of water supply and sanitary design flow.
32. Page 9, Subsection 2.7: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are inadequately addressed or are partially addressed in other
sections and should be collectively described here for a full understanding of the proposed project.
• Utilities - the sizes and locations of all utilities and services shall be described along with the status of
future possible connection.
• Lighting-the Town lighting requirements,proposed lighting and an illumination analysis shall be provided
and described for all aspects of the project including parking areas, the restaurant and other site
improvements;compliance with"dark skies"shall be identified.
• Landscaping-information on the type, amount and location of landscaping proposed shall be provided as
well as information on maintenance requirements such as irrigation and fertilization under operation and
maintenance; information on buffers around the site perimeter, retention of existing trees and other
buffering techniques shall be identified; the plant list shall be reviewed and described to ensure that
"invasive"species are not introduced to the site; screening of dumpsters,recreational activities and parking
shall be addressed.
• Amenities—describe all amenities on site including outdoor use,tennis courts,arenas,playgrounds,use of
beach and limits on off-site use of facilities,etc.
33. Page 9, Subsection 2.7: Specify the coverage of fertilized versus unfertilized landscape vegetation;
this is important to determine nitrogen load impacts from fertilizer dependent vegetation.
34. Page 9, Subsection 2.7, second paragraph: Reference that the facility will comply with "dark sky"
lighting if such is the case.
35. Page 9, Subsection 2.8: The percentage of the site to be preserved as open space should be disclosed,
and the location of the open space area should be described. The proposed area of open space should
be compared to the existing area of open space in terms of area and percentage.
36. Page 9, Subsection 2.8,second sentence: The sentence is incomplete and should be corrected.
37. Page 9, Subsection 2.9.1: In the first paragraph,the phasing should be described and depicted on the
site plan.
38. Page 10, Subsection 2.9.1: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in
this section have not been addressed, are inadequately addressed or are partially addressed in other
sections and should be collectively described here for a full understanding of the construction of the
proposed project.
• Demolition of the existing buildings including safety and protection of neighboring properties.
• Remediation based on the Phase I/11 ESA. Specifically, when will the remaining remediation necessary
occur?
• Project phasing(if applicable).
• Method of construction,construction schedule/timetable,days of the week; indicate Town code restrictions
of nuisance activities and compliance.
• Construction management, equipment storage/staging, delivery routes, hours of operation, workers'
parking,protection of natural and sensitive areas.
0 Protection of workers and worker safety during construction shall be evaluated.
Shizen(aka Gain Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 6 of 19
• Need to modify overhanging trees on Shipyard Lane for construction or operation.
• Quantity of soil import/export,truck routes,management and mitigation.
• Dredging and bulkhead project details; staging areas; construction methods; dewatering areas; disposal
areas;dredge removal truck trips;time frames for construction.
39. Page 10, Subsection 2.9.1: Site preparation for development should be expanded to address required
handling of asbestos containing materials, lead-based paint, well abandonment (if applicable) and
other demolition-related matters. It is unclear if there are open issues with regard to the Phase II ESA
as identified in review of Section 3.1.3. Additional considerations regarding soil testing, removal,
remediation should be identified with respect to Construction as appropriate based on the Phase II
ESA.
40. Page 14, Subsection 2.9.2: The hours of construction operation permitted by the Town should be
disclosed. The first two paragraphs in this section should be moved to 2.9.1 as they are more
appropriate as construction-related items.
41. Page 15 Subsection 2.9.2: Overall, the facility operations and maintenance are not adequately
described to gain a full understanding of the project. The scope identified the level of required
information. The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this section have
not been addressed, are inadequately addressed or are partially addressed in other sections and should
be collectively described here for a full understanding of the operations of the proposed project.
• Detailed description identifying which of the site uses(if any)will be open to the public(i.e.,the marina,
restaurant,spa,etc.)and which will be exclusive for hotel guests.
• Uses expected of various locations and facilities within the site; seasons of use, intensity of use,whether
the site will be open to special events such as weddings,conferences or catering events,retail sales.
• Projected number of employees required for the various uses for weekdays, weekends and seasonal peak
periods.
• Indicate activities such as outdoor parties, placement and use of loudspeakers, concerts or special events
including frequency,location time periods and schedule.
• Truck sizes expected for deliveries and delivery routing,delivery times and truck unloading areas.
• Location of dumpsters,truck access to dumpsters,hours of dumpster pickup shall be addressed; indicate if
trash compactors will be used.
• Details on internal traffic circulation plan,use of gravel road and general on-site activities.
• Description of use of golf carts on site.
• Valet parking shall be fully described.
• Description of any generators proposed for the facility.
• Description of operation of the proposed marina,users,frequency of use,etc.
• Seasons of operation of various components of the facility.
• Lighting operations in terms of type,hours lit and controls shall be discussed.
• Snow removal shall be described as related to parking surfaces and operation.
• Entity responsible for site operations.
• Restrictions on Emergency Access(if proposed)and how the restrictions will be ensured.
• Lake/stream system operation and maintenance; lake"make-up"water; fish stocking;wildfowl population
control;nutrient influx control;mosquito/vector control;aesthetics.
• Water use shall be fully described including: maximum size of vessels, turning radius, depths, vessel
speeds in marina, potential for increased number of private vessels docking, channel enhancements
(increased dredging potential,navigation aids),and access to existing navigation channels.
• Use and management of open space areas.
• Operation of the marina shall be identified;indicate if fuel storage will occur for marina patrons.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 7 of 19
42. Page 16, Subsection 2.10: A "status" column should be added to the table in this section. Also,
under "Permit/Approval" a "Coastal Consistency" permit should be added, to which the applicable
agency is the"NYSDOS."
Section 3.0 Existing Environmental Conditions
43. Page 25, Subsection 3.1.1: Soil borings 1, 2 and 5 encountered bog and clay below the water table.
The characteristics of the full borings should be described, including the profile below the water table
and this may be important with respect to potential impacts. Also, the presence and amount of
organic material within the soil should be disclosed, and limitations with regards to building should
be addressed.
44. Page 26, Subsection 3.1.2: The figure reference in the first paragraph should read "see Figure 4" as
opposed to"see Figure 3." The general slopes on the property should be described.
45. Page 26, Subsection 3.1.3: It is very difficult to follow sequence of the Phase 1 and Phase II ESA,
and how that translates to required action items to ensure that the property does not retain residual
contamination for development and/or agency release. The dates and authors of the documents
referenced in subheadings should be indicated. In addition, questions raised by this section are noted
as follows:
• Are there unknown tanks remaining on the property,and how will this be addressed(page 30)?
• Have dredge spoil mounds been sampled, do they contain contaminated materials, and how will this be
addressed(page 31)?
• Was there an endpoint sample collected after remediation of Leaching Structure#1(page 35)?
• What is the remediation plan for Leaching Structures#9 and 10 which are contaminated(page 35)?
• In some cases an"asterisk"is used instead of a"#"sign;this should be corrected(pages 36, 149, 150).
• Under UST Closure Activities(page 37),the agency should be identified as the Suffolk County Department
of Health Services.
• On page 38,pending samples are indicated;updated sampling should be included in the revised DEIS.
• What agency sign-offs are needed and what sign-offs have been obtained?
• What is the status of the spill(s)on site;has it been closed?
• What was the source of MTBE;was gasoline stored on the site or could it have been?
• Are there any soil-gas concerns which may require use/design considerations for the proposed
development?
• What considerations are there with respect to asbestos,lead and well abandonment?
46. Page 34, Subsection 3.1.3: The final sentence states that leaching structure locations are depicted in
Figure 1; however, this is not true for this document, and this statement should be revised to reflect
the figures contained within the DEIS.
47. Page 39, Subsection 3.2.1: The third paragraph should describe how depth to groundwater is arrived
at by providing both the measured depth and the surveyed minimum and maximum topography of the
site.
48. Page 39, Subsection 3.2.1: A source should be referenced for the groundwater quality in the area of
the subject site. There are more up-to-date studies of water quality for nitrogen and pesticides on the
north fork. The Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan(1987) contains
larger scale figures,and updated studies for the north fork are available from SCDHS;these should be
consulted.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 8 of 19
49. Page 41, Subsection 3.2.1: Although the hydrogeological zone is analyzed, the Groundwater
Management Zone map is different, and should be utilized for an analysis of Article VI compliance,
as stated in the scope.
50. Page 47, Subsection 3.2.1: It should be noted that a discharge of 600 gpd/acre is permitted only
where public water supply is available.
51. Page 52, Subsection 3.2.4: A description of the benefits and function of LZ wetlands should be
provided; the National Wetlands Inventory feature west of Shipyard Lane near the site identified as
"PEM2Fx"should be described.
52. Page 73, Subsection 3.3.2: It is understood that the habitats will be grouped together for the purpose
of defining general habitat areas; however, areas that are unvegetated should be accounted for
separately,and all structures should be separated out from the larger habitat areas in the habitat map.
53. Page 92, Subsection 3.3.2: Dates of site visits should be provided, and plants actually identified on
site(vs. those expected)during the site visits should be noted in the list of expected plant species for
the subject site.
54. Page 96, Subsection 3.3.2: Seabeach knotweed is mentioned in the NYNHP letter as last observed in
1991,and is not discussed here. A discussion of this plant should be included here.
55. Page 98, Subsection 3.3.3, first paragraph: The last sentence should be removed as it is not supported
and is more related to the"Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action'section.
56. Page 112, Subsection 3.3.3: Dates of site visits should be provided, and avian species identified on
site during the site visits(vs.those expected)should be noted in the list of expected avian species for
the subject site; Species of Special Concern should also be indicated by a key letter in the Species list.
57. Page 118, Subsection 3.3.4: Dates of site visits should be provided, and mammalian species
identified on site during the site visits (vs. those expected) should be noted in the list of expected
mammalian species for the subject site; Species of Special Concern should also be indicated by a key
letter in the Species list.
58. Page 120, Subsection 3.3.5: Dates of site visits should be provided,and reptilian species identified on
site during the site visits (vs. those expected) should be noted in the list of expected reptilian species
for the subject site; Species of Special Concern should also be indicated by a key letter in the Species
list.
59. Page 121, Subsection 3.3.5: In the third paragraph, the definition provided should be that of a
"threatened"species,not an"endangered"species,as listed.
60. Page 124, Subsection 3.4.1, first paragraph: The land use description of the site does not state that the
site is currently vacant. More detail on the surrounding land uses should be included according to the
scope as noted below.
61. Page 124, Section 3.4: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are not adequately addressed, or are not addressed in the format
prescribed by the Final Scope and should be incorporated into the document.
• This section of the DEIS will describe existing land use and zoning on the subject site and in the
surrounding area.
Shinn(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 9 of 19
• A physical description of the property(size,boundaries,etc.)will be provided.
• This section of the DEIS will also provide information on the development history of the site and
surrounding area;the existing land use character of the site and surrounding area within 1,000 feet shall be
described and mapped.
• The zoning which applies to the site and the area within 1,000 feet shall be described and mapped, and a
description of zoning regulations for the project site and surrounding area zoning shall be provided.
• Land use plans which pertain to the project site shall be outlined and discussed in terms of their general
intent and applicability to the project site.
62. Page 125, Subsection 3.4.3: The only land use plan identified and summarized was the Town's
LWRP. Several studies identified in the Final Scope were omitted.
63. Page 131, Subsection 3.4.3,second paragraph: Correct spelling of"Recreational".
64. Page 133, Section 3.5: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed or are not adequately addressed, and should be incorporated into the
document.
• Circulation and parking shall be included in this analysis.
• The Traffic Impact Study will include: collection of data regarding planned roadway improvements and
other developments, field surveys and counts of existing traffic volumes, estimates of future traffic
volumes, analyses of existing and future traffic volumes and identification and timing of required roadway
improvements and the entity responsible for initiating those improvements. The following specific tasks
will be undertaken and documented in the traffic and transportation section of the DEIS:
Hourly volumes for a seven day period should be collected on Gillette Drive and Shipyard Lane.
➢ Perform a gap study at the study intersections during the peak periods to record available gaps in
traffic along Main Road.
65. Page 139, Section 3.6: The following community service providers were excluded from analysis:
• School district
• Ambulance services
• Sanitary
• Solid waste
66. Page 139, Section 3.6: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed or are not adequately addressed, and should be incorporated into the
document.
• The impact analysis contained in the DEIS will include consultations with service providers regarding
existing demand for services and capacity such that the DEIS will objectively analyze the impact of the
proposed action on community facilities and services; ability of services to address emergency needs of
site.
67. Page 140, Subsection 3.7: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are not adequately addressed or are partially addressed in other
sections and should be collectively addressed in this section pursuant to the Final Scope.
• The importance of the site in terms of open space character in the community shall be established;the type
of open space which the site represents and locations of other open space in the community shall be used in
this evaluation.
• The significance of visual character shall be established in terms of the viewing public and view
accessibility.
• Other aspects of the existing visual character in terms of vegetation, lighting, utilities, etc. shall be
identified. "Dark sky"compliance shall be addressed.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 10 of 19
68. Page 141, Section 3.8: The noise analysis should be included in the "Aesthetic Resources and
Community Character" section, per the code. The existing noise environment should be evaluated in
terms of ambient noise,sensitive receptors and community character.
69. Page 142, Section 3.9, last paragraph: No information on the status of the additional work requested
by SHPO was indicated.
Section 4.0 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action
70. Page 143, Subsection 4.1.1, last paragraph: Impacts related to the number of truck trips to import
15,547 cubic yards of material to the site should be analyzed in terms of trips, routes, noise, dust,
community disturbance,hours of activity and length of time of activity.
71. Page 145, Subsection 4.1.1, first paragraph: The description of the USEPA General Permit
referenced on this page should be integrated with a discussion of the SPDES GP 0-08-001
requirements for an Erosion Control Plan,Notice of Intent and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan(SWPPP),or cross referenced to the appropriate section for this discussion.
72. Page 146, Subsection 4.1.3, first paragraph: The conclusive statement regarding ". . . no significant
adverse impacts associated with construction. . .", should address construction impacts of soil
importation and other disturbance/activity during the construction period which could adversely
impact the neighborhood.
73. Page 148, Subsection 4.1.3, third paragraph: The first sentence references a "steep incline";
topographic impacts, resultant slopes, stabilization and grading in relation to ponds and other site
features should be discussed; topographic impacts related to construction of ponds should be
discussed.
74. Page 149, Subsection 4.1.2: The poor quality subsoils below the water table identified in Borings 1,2
and 5 should be evaluated in terms of potential impact to the functioning of sanitary and drainage
systems. The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this section have not
been addressed or are not adequately addressed,and should be incorporated into the document.
• Depth to groundwater
• Constraints in terms of depth to groundwater shall be evaluated by establishing that sanitary and drainage
systems can function property; vertical profiles of these systems establishing minimum surface elevation,
maximum groundwater elevation and system installation to required design standards shall be included.
• Topographic alteration of the site shall be determined through evaluation of the grading proposed for the
site and determination of resultant slopes, volume and disposition/origin of cut or fill, and proposed
changes to topographic elevations; impact of fill for sanitary, drainage and buildings shall be evaluated;
evaluation may include description, profiles, contour maps and/or other methods to perform effective
evaluation;impact of grading for the proposed managers residence road shall be evaluated.
75. Page 148, Subsection 4.1.3, last paragraph: The depth of channel dredging referenced in this
paragraph is confusing; it appears as though the depth is being reduced rather than being made
deeper. Impacts related to dredging such as quality of dredged material,disposal,dewatering, form of
dredging, dewatering, staging on site, and removal, with discussion of related impacts have not been
adequately addressed.
76. Page 150, Subsection 4.1.3: This section should address the suitability of the site for the proposed
use after the questions raised in Comment 44, relating to Section 3.1.3, have been addressed under
existing conditions.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 11 of 19
77. Page 150, Subsection 4.2.: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in
this section have not been addressed or are not adequately addressed, and should be incorporated into
the document.
• Water main routing and growth impacts must be evaluated; irrigation water, well installation and impacts
must be examined.
• The nitrogen budget for the site (considering all potential sources of nitrogen) shall be determined using
mass-balance modeling methods.
• The consistency of the proposed action with the findings of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
(NURP)will be evaluated as related to stormwater management and discharge.
• The existing stormwater management system and surface drainage conditions on the site will be described.
This will include, but not be limited to: stormwater generated. In addition, post-development stormwater
management conditions will be evaluated. This evaluation will include: calculations of stormwater to be
generated,and future maintenance practices for stormwater collection and leaching structures.
• The change in hydrology of the site in terms of quantity of recharge under existing and future conditions
shall be established using appropriate hydrologic analysis methods;drought conditions water consumption
and impact to neighboring private wells; issues regarding increased water table elevations, functioning of
sanitary/drainage recharge systems and potential to increase flooding in the area shall be addressed.
• As the proposed action includes the installation of an irrigation well,the yield of the well must be provided
to determine the need for a Long Island Well Permit and to evaluate the potential impacts associated
therewith.
• Impact of flooding on sanitary system function,generator function,and restaurant/hotel/cottage evacuation.
• Mitigation measures which may reduce potential water quality impacts shall be identified; measures to
correct existing flooding and assurance that flooding will not be exacerbated shall be included;resurfacing
of Shipyard Lane and installation of drainage in the Town right-of-way shall be considered as mitigation;
drainage mitigation for area of Cleaves Point Road near east part of site.
78. Page 151, Subsection 4.2.1, first paragraph: This third sentence indicates there would be ". . . no on-
site discharge and no associated sanitary impacts to groundwater." This statement is not accurate and
should be corrected. The CromaglassTM discharge is a sanitary discharge that has a measureable
nitrogen load which must be analyzed as noted in other related comments under Comment 76 and 78.
The fourth sentence indicates that native species would be used,but does not quantify the fertilization
of landscaped areas on the site relative to nitrogen load. The last sentence indicates that, ". . . the
proposed development would not contribute nitrates to the shallow groundwater system." This is not
true as stormwater, fertilization and sanitary nitrogen would be contributed to the shallow
groundwater system, but has not been analyzed. The revised analysis should address total nitrogen,
not nitrates.
79. Page 155, Subsection 4.2.2, second paragraph: The nitrogen load related to sanitary waste has not
been adequately addressed to support the statement that no significant adverse impacts to
groundwater quality will occur.
80. Page 155, Subsection 4.2.2, water supply: How will the pond irrigation system operate? How will a
minimum water elevation be maintained in the ponds, or will the ponds be allowed to go dry? Will
the pond receive water from a public supply to provide irrigation water during dry periods? The
statement that, ". . . there would be no added demand from the public water supplies for irrigation.",
may not be accurate, depending upon the design of these systems. Statements should be revised
accordingly,once these details are disclosed.
81. Page 156, Subsection 4.2.2, last paragraph: The quantity of lawn/fertilized area within the 7.98 acres
of landscaped areas,should be identified to support the statement that native species would be used to
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 12 of 19
the maximum extent practicable. It is noted that a breakdown is included on Page 159, indicating that
3.25 acres of the site would be fertilized. This should be factored into the appropriate analyses to
demonstrate that overland runoff and recharge of nitrogen are minimized to the maximum extent, as
expressed in other comments.
82. Page 166, Subsection 4.2.2, third paragraph: The reference to ". . . preparation of a SWPPP (see
Appendix B). . .", is confusing. Appendix B contains the site development plans. It does not appear
as though a SWPPP has been prepared to date. A properly prepared SWPPP may indicate the need
for containment of more than a 2 inch rainfall. What provisions are made for more than a 2 inch
storm and what impacts may occur as a result of stormwater during extreme rain events.
83. Page 168, Subsection 4.2.4, first paragraph: As noted in Comment 74, impacts related to dredging
such as quality of dredged material, disposal, dewatering, form of dredging, dewatering, staging on
site,and removal, with discussion of related impacts have not been adequately addressed.
84. Page 168, Subsection 4.2.4, second paragraph: The jurisdictional boundary of the NYSDEC under
Article 25 should be clearly established;the jurisdiction area of 6.6177 acres indicated on the Grading
and Drainage Plans seems too small; how was this determined. This is important so that density,
setbacks,and related Part 661 requirements can be evaluated.
85. Page 170, Subsection 4.2.4: The NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations contained in Part
661 include a density provision for sites with a public or community sewage disposal system;this has
not been evaluated.
86. Page 170, Subsection 4.2.4: Justification should be offered for the encroachment of parking to 26 feet
from a tidal wetlands boundary, where a 75 foot setback is required. The impact of this relief on the
function of tidal wetlands and precedent should be assessed.
87. Page 170, Subsection 4.2.4: The evaluation of the project with respect to the Town Trustees authority
should address or cross reference the dredging related impacts identified in comments 74 and 82
above.
88. Page 178, Subsection 4.2.4: The permissibility of extensive fill in the AE zone should be addressed
in terms of potential impacts of the project.
89. Page 179, Subsection 4.2.4. Nitrogen load impacts with respect to the Peconic Estuary Program
should be evaluated using information from the mass-balance impact analysis in Section 4.1.2.
90. Page 179, Subsection 4.2.4: In the last paragraph, the following sentence is unclear and should be
reworded, "The proposed dredging would increase tidal flushing of the existing basin and remove of
the existing bulkhead."
91. Page 185, Subsection 4.3.1: The area which includes landscaped native vegetation should not be
included in the total natural area, it should be itemized separately.
92. Page 185, Subsection 4.3.1: Details are needed as to the proposed plants utilized for the Japanese
garden in order to fully evaluate the impact of such a garden on the subject site.
93. Page 191, Subsection 4.3.2: The last paragraph on this page discusses impacts regarding the common
and least tern. It should be noted where on site suitable habitat for these species is located. Impacts
regarding clearing and the availability of foraging habitat should also be analyzed. Correspondence
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 13 of 19
with the NYSDEC regarding the species populations near the subject site should also be provided in
order to fully analyze the impact to these species.
94. Page 193, Subsection 4.3.2: It should be indicated as to whether or not the Great blue herons
observed on site would lose significant foraging habitat or be adversely impacted.
95. Page 194, Subsection 4.3.2: It is noted earlier in the section that it is expected that the population of
gulls may increase slightly as a result of the proposed project. As this species is a known predator to
piping plovers, the increase of the gull population should be evaluated in terms of the impact on the
existing piping plover population.
96. Page 196, Subsection 4.3.2: The statement "Thus, the proposed project should have a significant
positive impact on all species within this group," should be removed or further supported as removal
of habitat would not be expected to have a positive impact on these species.
97. Page 208, Subsection 4.3: The Final Scope provided an outline which included wetland related
conditions and impacts to be addressed under Section 4.3,Ecology. Some discussion of wetlands and
potential impacts is included in the DEIS under Water Resources; however,the level of analysis does
not conform to the required scope. Some comments above(Comments 82-86)address statements and
information presented in other sections of the DEIS. In order to fully address these issues, it is
recommended that the scope outline be followed so that impacts are addressed in the appropriate
section of the document, thereby causing less confusion to the reader following the DEIS and the
Scope. The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this section have not
been addressed, are not adequately addressed, or are partially addressed in other sections and should
be incorporated into the document.
• The type, quantity and quality of wetlands present on, adjoining, or in the vicinity of the site shall be
mapped and described using current site conditions and recognizing that the location of high water has
moved landward; wetland jurisdiction of the Federal government, State and Town shall be established;
existing biological conditions of proposed dredging areas including submerged aquatic vegetation.
• The jurisdiction, regulatory framework and controls of the Federal government, State and Town shall be
established.
• Hydrologic systems supporting these wetlands shall be presented.
• Federal and State wetland maps indicate that the proposed action would be under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the NYSDEC as well as the Town Trustees. As such, all
required wetland permit applications to the ACOE, NYSDEC and Trustees must be made. Copies of all
existing wetland permits would also be provided (e.g., the existing maintenance dredge permit) and a
discussion of each permit will be included.
• Potential impacts to wetlands shall be evaluated in terms of maintaining or enhancing all wetlands,
maintaining adequate setbacks and ensuring that the hydrology of the systems (sanitary, stormwater,
erosion control,etc.)supporting wetlands is not degraded in quality or quantity.
• Water use impact must be evaluated including: marina impacts associated with installation and operation,
adequacy of navigation channels and boat access to site as well as boat maneuvers within site; include
assessment of available pumpout facilities.
• Historical dredging of the basin and historical depth of the basin shall be documented to establish pre-
existing conditions to support the proposed"maintenance"dredging; impact of dredging on vegetation and
wildlife including osprey nests shall be evaluated.
• Dredging and bulkhead project impacts of construction; instal lation/spoi I removal; dewatering (odor and
vector control); dredge spoil placement/disposal; dredge spoil quality (grain size, organic content,
volatile/semivolatile organic compounds, metals, PCB's and related contaminants) shall be included;
impact of the proposed revetment on surrounding properties shall be determined; analysis shall include
physical and biological littoral processes and impact on submerged aquatic vegetation.
Shinn(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 14 of 19
• Setbacks required by State and Town wetland review shall be located and evaluated in terms of compliance
with maintaining setbacks for disturbance/fertilized vegetation,structures and sanitary installation.
• Management of the land within wetland setback areas shall be formulated to ensure conformance with the
code requirements.
98. Page 209, Section 4.4: The land use consistency and potential impact on surrounding land use has not
been adequately addressed and is not consistent with the Final Scope. The following items in the
scope which should have been addressed in this section have not been addressed, are not adequately
addressed, or are partially addressed in other sections and should be collectively addressed in this
section pursuant to the Final Scope.
• The DEIS will assess the impacts of the proposed action on land use and zoning. The impact assessment
will concentrate on evaluating the consistency of the proposed action with prevailing land use and zoning.
The compatibility of the proposed action with area land use will be assessed. Information on buffers,
retention of existing trees and other buffering techniques shall be identified as well as adequacy of
screening of dumpsters,recreational activities and parking; impact of the manager residence access road on
adjacent properties shall be evaluated.
• Impact associated with the marina operation shall be evaluated in terms of activity, lights, noise and
community land use compatibility impacts.
• Noise of the operation of the project shall be included as an impact analysis related to land use
compatibility, specifically the parking areas,dumpster locations and pickup and internal site circulation as
related to residential receptors in proximity to the site.
• The existing zoning, requested special permit, zoning requirements, parking requirements, and special
permit criteria shall all be evaluated in detail including required parking, loading docks and other related
zoning dimensional and use parameters.
• The conformance of the project with land use plans shall be evaluated and discussed. The DEIS shall
address and demonstrate compliance with all applicable rules, regulations and policy guidelines found
within the Town Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy, 208 Study, Suffolk
County Sanitary Code, Long Island Groundwater Management Program, USEPA Phase 1 Rule as
administered by NYSDEC under SPDES GP-02-01 (now GP-0-08-001); NURP Study and Nonpoint
Source Management Handbook, NYSDEC SPDES regulations and local objectives to include Town of
Southold Code requirements. The intent of these studies and applicability to the project site shall be
determined.
99. Page 215, Subsection 4.4.3: The only land use plan identified and summarized was the Town's
LWRP. Several studies identified in the scope were omitted.
100. Page 217, Subsection 4.4.3, Developed Coast Policy 2: Correspondence with NYS OPRHP
indicates that additional testing is required in order to concur with the results of the archeological
survey done for the site. Therefore, it is not known at this time whether the proposed action would
have any impacts on historic resources within the Town. This should be addressed so that the full
impacts of the project can be evaluated.
101. Page 217, Subsection 4.4.3, Developed Coast Policy 3: The visual quality of the site will be
significantly changed and will include a large modern building that is not consistent with the
character of other structures in the area. Further qualitative evaluation and reference to visual
renderings provided in the DEIS is needed to support the statement that the project is consistent with
Developed Coast Policy 3.
102. Page 220, Section 4.5: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in
this section have not been addressed,or are not adequately addressed,and should be incorporated into
the document.
Shizen(aka Gain Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 15 of 19
• The trip generation analysis prepared by Dunn uses the ITE database whereas the scoping document called
for a more detailed analysis based upon the specific usage recognizing the different trip generation
characteristics of the proposed use.
• The alternative site access configurations are discussed in the TIS without supporting qualitative analysis.
The analysis should include the various trip distributions for each of the alternates and capacity analyses if
appropriate.
• The TIS includes a parking summary demonstrating that the parking required by code is met; however, it
does not demonstrate that the demands of the proposed use,as to adequacy and convenience,will be met.
• The following potential impacts shall be included in the traffic study:
➢ Day use of on-site facilities such as the spa.
➢ Public occupancy of restaurant seats;feasibility of restricting public use to 72 of 98 seats.
➢ Accurate trip generation factor more specific to proposed use than hotel due to intense support for
amenities specific to this use and not characteristic of a hotel.
➢ Justify any credit taken for LEED certification rideshare or public transportation.
➢ Impact of driveway locations and specifically impact to the Cleaves Point Condominiums shall be
assessed and disclosed.
➢ Potential adverse environmental impacts related to traffic improvements/mitigation recommended by
the TIS must be evaluated.
103. Page 239, Section 4.6: The following community service providers were excluded from analysis:
• School district
• Ambulance services
• Sanitary
• Solid waste
104. Page 239, Section 4.6: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in
this section have not been addressed,or are not adequately addressed, and should be incorporated into
the document.
• The document shall address job creation and the number of employees,and determine the impact if a large
number of employees from outside of the area may be necessary to operate the facility (housing, schools,
etc.).
• The DEIS will include detailed projections of service demand with supporting documentation.
• The DEIS shall consider future taxes, and if it is expected that the use will not be taxed, a determination
shall be made to determine if payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) is necessary to offset potential impact to
community service providers.
• The emergency services(ambulance,police and fire)which serve the site shall be identified and contacted
for input with respect to continued ability to serve the site.
• Changes associated with the proposed project shall be evaluated in terms of emergency service access; a
practical approach shall be taken to ensure that safe and efficient emergency service vehicle access to the
site can be provided to the site.
• Hydrant instal lation/location and other development considerations which assist in addressing emergency
services shall be included.
105. Page 240, Subsection 4.7: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in
this section have not been addressed, or are not adequately addressed, and should be incorporated into
the document.
• Cross sections illustrating visual impacts associated with the proposed project.
• Impact of shadows of large buildings shall be evaluated.
• The impact of use of fill, increase in site elevations,and visual appearance of structures will be evaluated.
The significance of visual impacts will be assessed and mitigation proposed. Lighting impacts will be
discussed from a visual impact perspective; the "dark sky" compliance shall be evaluated as well as the
potential for a"glow"or"halo'effect from parking areas,the restaurant or other site improvements shall
be addressed.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 16 of 19
• The change in character and visual setting shall be determined in terms of landscape vegetation, lighting
and utilities.
106. Page 241, Subsection 4.7.1, last paragraph: The visual quality of the site will be significantly
changed and will include a large modern building that is not consistent with the character of other
structures in the area. Further qualitative evaluation and reference to visual renderings provided in
the DEIS is needed to support the statement that, the proposed development would be consistent with
the waterfront character and would not result in significant adverse impacts to the character or visual
quality of the community." The document received by this office appeared to have the Appendices
intended to be included in Appendix M, located in the binder in Appendix B. Impacts related to
reflections from the glass structure should be addressed. A qualitative description of what viewers
will see from the Bay, from neighboring residences and from adjoining roads should be provided in
connection with each of the renderings. This section should be supplemented with information
contained in the above comment to provide a full evaluation.
107. Page 242, Section 4.7.2, first paragraph: The lighting plan included in Appendix B shows
illumination off the site and areas that may exceed 1 foot candle beyond the property line.
Insufficient information is contained on the lighting plan to make the statements included in this
section with respect to the northwest property line,adjoining existing residences.
108. Page 244, Section 4.8: Potential noise impacts should also relate to traffic volumes and activity
within the proposed marina, and should address the Noise Ordinance and potential impacts to
residential communities as a result of conditions that may change as a result of the proposed project.
109. Page 245, Section 4.9, second paragraph: This section is identical to the information provided in
Section 3.9, Existing Conditions. No information on the status of the additional work requested by
SHPO was indicated.
110. Page 245, Subsection 4.10.1: The following items in the scope which should have been
addressed in this section have not been addressed, or are not adequately addressed, and should be
incorporated into the document.
• Describe the impacts related to construction, dredge operations,dredge spoil disposal, noise, dust, erosion
and sedimentation, area receptors, applicable nuisance regulations, applicable agency oversight and
safeguards,phasing of the project,staging areas,parking areas,operation areas,duration,hours,and related
mitigation measures to reduce construction impacts
Section 5.0 Mitigation Measures
111. Beginning Page 247, Subsection 5.0: Mitigation should be provided for any impacts not
previously disclosed, but included in the revised DEIS as a result of conformance to the Final Scope
and this comment letter.
112. Page 247, Subsection 5.1: Provide mitigation for poor quality subsoils below the water table as
needed based on the analysis of potential impacts.
113. Page 248, Subsection 5.1: How areas which are proposed to be paved will be stabilized should be
disclosed as part of this mitigation measure.
114. Page 249, Subsection 5.2: The value and load reduction of nitrogen reduction due to the
CromaglassTM system should be disclosed in this mitigation measure.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 17 of 19
115. Page 250, Subsection 5.3: The fifth mitigation measure presented cannot be utilized as mitigation
as no details are provided regarding the proposed Japanese garden, and as such,the quantity of native
vs.ornamental species is currently not known.
116. Page 250, Subsection 5.3: Species to which nesting boxes and platforms will be provided and
which will benefit from such structures should be identified.
117. Page 251, Subsection 5.4: This subsection should include mitigation for zoning, land use and
plans.
118. Page 253, Subsection 5.6: This section does not provide mitigation for all community service
providers indicated in the Final Scope.
119. Page 254, Subsection 5.7: It is unclear how the final mitigation measure listed in this section is a
mitigation measure for aesthetic resources and community character. This should be clarified or
removed.
120. Page 255, Subsection 5.9: As NYS OPRHP requested that additional testing be conducted, it is
unknown at this time whether any significant adverse impacts to historic or archaeological resources
would result from the project and if mitigation is necessary.
Section 6.0 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
121. Beginning Page 256, Subsection 6.0: Unavoidable Adverse Impacts should be provided for any
impacts not previously disclosed, but included in the revised DEIS as a result of conformance to the
Final Scope and this review document.
Section 7.0 Alternatives and Their Impacts
122. Page 259: Table 11 should include references as to values utilized in the calculation of water
consumption of each alternative. In addition, a comparison of solid waste generated, tax revenue
generated, stormwater generated, and nitrogen inputs created by each alternative should be included.
The source of information for parking and trip generation for alternatives in the comparison table
should be referenced.
123. Page 262, Subsection 7.2: The Preferred Alternative shares many of the same impacts as the
proposed project. As with the comments in this review document, once revisions are made with
respect to impacts of the proposed project, similar impacts which may result from this alternative
should be disclosed, and/or, the reduction in impacts resulting from this alternative should be
discussed/quantified. Examples include:
• Soils and Topography - Impacts related to site remediation, soil importation; poor quality subsoils below
groundwater,etc.
• Water Resources-Impacts related to nitrogen load,etc.
• Ecology—Impacts related to dredging;impact on wetlands,etc.
• Land Uses and Zoning—Land use compatibility and assessment of conformance with land use plans,etc.
• Transportation—Adequacy of parking;use specific trip generation,etc.
• Community Services — Evaluation of impact on other community service providers not included in the
document.
• Aesthetic Resources and Community Character—Visual, noise, light and related impacts which will be
further evaluated per the Final Scope.
• Historic and Archaeological Resources—Impacts to archaeological/historic resources identified by SHPO.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 18 of 19
• Construction Impacts—Impacts related to site preparation for development,and community impacts.
124. Page 262, Subsection 7.2: The statement "The Preferred Alternative plan would result in less
land disturbance than that of the proposed action..."should be modified or removed,as the amount of
clearing necessary for the preferred alternative is the same as that of the proposed project.
125. Page 262, Subsection 7.2: Supporting information should be provided stating that there is an
adequate depth below the proposed hotel for a subsurface parking structure.
126. Page 262, Subsection 7.2: The potential construction impacts related to the "preferred
alternative"in connection with de-watering for the subgrade parking should be evaluated.
127. Page 262,Subsection 7.2: The amount of imported fill associated with the"preferred alternative"
should be provided.
128. Page 264, Subsection 7.2: The last sentence in the first paragraph is unclear and should be
reworded for clarity.
129. Page 274,Subsection 7.4: The last sentence in the last paragraph should be reworded for clarity.
130. Page 293, Subsection 7.6: The last paragraph is a duplicate of the second to last paragraph, and
should be removed.
131. Page 293: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this section
have not been addressed.
• Alternative parking layout to provide convenience to proposed use areas and reduce impact to neighboring
residential properties(more interspersed parking).
• Alternative to remove separate cottages near east property line.
• Alternative with reduced building mass of the large building to reduce visual impact.
• Alternative dumpster locations to reduce impact on neighboring properties.
• Consideration for the use of the Gillette Drive driveway for emergency access only.
132. The alternative site access configurations are discussed in the TIS without supporting qualitative
analysis. The analysis should include the various trip distributions for each of the alternates and
capacity analyses if appropriate.
Section 10.0 Use and Conservation of Energy and Solid Waste Management
133. Page 296: Letters should be provided from both LIPA and National Grid to confirm that both
ample gas and electricity will be available for the subject site.
Appendices
134. Appendix B is referred to as containing the Marine Plan; however, Appendix B contains a
reduced rendered site plan and architectural renderings of the visual appearance of the project. This
should be clarified in the text references that are provided.
Shinn(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 19 of 19
If the Planning Board is in agreement, the applicant should be directed to incorporate appropriate
changes in the DEIS as outlined herein. The revised document should be submitted to the
Planning Board office for review in conformance with SEQRA procedures to determine
completeness. If acceptable to the Planning Board, it would be helpful and could expedite
review if the applicant submits a "track changes" copy of the main text for review. We are
prepared to assist with further review upon resubmission of the document. Please contact our
office if you have any questions or wish to discuss this review.
0 0
WORK SESSION AGENDA
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Monday, November 17, 2008
4:30 p.m.
4:30 p.m. Review Public Meeting Agenda
4:45 p.m. Subdivisions
Site Plans
Project Name: $ ' k' SCTM#: 1000-38-7-7.1
Location: 2835 S and Lane, East Marion
Description: Proposed 114 unit hotel with accessory restaurant and private marina
with 16 boat slips.
Action: SEAR - Review DEIS for adequacy for public comment.
Subdivisions
Project name: Chase Bank, Mattituck SCTM#: 1000-143-3-33.2
Location: 10300 NYS Route 25, Mattituck
Description: This proposal is to subdivide a 112,647 sq. ft. parcel into two Lots where
Lot 1 equals 52,209.54 sq. ft. in the B Zoning District and Lot 2 equals
60,529.61 sq. ft. in the R-40 Zoning District.
Status: Ready for Sketch Approval
Action: Recommend to Grant Conditional Sketch Approval, start the referral
process and SEAR review having the Planning Board as lead agency—
coordinated review.
Attachments: Staff Report
Project name: Miller Subdivision SCTM#: 1000-63-1-12
Location: 1450 Horton's Lane, Southold
Description: This proposed standard subdivision is to subdivide a 4.28- acre parcel
into 3 lots in the R-40 Zoning District.
Status: Awaiting sketch approval
Action: I Re-consider recommended NYS Parks Phase I Archeological Review
Attachments: Letter from NYS Parks
For Discussion:
1) Hellenic Snack Bar& Restaurant- Request for extension on approved site plan. Discuss
the plan. See attached letter.
2) Status of Hamlet Stakeholder Implementation Project
3) 2009 Planning Board Meeting Schedules
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
WORK SESSIONS
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
4:00 p.m.
***Town Hall Conference Room
and
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
4:00 p.m.
Annex Board Room
(Capital One Bank Building, 2nd FI.)
P—ro-.ec_t_N.__ame: _...._�I...Shize_n (aka Gaia, Oki-do) SCT # _1000-38-7_7.1
Location: _ _ _ 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion
Description: This proposed action requires a special exception and site plan to
construct a holistic health center.
Action: ; u
-SEQR Review DEIS for ade ac_for public comment
_ -- ---__._9_......_Y._._.� ----..._...__
***Please note room change.
a WORK SESSION AGENDA 4
SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Monday, November 3, 2008
4:00 p.m.
4:00 p.m. Site Plans & Subdivisions/Lot Line Changes
Site Plans
Project Name: ; Seven Eleven SCTM# i 1000-142-1-27
...........
--..--.__._...__. _ _ __. _---...._.__...............__..._.__....__......__..,
Location: 9945 NYS Route 25, Mattituck
Description: This site plan is to convert an existing 1,950 sq. ft. gas
station/convenience store and add a 750 sq. ft. addition, having a total of
2,700 sq. ft. for a retail use (convenience store) on a 24,829 sq. ft. parcel
in the Business Zone.
Status: New Site Plan
Action: Recommend the Planning Board accept the site plan and comments,
start SEQRA review, and refer the application out to interested agencies_]
Attachments: Staff Report —_-
Project Name: Owen Construction SCTM#—; 1000-102-2-12.5
- __-_-...............__....._ _..__—. __ --
Location:` i 29025 NYS Route 25, Cu-- e
Description: This site plan is for the conversion of an existing dwelling to professional
offices on a 20,224.28 sq_ ft. parcel in the RO Zonin District___ _
Status: Review Site Plan i
Action: Recommend the Planning Board accept the comments and waive the
public hearing._--._..... .......
_ _—'----
Attachments: Staff Report
Pro-ject Name: ! The Heritage at Cutchogue .......... SCTM#: 1000-102-1-33.3 i
_ _._._. �._ _ ........_..._.._
Location: I Northwest corner of Griffing Street and School House Lane,
a roximatel_ 1,079 feet north of Main Road
m Cutch ue.
Description: I Development of a Planned 55+ Active Adult Community consisting of 1391
detached and attached dwellings, 14 of which will be permanently
_ affordable on a vacant 46.17-acre parcel.
Status: 1 SEAR- reviewyN DEIS for adequacy for public comment
----'---- _...----._..--' ----'--.--.._.._._._......._ _ ------'-._......_..._..._._a
Recommendations: I Review the report from KPC and determine whether the Planning Board
is readv.to make a determination of ade
.-_..__..__..................... _ guac for the DEIS.
_.....- '--..—...._...._.._._.....— .__...._.__......-'--- -_y
Project Name_ hiz 'aka Gala, Oki-do) SCTM#: 1000-38-7-7.1
Location: 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion
--- _ _ . .-_..__.._.._.._.....___...._............_.._.. .---..._.._................._._.....___-...- .......
Description: This proposed action requires a special exception and site plan to._.__
construct a holistic health center.
Status: SEAR - Reviewing DEIS for adequacy for public comment.
_.....-._-- .._._..__... ______......_.._.__.._._._...._-_..__............
{ Recommendations: : Overview of application, and review of consultant's review of DEIS (if
received in time
L_.__.._...._.—...._..___.._........._.........__.._.._...._.....a................._......._.._................._...._......__.....—__.._ ._..........._........................._...__..._............................_..................._.__..._..._.._.........._..................--..............__...._.._____.._--__._..............................—....._....__.................i
�of Soar
yQIO Southold Town H Annex
54375 Route 25, P.O. Box 1179
EDWARD FORRESTER L Southold, New York 11971-0959
DIRECTOR OF CODE ENFORCEMENT CA �r Telephone(631) 765-1939
Facsimile(631) 765-6639
Qly �
e-mail:
'outom� ed.forrester@town.southold.ny.us
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heather Lanza, Planning Director
z
FROM: Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforce est
DATE: October 24, 2008
RE: Property at 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion
Oki-Do Ltd.
f
This property and the structure therein were declared unsafe aet a public
hearing by the Town Board on December 18, 2007. By 1 tMjpf} R pe'_
owner was ordered to make it safe and secure. .
Counsel for the owner proposed securing the perimeter and partial demolition of
the deteriorated portions of the structure. Approvals were required from NYS
DEC and Southold Town Trustees for this work. Applications to both agencies
were made in a timely fashion at that time. NYS DEC did not approve the project
as applied for, and the owner was notified by letter dated July 8, 2008. Revised
plans were requested to satisfy their objections.
On September 9, 2008 this office learned that revised plans had not been
received by DEC. Notification was made through counsel by this office that the
Town was prepared to issue violations for failure to comply. Revised plans have
since been drawn for submittal and this office has been advised that a set will be
forwarded to the Town in the very near future.
Follow up by this office with NYS DEC is scheduled within the next ten days to
allow time for their review.
B UTT•OTR UBA-O'COAWOR ARCHITECTS,AIA
1062 Northern Boulevard, Roslyn, NY 11576
Tel. (516) 625-6625
Fax. (516) 625-6629
October 07,2008
Heather Lanza
Planning Director
Town of Southold
Southold Town Hall Annex
54375 State Road 25
Southold,NY 11971
Dear Ms. Lanza,
Per your request, attached please find the Appendix I Traffic Study for Shizen in PDF
format.
Sincerely,
Ron Woo
Cc: Dr. Kazuko Tatsumura Hillyer
Patricia C. Moore
Tom Cramer r r.
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold,N.Y. 11952V 6 4cc
C- / t
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
October 2, 2008
Ms. Jerri Woodhouse, Chairwoman and
Southold Town Planning Board
53095 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
Att: Mark Terry
Re: Shizen Hotel Wellness Center and Spa
SCTM#1000-3 8-07-7.1
Dear Mark:
Enclosed are two checks payable to the Town of Southold from my client which represents
the requested SEQRA fee. While the Budget added up to $21,500 my client forwarded two checks
adding up to $22,500.
At your earliest convenience,please provide me with a copy of a proposal with their billing
partners and staff. We will be carefully auditing the bills submitted by Nelson,Pope&Voorhis and
would ask that Accounting check with my office before they release the payments.
These payments are to be held in escrow by the Town and represents my client's funds until
the work is completed by Nelson, Pope & Voorhes.
Thank you in advance for your courtesies.
VSours,
1cia C. Moore
cc: Dr. Kazuko Tatsumura Hillyer Ph.D, President Oki-Do Ltd
Butt Otruba-O'Connor, Architects - -
i
Cramer Consulting Group
0.1 - 3 20,108 1
1
i
09/29/2008 14:24 FAX 631 765 4643 MOORE LAW OFFICES Planning Board IA001
§LJ bf
PATRICIA C. MOORE �
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold,N.Y. 11952
Tel: (631)765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
September 29, 2008
Ms. Jerri Woodhouse, Chairwoman and
Southold Town Planning Board
53095 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
Re: Shizen Hotel Wellness Center and Spa
SCTM#1000-38-07-7.1
Dear Ms. Woodhouse:
I am in receipt of Heather Lanza's letter dated September 25, 2008 requesting advance
payment of the SEQRA review fee and exhibit A(Scope of Services). The addition of these budgets
is$21,500 not$22,500.
1 have referred the budget submitted by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis to my client and her
consultants. We request that the budget identify the hourly fee charged by the different staff at
Nelso, Pope&Voorhis and that the bills identify the individual and time spent which justifies the
bill. We will be monitoring the fees closely given the generous budget which has been outlined. I
am advised that this budget exceeds the normal and customary fees charged for SEQRA review.
We reserve the right to review and approve payment of the Nelson, Pope&Voorhis bills.
My client would request payment of'/2 of the budget or$10,750.00 at this time. Since the
payment is held in escrow by the Town, upon review and approval of the bills by Planning and my
client, the escrow can be supplemented by my client when the escrow account is depleted and
additional money is needed.
Thank you in advance for your courtesies.
i
7atricia VCMoore -- -- -
cc: Dr. Kazuko Tatsumura Hillyer Ph.D, President Oki-Do LtdE 3 0 208
Butt Otruba-O'Connor, Architects -
Cramer Consulting Group
a0 MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERSP.O. Box 1179
JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE
OLQF S��ryOl Southold, NY 11971
Chair OFFICE LOCATION:
KENNETH L. EDWARDS ir Town Hall Annex
MARTIN H. SIDOR 54375 State Route 25
GEORGE D. SOLOMON (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
JOSEPH L.TOWNSEND �l�'COU '� Southold, NY
Telephone: 631 765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
September 25, 2008
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 119 71
Re: Shizen Hotel Wellness Center&Spa: DEIS Review
Dear Ms. Moore:
On behalf of the Planning Board, thank you and your client for extending us the courtesy
of an extra thirty days to review the DEIS for the Shizen project for adequacy. Enclosed
is a copy of the approved proposal from Nelson, Pope&Voorhis to provide SEQR review
services for this project.
At this time,we are requesting payment of$22,500 to the Town of Southold to cover the
costs to proceed with the SEQR process.
Sincerely,
Heather Lanza
Town Planning Director
Enc.
cc: Planning Board
File
09/24/2008 11:13 FAX 631 765 3 MOORE LAW OFFICES Planning Board Q001
_ �
P�
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold,N.Y. 11952
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631)765-4643 - ""�' '�
September 23, 2008
Chairwoman and SEP 24
Ms. Jern Woodhouse,
Southold Town Planning Board
53095 Main Road
P.O.Box 1179 "xfl
Southold,NY 11971
Re: GAIA Holistic Circle/Oki-Do Ltd I
Shizen Hotel Wellness Center and Spa
SCTM#1000-38-07-7.1
Dear Ms. Woodhouse:
1 am in receipt of your letter dated September 15,2008 requesting time to review the Draft
DEIS for adequacy with respect to its scope and content beyond the 45 days allowed. Please note
that until such time as the DEIS is reviewed by the lead agency and accepted as adequate for scope
and content,this document must not be distributed to the public or posted on the Town's web site.
We consent to the request for an extension to review the Draft document for scope and
adequacy for not to exceed 30 days.
i
i
Please provide me with written confirmation that the Draft DEIS is not being distributed or
posted and that the Planning Board is not accepting comments from the public. Only once the lead
agency accepts the document as adequate for Public review may the document be released to the
public. (6 NYCRR 617.9 (2)).
In addition, my client would like the file to reflect that the project name is Shizen Hotel
Wellness Center and Spa. Thank you in advance for your courtesies.
V yours,
(4cgia C. Moore
cc: Dr. Kazuko Tatsumura Hillyer Ph.D, President Oki-Do Ltd
Butt Otruba-O'Connor, Architects
l
Ga.
ti NELSON, POPE 6 VOORHIS, LLC
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTING
572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD,MELVILLE,NY 1 1747- 2188
(631) 427-5665 FAX (631) 427-5620
npv9nelscnpope.com
' Septorn:ber.12,20Q8
Heather Lanza, Director 'r
Town of Southold
j.
Planning Office,Town Hall Annex Il f
54375 State Route 25, P.O. Box 1179 ---_
Southold,New York 11971 �a 1
Re: Proposal of Services;Application`of ShUn 21108
Shipyard Lane, East Marion
Review of Draft Environmental Impact State neht
SEQRA/Environmental ReviewServices,
Dear Heather:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with SEQRA review services in connection with the
above referenced project. Our firm provided services to the Town in connection with initial project
review and completion of the Scoping process and we are familiar with the site and the project.
Nelson, Pope & Voorhis (NP&V) has significant experience in assisting municipalities with SEQRA
administration and technical evaluation of projects and EIS documents. To assist the Town we have
developed an itemized scope of services to be completed, based on phases of the review process
(Exhibit A). Each section includes a description of services with products identified in italics,and the
anticipated budget for services following each section.
Nelson, Pope & Voorhis will utilize qualified personnel within the firm including professional
engineers, traffic engineers, certified planners, certified environmental professionals, and
professional disciplines as appropriate for each phase of the review. Exhibit B contains a Rate
Schedule for those personnel which may be involved with project review. The Town of Southold
will receive an itemized invoice with staff time expended in the completion of these tasks.
Please review the scope of services and proposal format and advise if you require any discussion or
changes. Please provide the appropriate authorization to confirm that our services have been
engaged. The approximate total fee would be $21,500 if both the DEIS and the FEIS were subject to
one revision each. For budget purposes, it is suggested that a total budget of$22,500 be allocated,
and that the applicant provide funds (in either installments of lump sum) to the Town to cover the
cost of review as provided for under SEQRA. Only those hours expended in completing the project
will be billed.
We are able to commence the project immediately, and I look forward to working with you on this
project.
Very truly yours,
Nelson, Pope& Voorhis, LLC
&L V4"k,
Charles J. Voorhis, CEP,AICP
Page I
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Project Start-up and Scoping Phase-Completed
Draft EIS Review Phase
1. Review Draft EIS submitted on behalf of applicant for content and adequacy in meeting SEQRA
requirements [SEQRA Part 617.9 (a)(2)] and conformance with Final Scope document; includes
field inspection and professional level review by staffs expert in the appropriate discipline being
reviewed.; provide Draft EIS review letter within 30 days of receipt of Draft EIS. Maximum
review period is 45 days unless extended. If the time period is extended, one additional week
would be appreciated.
Fee: Time Rates
Budget: $6,500.00
2. Review resubmitted Draft EIS for conformance with initial review letter; provide Draft EIS
review letter for content and adequacy within 21 days of receipt of revised Draft EIS. Conduct
additional reviews of revised Draft EIS documents as necessary.
Fee: Time Rates
Budget: $1,000.00
Each submission
3. Prepare draft Notice of Complete Draft EIS and Notice of Public Hearing for consideration by
the Town Planning Board.
Fee: Time Rates
Budget: $250.00
4. Conduct detailed review of Draft EIS for accuracy and substance in order to determine if impacts
have been addressed and analyzed thoroughly to provide the Town of Southold and involved
agencies with information necessary for the decision-making process. Conduct independent
analyses as appropriate, complete detailed traffic study review and verify assumptions and
conclusions based on professional standards. Meet with Town Planning Board and/or Staff to
gain input regarding comments on the Draft EIS. Provide Draft EIS review letter for accuracy
and substance (incorporating input from Town Planning Board), identifying issues which should
be addressed in a Final EIS, if substantive comments are noted(letter to be provided prior to the
public hearing).
Fee: Time Rates
Budget: $4,000.00
5. Attend public hearing on the Draft EIS. Prepare "script" for Planning Board chair to use in
conducting the meeting and/or assist with conducting the meeting focusing on the purpose and the
procedural requirements being fulfilled.
Fee: Time Rates
Budget: $1,000.00
Page 2
Final EIS Review Phase
1. Assess comments received at public hearing (transcript), written comments from involved
agencies and parties of interest. Provide letter to Southold Planning Board of identifying
comment letters with the intent of directing comments on the Draft EIS to the applicant to address
in a proposed Final EIS.
2. Review proposed Final EIS submitted on behalf of applicant for accuracy, substance and
effectiveness in responding to comments on the Draft EIS. Conduct independent analyses as
appropriate and verify assumptions and conclusions based on professional standards. Meet with
Town Planning Board to gain input regarding comments on the Final EIS. Provide Final EIS
review letter for accuracy and substance (incorporating input from the Town), identifying issues
which should be addressed in a revised Final EIS, within 21 days of receipt of proposed Final
EIS.
Fee: Time Rates
Budget: $4,000.00
6. Review resubmitted Final EIS for conformance with initial review letter; provide Final EIS
review letter for content and adequacy within 21 days of receipt of revised Final EIS. Conduct
additional reviews of revised Draft EIS documents as necessary.
Fee: Time Rates
Budget: $1,000.00
Each submission
7. Prepare draft Notice of Complete Final EIS for consideration by Town Planning Board.
Fee: Time Rates
Budget: $250.00
Findings Phase
1. Review EIS record and consult with Town representatives;prepare draft Statement of Findings.
2. Revise Statement of Findings as necessary based on review and input from Town of Southold
Planning Board. .
Budget: $3,500.00
Notes and Comments:
It is assumed that the Town of Southold will complete all circulation and mailing in compliance
with notice and filing requirements of SEQRA. NP&V will assist upon request.
The budget numbers are for estimating purposes; actual fees will be based on amount of time
expended in completion of tasks to the satisfaction of the Town of Southold Planning Board,times
the hourly rates presented in Exhibit B.
Page 3
EXHIBIT B Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT B
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS invoiced in accordance with the Rate Schedule in effect at the time such services are
performed.
The following General Terms and Conditions are applicable to Agreements
between Nelson,Pope&Voorhis,LLC or N&P,Engineers&Land Surveyor,PLLC 1.3.4 N&P reserves the right to make adjustments fees after 1 year from submittal of
(d/b/a Nelson&Pope,Engineers&Surveyors,collectively"N&P",and the Client, proposal.
when attached to and made part of such Agreement or Proposals. 2.0 INSURANCE
1.0 INVOICES,REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES,ESCALATION OF FEES N&P represents and warrants that it now has in full effect and will maintain the
1.1 Invoices following insurance's for the duration of this project:
N&P will submit invoices to Client on N&P's standard invoice form,terms net N&P will furnish to the Client certificates of insurance upon request. Premiums for
thirty(30)days. Partially completed items of work for which a fee has been specified insurance coverage in excess of these coverage's,when requested by the Client,will be
will be billed based upon percentage of completion as estimated by N&P otherwise charged to the project and are subject to reimbursement.
invoices will be based upon N&P's Schedule of Standard Hourly Rates in effect at the 2,1 Commercial General Liability Insurance covering as insured N&P and as an
time the work is performed. Past due balances are subject to interest of 1.0 percent per additional insured Client with the following limits of liability:
month,or the maximum permitted under state law,whichever is less. N&P,after
giving seven(7)days written notice,may suspend services under any Agreement until Personal Adv.Injury- $1,000,000 for each occurrence
all past due accounts,including applicable interest,have been paid. In the event that General Aggregate $2,000,000 in the aggregate
the invoice is not paid voluntary and promptly,and must be liened and/or referred to Excess Liability-Umbrella $4,000,000 for each occurrence
an attorney or agency for collection, the Client agrees to pay to N&P, N&P's and $4,000,000 in the aggregate
reasonable collection and attorney's fee equal to twenty-five percent(25%)of the total 2,2 Worker's Compensation Insurance securing compensation for the benefit of
amount due at that time. N&P's employees as required by the Worker's Compensation Law. Premiums for
The minimum time segment for charging of survey field work is four(4)hours. The additional insurance coverage required for work on or near the waterfront will be charged
minimum time segment for charging of all other work is one-half hour. Where to the project and are subject to reimbursement.
applicable, rental charges will be applied to the project to cover the cost of 2.3 Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance covering owned,non-owned,
instrumentation and/or technical equipment. and hired vehicles will be provided upon request.
1.2 Reimbursable Expenses 2.4 Professional Liability Insurance insuring against negligent acts, errors and
Reimbursable expenses are charged to the Client at cost plus twenty-five percent omissions,by N&P,in an amount of$1,000,000 per claim with a$3,000,000 aggregate.
(25%). 3.0 CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES
1.2.1 Reproduction of plans, specifications and other documents, including 3.1 The Client shall provide all criteria and full information as to Client's
documents necessary for submission to regulatory agencies and for coordination with requirements for the Project;designate a person to act with authority on Client's behalf in
Client and any other Client consultant. Reproduction charges for documents respect to all aspects of the Project; examine and respond promptly to N&P's
reproduced by N&P in-house are: blackline($0.45/sf); translucent bond($0.70/sf); submissions;and give prompt written notice to N&P whenever he observes or otherwise
mylar($6.75/sf); presentation paper($3.35/sf); B&W- 8 %xx 11 ($0.15/ea), 8 'hx 14 becomes aware of any defect in the work.
($0.20/ea), l l x 17($0.30/ea); Color 8 %zx l l ($2.20/ea), 8 %x 14 ($2.80/ea),
I I x17($4.45/ea), other size($3.50/sf), report binding($10.00/ea); and emailing of 3.2 The Client shall provide right of entry for N&P personnel and equipment
documents(Time Rates). In-house document reproduction not subject to reimbursable necessary to complete the work.
markup. The cost of outside services for document reproduction will be billed as 3.3 While N&P will take all reasonable precautions to minimize any damage to the
reimbursable expense. property,it is understood by Client that in the normal course of work some damage may
1.2.2 Permit, Application and Filling fees advanced by N&P. In general, all occur,the correction of which is not part of this agreement.
processing fees including but not limited to permits and applications shall be the 3.4 The Client shall be responsible for payment of all fees in connection with the
responsibility of the Client. Project. Payment of fees by Client is NOT contingent upon receipt of Agency
1.2.3 The cost of equipment rental including where applicable equipment operators, Approvals.
and subcontracted services, such as authorized photogrammetry, testing services, 4.0 COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF WORK
geotechnical services, laboratory services, archeological services, and other
specialized services by consultants, excluding those services which are explicitly 4.1 N&P shall commence work on this project after receipt of a signed Proposal
included in the N&P proposal. which establishes our Agreement for Professional Services at a schedule agreed upon by
N&P and Client.
1.2.4 Expenses for the specific benefit of the Client consisting of travel,incidental
expenses,and expendable materials and supplies purchased specifically for the project. 4.2 Proposals that have been submitted but not signed will be considered as being
accepted if the client verbally instructs N&P to proceed;
1.2.5 If the services covered by this Agreement are subject to local or state taxes or
fees(except state income taxes),such additional costs will be charged to the project 4.3 Should the performance or completion of the work by N&P hereunder be
and are subject to reimbursement as provided herein. delayed by flood,earthquake,fires,strikes,governmental orders or any other similar or
dissimilar causes beyond the control of N&P or due to changes,delays,acts or omissions,
1.2.6 Cost of delivery of documents to Client, regulatory agencies, or to others by Client,contractors or their agents and representatives,then the time for performance
designated by the Client will be billed at either Time Rates, if performed by N&P or completion by N&P hereunder shall be extended for the period of such delays.
staff,or as a reimbursable expense,if an outside service is used.
5.0 CHANGED CONDITIONS
1.3 Escalation of Fees
Certain conditions may arise during the performance of our services which may differ
1.3.1 Fees and schedule commitments are subject to renegotiations for significantly from those assumed to exist when the Scope of Services was prepared.
unreasonable delay caused by the Client's failure to provide specified facilities or
information,or for delays caused by unpredictable occurrences,or force majeure,such If,in the opinion of N&P,the Agreement is no longer adequate in light of occurrences
as fires,floods,strikes,riots,unavailability of labor or materials or services,acts of or discoveries that were not originally contemplated by or known to us,we have right to
God or of the public enemy, or acts or regulations of any governmental agency. renegotiate the Agreement by first identifying the Changed Condition and informing the
Temporary work stoppage caused by any of the above may result in additional cost Client.
(reflecting a change in scope)beyond that outlined in this proposal; The Client and N&P shall promptly and in good faith enter into renegotiation of the
1.3.2 N&P shall have the right to increase it's compensation payable by the Agreement to help us to meet the Client's needs. If renegotiated terms cannot be agreed
Client to N&P in the event that N&P must modify services,facilities or equipment to to,the Client agrees that N&P has an absolute right to terminate this Agreement.
comply with laws or regulations that become effective after execution of this 6.0 COMPLIANCE WITH CODES AND STANDARDS
Agreement,provided that N&P give the Client thirty(30)days prior notice as to the
cause for escalation and the additional amounts involved. N&P's services shall be consistent with sound engineering and surveying practices and
shall incorporate those publicly announced federal,state and local laws,rules,regulations,
1.3.3 N&P may make an annual adjustment to its Standard Hourly Rates and codes and standards that are applicable at the time N&P rendered their services. In the
document reproduction fees. Services performed on an hourly cost basis will be event of change in a law,rule,regulation,code,standard or similar document N&P shall
Revised 6/27/08
EXHIBIT B Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT B
assess its impact. If,in N&P's professional opinion,the impact is such to significantly 10.5 The Client recognizes that topographical mapping prepared from aerial
affect N&P's fees,costs or anticipated completion date,a Changed Condition shall be photography is subject to an inherent margin of error.Client agrees that N&P shall not be
deemed to exist and shall be dealt with pursuant to Section 5. liable for any site work changes due to differences between actual site conditions and
In any event, the Client waives any claim against N&P, and agrees to defend, conditions depicted on topographic mapping used to prepare plans for the Project.
indemnify and hold N&P harmless for any claim or liability for injury or loss 11.0 DISPUTES
allegedly arising from N&P's failure to abide by federal,state and local laws,rules,
regulations,codes and standards that were not in effect or publicly announced at the 11.1 In the event that a dispute should arise relating to the performance of the services
time when N&P otherwise would have incorporated their intent into the work. The to be provided under this Agreement,and should that dispute result in litigation in which
Client further agrees to compensate N&P for any time spent or expenses incurred by N&P prevails, it is agreed that N&P shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs
N&P in defense of any such claim,in accordance with N&P's prevailing fee schedule incurred as a result of the claim,including staff time,court costs,attorney's fees and other
and expense reimbursement policy and the statements for legal services rendered to claim-related expenses.
N&P. 11.2 Not withstanding the foregoing, N&P shall have the right to submit any
7.0 MAINTENANCE OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND ETHICS controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract,or the breach thereof,to
The Client recognizes that N&P's services in all cases must be rendered in binding arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association in accordance
accordance with prevailing professional standards and ethics,as well as certain laws or with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules,and judgment on the award rendered by
regulations that apply specifically to N&P or to the engineering and surveying the arbitrator(s)may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
professions. Services performed by N&P under this Agreement will be conducted in a 11.3 The Client recognizes N&P's right not to release documents until the Client has
manner consistent with the level of care and skill originally exercised by members of made the account receivables current,excluding only any billed fees in dispute,providing
the profession currently practicing under similar conditions. NO OTHER the Client has notified N&P in writing within thirty (30) days of the invoice date
WARRANTY,EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,IS MADE. If a situation emerges that identifying the portion of the fees in dispute and the reason for the dispute. All
causes N&P to believe compliance with the Client's wishes could result in N&P undisputed fees on the disputed invoice shall be paid in accordance with these terms.
violating an applicable provision or aspect of professional standards or ethics,laws of 12.0 TERMINATION
regulations,N&P shall so advise the Client. The Client and N&P shall immediately
enter into discussions to arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution. Failing 12.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon ten(10)calendar days
achievement of a solution,either party may terminate this Agreement in accordance written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to perform in
with termination provisions stated herein. accordance with the terms hereof. Such termination shall not be effective if that
8.0 OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS substantial failure has been remedied before expiration of the period specified in the
written notice. In the event of termination,N&P shall be paid for services performed to
8.1 All reports, studies, plans and specifications, logs, field data, field notes, the termination notice date plus reasonable termination expenses.
laboratory test data,calculations,estimates and other documents prepared by N&P as 12.2 This Agreement may be terminated by N&P, pursuant to Section 5 and 7
instruments of service,shall remain the property of N&P. hereof,upon ten(10)calendar days written notice.
8.2 Client agrees that all reports and other work furnished to the Client or his 12.3 In the event of termination,or suspension for more than three(3)months,prior
agents,which are not paid for,will be returned upon demand and will not be used for to completion of all work contemplated by this Agreement. N&P may complete such
any purpose whatsoever.
analyses and records as are necessary to complete its files and may also complete a report
8.3 N&P will retain all pertinent records relating to the services performed for the on the services performed to the date of notice of termination or suspension. The
period of six (6) years following submission of the report, study, plans and expenses of termination or suspension shall include all direct costs of N&P in completing
specifications,during which period the records will be made available to the Client for such analyses and reports. A final invoice will be calculated on the first or fifteenth of the
inspection at N&P's office, at reasonable times, provided, however, that all N&P month(whichever comes first)following the end of the cancellation period(the effective
invoices rendered in connection with the services performed have been paid. date of cancellation).
9.0 DEFECTS IN SERVICES 12.3.1 Where method of contract payment is lump sum, the final invoices will be
The Client and the Client's personnel,contractors and subcontractors shall promptly based on the percentage of work completed to the effective date of cancellation,plus 3
Percent of the billings to such date as a closeout cost.
report to N&P any defects or suspected defects in N&P's work or services,in order
that N&P may take prompt, effective measures which in N&P's opinion will 12.3.2 Where method of contract payment is based on time and materials, the final
minimize the consequences of a defect in service. invoice will include all services and direct expenses associated with the project up to the
10.0 INDEMNIFICATION AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY effective date of cancellation,plus 3 percent of the billings to such date as a closeout cost.
10.1 N&P agrees to hold the Client harmless from and against all claims arising 12.3.3 Where method of contract payment is cost plus a fixed fee,the final invoice
will include all costs to date of termination and a pro-rata share of the fixed fee plus 3
out of the negligent professional acts,errors and omissions of N&P in connection with percent of the billings to such date as a closeout cost.
the performance of the work described in this Agreement.
10.2 N&P shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of the Client, The closeout cost referred to al 12.3.1,1 or d and 12.3.3 herein is not l be considered
contractor or any third parties in connection with or arising out of the project. The a a penalty,but represents or allowance for demobilization of personnel and equipment
and costs not available on short notice.
Client hereby holds harmless and indemnifies N&P against all claims, damages,
costs,suits,expenses,and attorney's fees which may be incurred by N&P which arise 13.0 GOVERNING LAW
out of the foregoing. Expenses shall include,but not be limited to time charges by The laws of the state in which the office of N&P, performing the work under this
N&P's partners and employees at N&P's then standard hourly fees. Agreement,is domiciled will govern the validity of this Agreement,its interpretation and
10.3 The Client agrees that N&P's aggregate liability to the Client and to all performance, and remedies for contract breach or any other claims related to this
construction contractors and subcontractors on the project,due to N&P's professional Agreement.
negligent acts, errors or omissions, shall not exceed N&P's total fee for services 14.0 ASSIGNS
rendered on the project.
10.4 The Client shall make no claim for professional negligence,either directly The Client may not delegate,assign,sublet or transfer his duties,obligations or interest
in this Agreement without the written consent of N&P.
or in a third-party claim,against N&P unless the Client has first provided N&P with a
written certification executed by an independent design professional currently
practicing in the same discipline as N&P and licensed in the state in which the project
for which N&P's services were rendered is located. This certification shall: a)
identify the name and license number of the certifier;b)specify each and every act or
omission that the certifier contends is a violation of the standard of care expected of a
design professional performing professional services under similar circumstances;and
c)state in complete detail the basis for the certifier's opinion that each such act or
omission constitutes such a violation. This certificate shall be provided to N&P not
less than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the presentation of any claim or the
institution of any arbitration or judicial proceeding.
Revised 6/27/08
EXHIBIT C Page 1 of I
EXHIBIT C
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE -
NELSON, POPE & VOORHIS & NELSON & POPE
Time Rates Fee Schedule for items previously listed as time rates and other services that may be
required but are not included in this proposal:
Nelson,Pope&Voorhis
Managing Partner $200.00
Associate Environmental Analyst/Div Mgr. $185.00
Associate Environmental Planner/Div.Mgr. $185.00
Associate Environmental Scientist/Div.Mgr. $185.00
Principal Planner $160.00
Sr.Planner $140.00
Senior Environmental Planner $130.00
Hydrogeologist/Sr.Environmental Analyst $130.00
Environmental Engineer $125.00
Environmental Planner $110.00
Environmental Scientist $100.00
Planner $ 85.00
Environmental Analyst $ 90.00
Field Technician $ 85.00
Administrative Assistant $ 80.00
Nelson&Pope
Partner $200.00
Associate $185.00
Project Manager $175.00
Senior Engineer $170.00
Senior Surveyor $150.00
Structural Engineer $145.00
Engineer $130.00
Senior Engineer Technician $125.00
Surveyor $130.00
Senior Survey Technician $125.00
Sr.Field Engineer Technician $120.00
Engineer Technician $105.00
Survey Technician $105.00
Field Engineer Technician $100.00
Senior Draftsperson $ 95.00
Project Coordinator $ 95.00
Processing Clerk $ 85.00
Draftsperson $ 90.00
Junior Engineer $ 70.00
Senior Administrative Assistant $110.00
Administrative Assistant $ 85.00
Clerk $ 70.00
Court Testimony $375.00
Field Party 2 Men(Suburban Rate) $215.00
Field Party 3 Men(Suburban Rate) $260.00
Field Party 2 Men(Consultant Rate) $220.00
Field Party 3 Men(Consultant Rate) $300.00
Field Party 2 Men(Heavy Rate) $300.00
Field Party 3 Men(Heavy Rate) $390.00
Revised 6/27/08
B UTT•OTR UBA-O'CONNOR ARCHITECTS, AIA
1062 Northern Boulevard, Roslyn, NY 11576
Tel. (516) 625-6625
Fax. (516) 625-6629
3 p g
Se tember 9 2008
4AIA
Heather Lanza
Planning Director
Town of Southold
Southold Town Hall Annex
54375 State Road 25 �.l C
41 6-Y4
Southold,NY 11971
Dear Ms. Lanza,
Per your request, attached please find the DEIS for Shizen in PDF format.
Please note, the four (4) additional hard copies of the DEIS will be completed sometime
tomorrow. You can expect to receive the copies before the weekend.
Sincerely,
A�
Ron Woo
ti
y
...... ....
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11952
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
September 8, 2008 -- ,
Ms. Jerri Woodhouse, Chairwoman and
Southold Town Planning Board
53095 Main RoadSEP - 9 2008
P.O.Box 1179 I
Southold,NY 11971 --- - ----
By Hand
Re: GAIA Holistic Circle/Oki-Do Ltd. „
Shizen Wellness Center and Spa
SCTM#1000-3 8-07-7.1
Zoning: MII
2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion
Dear Ms. Woodhouse:
In accordance with the Board's determination and final scope dated November 6, 2006 the
owner hereby submits the enclosed Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared in accordance
with the State Environmental Quality Review Act and its implementing regulations in 6 NYCRR
Part 617.
Thank you in advance for your courtesies.
L:5ricia
aCMuoror�e
,.
cc: Dr. Kazuko Tatsumura Hillyer Ph.D, President Oki-Do Ltd
Butt Otruba-O'Connor, Architects
Cramer Consulting Group
Received by hand on September 8, 2008 ll V
SEP - 8 2008
_.___-7777777
Pa
Nl
a �a
W
Eliot Spitzer
LL Governor
O NEW YORK STATE 3
New York State Office of Parks, CoBrOSAShr
Recreation and Historic Preservation
Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau•Peebles Island, PO Box 189,Waterford, New York12188-0181-.: j.
518-237-8643 -
March 6, 2008 +�
www.nysparks.com
Thomas Cramer "-
Cramer Consulting Group
PO Box 5535 MAR 1 3 ZOOS i
Miller Place,NY 11764 j
Dear Mr. Cramer,
Re: ACOE/DEC �---- - -- -
Gaia Holistic Circle, Shipy*d..l.ane,East Marion
Town of Southold,Suffolk
08PR0O796
Thank your for requesting the comments of the New York State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)with regard to the
potential for this project to affect significant historical/cultural resources. SHPO has reviewed the Phase 1/2 Cultural
Resource Report prepared by the Institute for Long Island Archaeology in July 2007. Based on this review SHPO
offers the following comments:
1. SHPO has no concerns regarding the National Register Eligibility of buildings in the vicinity, and therefore no
concerns regarding visual impacts of the proposed project on historic resources.
2. SHPO recognized the identification of the Gaia Prehistoric Site and we have assigned this site Unique Site
Number in the s Inventory bl-iPsiorit-site3.—
3. SHPO is not ready to concur that the Gaia site is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places,or
that no further investigation of the site should be undertaken. Although Phase 2 shovel testing of the site was
limited to areas directly adjacent to Phase 1 it revealed that prehistoric deposits do extend over a large
portion of the area within the site boundaries(estimated to cover an area of approximately 25 meters by 40
meters or 1000 square meters/10,760 square feet). In addition to the shovel tests,the Phase 2 investigation
included the excavation of 4 one meter square units-which examined approximately 0.004%of the site.
This is a very limited sample to make generalizations regarding the presence/absence of features and
diagnostic materials at any site.
4. At this time,SHPO recommends additional close interval shovel testing of the site area to provide data on the
distribution of material across the site. That information can then be used to produce distribution maps of the
site and provide a more accurate analysis of potential "hot spots". The results of the distribution analysis can
then be examined with the use of 6 additional 1 by 1 meter units. This would provide an excavation sample
of approximately 10 square meters or 0.01%of the site.
Please contact me at extension 3291,or by e-mail at douglas.mackey@oprhp.state.ny.us,if you have any
questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely
Douglas P /v ckey
Historic Preservation Program A alyst
Archaeology
c: Jeri Woodhouse,Southold Planning Board
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency Cj printed on recycled paper
HOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA, KELLEY,
DUBIN & QUARTARARO LLP
Attorneys at Law
OF COUNSEL
THOMAS A.TWOMEY,JR. Mailing Address Location KENNETH P.LAVALLE
STEPHEN B.LATHAM Post Office Box 9398 33 West Second Street JOAN C.HATFIELD A
JOHN F.SHEA,III Riverhead Riverhead PHILIP D.NYKAMP
CHRISTOPHER D.KELLEY New York 11901-9398 New York 11901-9398 LAURA I.SGUAZZIN
DAVID M.DUBIN*
JAY P.QUARTARAROt CYRUS G.DOLCE,JR.p-
PETER M.MOTT Telephone: 631.727.2180 LISA A.AZZATO+
JANICE L.SNEAD Facsimile: 631.727.1767 KATHRYN DALLI
MARTIN D.FINNEGANO DANIEL G.WANI t
ANNE MARIE GOODALE JENNIFER A.ANDALORO
BRYAN C.VAN COTT• www.SUtfolklaw.com KELLY E.KINIRONS
PATRICK B. FIFE
LAUREN E.STILES
VIA FACSIMILE and MAIL AMIEL S.GROSS
I.L.M.IN TAXATION t
LL.M.IN ESTATE PLANNING O
December 13,2007 NY&LA BARS A
NY&CT BARS
NY,NJ,&PA BARS p
NY&NJ BARS
NY,DC,GA,&FL BARS+
Town Board NY,NJ,CT,&FL BARS
NY&TX BARS
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
Re: Oki-Do, Ltd.
Premises: 2835 Shipyard Lane,East Marion,NY '�7
SCTM#: 1000-038.00-07.00-007.001 DEC 1l
Dear Members of the Town Board:
This firm represents Cleaves Point Condominium Association("Cleaves Point"), neighbors
directly to the west of the above-referenced premises and the proposed-site of the Gaia Holistic
Center.
We appeared at the Planning Board work session held on December 2,2007 and the following
Town Board unsafe building hearing on December 3, 2007. Since we were not given an
opportunity to voice our client's concerns at the hearing, we respectfully submit this letter in
connection with the testimony given and comments made at that hearing.
On October 16,2006, we appeared at a scoping session held by the Planning Board to express
the concerns of Cleaves Point, including safety concerns, about the project. At that time,we
advised the Planning Board that the existing buildings at the site were in severe disrepair,that the
site was full of debris and that roof panels had been blown off, and will continue to blow off,
causing safety concerns for the surrounding neighbors. On October 26,2006,we reiterated those
concerns in writing to the Planning Board. A copy of our letter to the Planning Board is annexed
hereto. In addition,our client has on numerous occasions,beginning well over a year ago,
complained to both the Town and to the applicant's attorney about the broken fence on the
Shipyard Lane side of the property. This condition is of continuing concern.
THE FENCE
The applicant proposed a stone wall along the perimeter as an alternative to the existing chain
link fence. The Planning Board is against such a stone wall, as is our client. The proposal to
erect a stone wall is an attempt by the applicant to begin part of the construction process before
20 MAIN STREET 51 HILL STREET 105 ROUTE 112,FL 1 S 400 TOWNLINE ROAD 56340 MAIN ROAD,R O.BOX 325
EAST HAMPTON,NY 11937 SOUTHAMPTON,NY 11968 PORT JEFFERSON STA.,NY 11776 HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788 SOUTHOLD, NY 11971
631.324.1200 631.287.0090 631.928.4400 631.265.1414 631.765.2300
the appropriate permits are issued. As mentioned by one of the board members,there is no
reason why a stronger fence,other than the existing chain link, cannot be installed along
Shipyard Lane to prevent vandalism. Once a better fence is installed,the issue of policing the
area arises. It is our understanding that the applicant has no presence whatsoever at the
abandoned property. We suggest that some measure be put in place by the applicant to prevent
further vandalism,and,if there is vandalism,that the situation be remedied without the necessity
of notice by the Town. We further suggest that some penalty be imposed upon the applicant if
she continues to fail to properly secure the property.
At the hearing,Patricia Moore, Esq. stated that she was of the opinion that her client could install
a stone wall without a permit. The subject property borders tidal wetlands. According to the
Town Code, if any portion of the proposed wall is within 100 feet of the wetlands, a permit is
required by the Trustees. Likewise,if any part of the proposed wall is within 300 feet of the
wetlands,a permit is required by the DEC. Thus,the applicant may only erect a stone wall
without a permit if the wall begins more than 300 feet inland from the wetlands. Under the
circumstances here,the applicant would be required to obtain a permit.
SEGMENTATION
The applicant has been attempting to segment this project since the application was filed. As
provided in the letter from the Planning Board to the Town Board,the Planning Board is against
segmenting the project in any manner,and our client agrees. The bulkhead at this property has
been broken through for years,which is well-documented. As a result,that property has been
lost. The high water mark has changed and is now closer to the existing structures. In an
attempt to reclaim that property in order to secure more favorable building setbacks,the
applicant has been proposing a revetment along the water. Any attempt to revet that area will
have far-reaching environmental effects to the wetlands. It is imperative that the appropriate
studies be done and completed before any type of structure is allowed, including the completion
of the DEIS.
We appreciate your including this letter and its attachment as part of the record of this matter.
Thank you for your consideration.
Veryy yours,
Kn Drathry
/enc.
cc: Planning Board
Cleaves Point Condominium Association
2
TOOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA, KA EY,
DUBIN & QUARTARARO LILP
Attorneys at Law
THOMAS A.TWOMEY.JR. Mailing Address Location OF COUNSEL
STEPHEN B.LATHAM Post Office BOX 9398 33 West Second Street KENNETH P.LAVALLE
JOHN F. SHEA, III Riverhead Riverhead JOAN C. HATFIELD
CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY New York 11901-9398 New York 11901-J$L�E�➢Y E1� LAURA I. SGUAZZIN A
DAVID M. DUBINO 1RLC C
JAY P.OUARTARARO t BRYAN C. VAN COTT
PETER M.MOTT Telephone:631.727.2180 �/ y�� ' CYRUS G. DOLCE,JR.o-
Facsimile
JANICE L.SNEAD : 6317271767. . C.1� ` LISA A.AZZATO+
�
JANE DiGIACOMOn KATHRYN DALLI
L
PHILIP D. NYKAMP OCTU 6 2006 DANIEL G.WANI t
MARTIN D.FINNEGANO www.suffolklaw.com JENNIFER A.ANDALORO
ANNE MARIE GOODALE KELLY E. KINIRONS
LL.M,IN TAXATION 1
Southold Towil Clerl� LL M.IN ESTATE PLANNING O
�m
NV 8 LA BARS 0
BYHAND NV 6 CT BARS
NV.NJ.6 PA BARS p
iry(* yea,+ar- sRs+,lrafct:.+l,,.
saK•�c,{gy4� � NV d NJ BARS
N�.DC,GA,6 FL BARS}
W.NJ,CT.6 FL BARS
October 26, 2006
Planning Board
Town of Southold OCT 2 2006
P.O. Box 1179 t 3'
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Oki-Do, Ltd.
Premises: 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion,
SCTM#: 1000-038.00-07.00-007.001
Dear Members of the Planning Board:
This firm represents Cleaves Point Condominium Association("Cleaves Point"), neighbors
directly to the west of the above-referenced premises and the proposed site of the Gaia Holistic
Center.
We appeared at the scoping session held on October 16, 2006 and voiced our client's concerns
regarding the scope of the applicant's Draft Environmental Impact Statement("DEIS"). As we
stated at the session, we are presenting those concerns in writing at this time. In addition, we are
submitting an independent traffic study prepared by Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. dated August 3,
2006, and the written comments of Robert Grover,-Chief Environmental Consultant for
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc., dated October 24, 2006.
The entrance to and exit from Cleaves Point is on Shipyard Lane. The proposed ingress and
egress locations to the Gaia Holistic Center are situated directly across from those of Cleaves
Point. As such, and for other reasons, a serious traffic conflict is created. While traffic is one of
the primary concerns of Cleaves Point, there are many other issues of environmental concern as
outlined below.
TRAFFIC
The applicant's traffic study concludes that there will be no detrimental effect on traffic
conditions, which conclusion is not only self-serving, but misleading. The conclusion is not
20 MAIN STREET 51 HILL STREET 105 ROUTE 112,FL IS 400 TOWNLINE ROAD 56340 MAIN ROAD,P.O.BOX 325
EAST HAMPTON,NY 11937 SOUTHAMPTON,NY 11968 PORT JEFFERSON STA.,NY 11776 HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788 SOUTHOLD,NY 11971
631.324.1200 631.287.0090 631.928.4400 631.265.1414 631.765.2300
based on realistic assessments. Cleaves Point's independent traffic study raises significant
issues, as briefly discussed below, and which are more fully discussed in the annexed report.
• It is highly unlikely that only overnight guests will be using the facility;
• It is highly unlikely that the restaurant will limit public patrons;
• The delivery activities for such a proposed high-end facility are not accurately reflected;
• The fact that all the many amenities will have to be maintained, thereby requiring
maintenance vehicles to constantly enter and leave the facility, is not accurately reflected;
• As the Greenman-Pedersen traffic study states, with the increased traffic to and from the
facility, there likely will be a 2 to 2 1/2 minute wait to enter onto Route 25 from Shipyard
Lane, which wait, undoubtedly, will lead to unsafe driving choices, especially given the
blind spot looking west on Route 25;
• Public transportation to and from the facility is highly unlikely and purely speculative
given the high-end nature and remote location of the facility;
• There are 3 driveways proposed to enter and exit the facility, the main entrance of which
is directly across from the access to Cleaves Point. This configuration presents a
dangerous condition;
• Three entrances will prove confusing to visitors, and require more signage than would be
necessary with fewer entrances. Further, 3 entrances will require more disturbance or
breaking up of the screening of the facility. There should be 2 entrances at the most—
one for service vehicles and one for all others;
• Using Gillette Road as an alternate access to the facility will greatly reduce traffic
problems on Shipyard Lane and any backup of vehicles, both service and guest, entering
the facility. In the alternative, one road can be used to enter the facility and the other
road to exit the facility. Shipyard Lane must not bare the burden alone. Sharing the
burden of traffic must be analyzed and considered. Or, one road can be used for
employee and service vehicles and the other road for guests;
• There should be consideration of any pedestrian traffic and whether sidewalks would be
warranted, or the widening of Shipyard Lane;
• Will large buses or trailers be allowed to enter the facility? If so, the noise and resultant
emissions should be analyzed, and they should be able to park and turn around inside the
facility;
• The ever-increasing year-round ferry traffic must be considered.
PARKING AND LIGHTING
The plan calls for parking to be spread out over(3) three sides of the property, including the
entire length of Shipyard Lane. It will be required that all the roadways and parking areas be lit.
• Cleaves Point is concerned that the lighting will produce a"glow" or"halo" effect. If the
parking were centralized, such an effect could be minimized.
• There must not be any parking on Shipyard Lane.
• What kind of lighting will there be at the restaurant? Will there be an outdoor deck or
outdoor seating with lighting? Again, Cleaves Point is concerned about the"glow" or
"halo" effect of any outdoor lighting, as well as the noise.
BUFFER
• What kind of buffer will there be along Shipyard Lane?
THE MARINA
• Will fuel be stored on the premises and, if so, who would have access to the fuel pumps?
REVETMENT
It is our understanding that water has broken through the old existing bulkhead, which means
that the high water mark has changed and is now closer to the existing structures. This fact
necessarily will effect the required setbacks. As a result, the wetlands should be reflagged to
determine the appropriate setbacks.
• What steps are the DEC and the Board of Trustees going to take to preserve the existing
wetlands?
• Will there be a study as to the impact any dredging will have on vegetation and wildlife,
including the Osprey nests?
• What erosion control measures and practices will be instituted?
• What impact will the location of the proposed revetment have on the existing revetment
at Cleaves Point and the surrounding areas?
DRAINAGE
The plan calls for the installation of drainage systems in close proximity to the wetlands.
Cleaves Point is concerned that the water table will be effected thereby. There presently exist
drainage problems on Shipyard Lane.
• Will the applicant be required to make any improvements regarding drainage that will
address the existing problems?
• Will there be any drainage into the bay?
PUBLIC WATER
The plan includes many man-made ponds, pools and facilities requiring a very substantial water
supply.
• Where will the requisite water come from?
• Will the applicant be required to install new water mains along Shipyard Lane?
FEMA REQUIREMENTS
FEMA requires that all structures maintain an elevation of at least 10 feet above sea level. The
existing plan includes structures violative of this rule.
• Some of the proposed buildings are only 6 feet above sea level.
• If the buildings are moved landward as a result, the visual impact on the neighbors would
be lessened.
THE DUMPSTER
Cleaves Point is concerned that the proposed location of the dumpsters will create noise and
traffic to and from the dumpsters, and the likelihood of vermin.
• If the dumpsters were moved closer to the main building, these concerns would be
mitigated.
EXISTING PUBLIC SAFETY
The existing building at the site is in severe disrepair. The site is also full of debris. Roof panels
have been blown off, and will continue to blow off, causing safety concerns for the surrounding
neighbors.
• Will the owner/applicant be required to address these safety issues at this time?
• The area presently constitutes an attractive nuisance to the neighborhood.
NOISE
0 What efforts will be made to control the noise from the public areas?
• Will there be outdoor parties, concerts or special events bringing in crowds for a day(s) or
night(s)?
• Will construction be limited to weekdays and certain hours?
• Will there be loudspeakers, outdoor music or announcements? If so, will the hours be
regulated?
• Will commercial deliveries be limited to certain hours?
We trust that the Planning Board, as lead agency, will require the applicant to study and address
these issues so that the Board can take a hard look at them and make certain that they are fully
addressed in the DEIS and FEIS.
We appreciate your including this letter and its attachments as part of the record of this matter.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Kathryn Dall
/enc.
cc: Cleaves Point Condominium Association
F.V L":( M [2 0 0 1 C,6
1WOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA, KELLEY,
DUBIN & QUARTARARO, LLP �ry
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
33 WEST SECOND STREET (-fo
P.O.BOX 9398
F.IVERREAD, NEW YORK 11901-9398
631-727-2180
TELFFAX: 631-574-12M
FAX COVER SHEET
Th.26 TRAMMIA31"w, IS -IN--MWZD CULY FOR M UBS OF TM nMMMIAL OR ENTITY To WMICH TT
ADMMSSjp -jAL nEOMTION BUAN00C To Mo 8X;NmR TUT 15 PROTECTS
�' AND Nhy Cnrehnj LXWjj)WU
By TU S�,rr
,)pM,#y-c F-C TENT
�%DWT pMra= OR armR DOCMM. IMP YW AIM NOT MM MWOM R IP
7cu &AX mmk1f NQJ!X?'1ZD THAT ANY UISCIAMUREo, COPYINGY DISTRIBUTION OR T92 TAKING OF
2021cm IN �w-jAwm on TIM Cl Or THIS IMMMT10d IS 52MCMV MMMTED- I.-P, YOU BIR:
RECEIV&I VQIL; '.1aWKISSION IN rNMIATELY NGTIrY US By THEMP'S TO ARRANGE FOR I
29ZTVPN.
CLIEW
FAX NO. cow
110: Planning Board Mmbers 631-765-31136 1640
FROM: Kathryn Balli, Esq.
DUN, December 13, 2007
HE*
oki-Do, Ltd. — 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion
MESSAGE
NUMBEF. or PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER SHMT'.
J7
F.N1 E',' L f,i H;H
TWONIFY, L,ATHAI%4, SHEA, KELLEY.
DIL'BIN A- QUARTARARO LLP
,iiicrtiey% rjr Lirw
KErqfAr;THF,LWAL E
Secone �Et,aak JOAN C.KAMO
0111('0 Box 939$ 'A
.$1k.P44E.N LAIMAIM, Rivernead Fmup 0.NYKA iip
;:,;hr,r-.3p-{EA,i.6ir3VOTMORC LAURA L 33',AZ N
N tj ii,f YC'eK 11901-9-39e 146W Yo'k,1.19171.90 S'1fi
DJSJK: GYRUS Q-00L CE,Jrl
,;A`P,QIJARTAIAAI�07 LISA A. %72AT0
P-TEF Q.MOTT 62-1.727.2100 <ATMRY�0AW-;
L.4NRKA� E3I.727.1767 DANIEL if.WAN,
'AAATiN 0. jp_hNirrm A.ANbALOAc
104NE MARIE 31UUM."L vvAw suffolklaw,corr Kt L l.y E.KI 141ROPIS
FAT1410K 8�FIFE
LAJRIKN 9 l-'rIL.E9
S " 'VIA FACINULE 2'jld teVd
LL.M Iw"Ay-ATION f
1NYa OTO
kma'a
W�.N4.A PA ff"t
zcwber MM-
Nyl DG,GA,A n DAM+
cy,I ft 0.0ir
"y
0 N47� U.P/ r.
TOWTI 0 OIUMO,G
P (I Box 1479
SouthQkt.N't IiVi
Re
Prcrfisc s, 118-45 Shipyard Lane. f!aa Marion,N1Y
SC1144: 100L-038.00-07,W-007.001
Dear Menimrs ofthc J own Boarv:
TEc.firm represents Clea-ves Poini CundOmini=Association("Cleaves Point"),neighbors
direcdv to i1w wesn of the al*ve-r6erenced premises and the proposed site of the Gaia Holistic
Center.
We appeared at the Piaiuting Board work session held on December 2,2007 and the following
Town Boal 0 aii;-Pbuilding hearing an December 3,2007. Since we were not given an
opportuirity to voice our cEcrit's conovans at the hearing,we respecWly submit this letter in
i 'L I cA and i,-onunents.made at UW hearing.
('0rinc-cl oil W i h th';teslirno.ri�y 14V
On Octuba 16.20%, we appeamAl at a scoping session held by the Planning Board to express
the concenis of Cleaves Poini, incluIng safety coucenis,about the project. At that time, we
advised the Planning Bound that the existing buildings at the site were in severe disrepair,that the
site was fuJl of debris scud ghat roof panels had been blown off., and will continue to blow off,
causing sa&�, ooncerns for-the surrounding neighbors. On October 26,2006,we reiterated those
,;oncvrni inw6ting to the Plunning Board, A copy of our letter to the Planning Board is annexed
,,ereto. I n w1diben,our client 1w on numerous occasions, beginning well over a year ago,
1*omplaincd to both the Town and to the applicant's attorney about the broken fence on the
Shipyard Lane side of the proptrty. This condition is of continuing concern.
ME-ELI&L
The applicant propowd a -,tone wall along the perimeter as an alternative to the existing clan
link fence. The Planning Beard is against such a stone wall,as is our client. The proposal to
aect a stone wall! is an attempt by It applicant to begin part of the com=tion process before
070YIN-,NZ RUAD
I 1�6 ROuTE 112,FL IS 4 6,
F,i,R", Wk*40 MAIN"OAD,P.0.Ba-K 325
!;T:,MAPT*N,;Q f I' NY STA-NY i1176 176 HAUPPAUGE,N";17W souTHOLD,NY 11971
do L-.ka—ljk. -44UO 6'3'1 20t,14'4 6"31.765.23(4
Pi
- i
approprATC r,rMIJV'ale�issile"a" tks mentioned by one of the board mvnibe--s,there is no
asL -er, )the!LhLu,
Litee existing chain lint cannot beins aRe alk n
"n pre"'m'�4 v -,Ijhsmv Once a better fence is in3WIetj,the issu-;of policIng the
::area arisrs. I i i.s our undersunding,that the applicant has no presence whatsmver at the
ibandowt:-J ptqperty.. 'We sugfe-st that some measure be put in place by the applicant to prevent
4:4 it theTt'iN, N,aadjlisin, that the situation be remedied witliout the necessiv
Of Itutice b"�" th"'. 1V0.1"L W'� Airther'&ugges-t that some penalty b,.-, imposed upon the appficant if
Sbe corqillue:" (i)favi to protxTly scv.ure tie property.
At tho, hcjiig, Esq.saved that s1ce was of the opiaiori drat her client could ins l
stone'xat vil0oul,a perrait. The subject property borders tid-A wedands, According to the
Town Lod;:" :f-gly poltii)rj of die proposM wall is within 100 fw of Vice wetlands,a permit is
by tj-,e if VV part of the proposed Y,dl is within 300 feet of the
'"Ieflands, a ptarnat is requirDd by the DEC. Thus,the applicant alay only erect a stone wall
without a permit if the wall I-vrgws more than 300 feet inland from the.-Areflands. Under the
cirvunim=ces htrt,, the aTrpfireant would he required to obtain a permit.
The appjicant has f)Ven au-IT)'ptuig to segment this project since the application was filed. As
frog"The Plawkjg Board to the Town BoarrL the Planifing T3 ar- o d is against
es. The bull-head at this p7,open-y has
seginentine.,the project ii., any 1riamer,and our client agre
,roica-d)rrjuglI for yQu., wWch is'viell-docurnented. As a result, thpit ptoperey hm been
test. The higIl%--atcr marl, 6-m changed and is Ww closer to the existing stractums. In an
,jm�rnpj 10 reclaim that prupetty in order to secint more favorable Wilding wtbacks,the
L4 wate revet area
,pplican,bw- bee.n proposj4,a rev-;tment along the r. Any attempt to -ve t will
rime far-a ak.4king environnienwi effects to the wetland-9. it is imperative that the appropriate
studies be,dont.and complev A- before any type of stricture is allo%vd, inclading the Completion
of the DEIS,
5 Ima and Its attachment as part of the record of thi,,rmitter.
rbmj— vete fir:, y-iw consider-anOv.
vit-Li'ame bo U' d
point,('c>,
;'I CMEY LMN41AM 0,Q 4,'Q Q 6
TWOMF;Y. LATHASM, ,SHEA, KEx-a-LAW,
DUBIN & QUARTARARO 1,[.4*
Aiiorae�sai Law
LT1.1) ,, co
^l s'EFr1EN C tfflk'rAm
Oupce go-! 93:,)S 33 VVtm Second Strasi KENNCTI, P _AVAW,�
JOAN C. 11AY91CLO 6
PHE^ H, Rive ioam Rivelnea'ZI LAYNA� 5C.LIAZZIN
E:, UELL,` hlew VorK Now Yam ",1901-
=-.V;D W. 31JAII�� MOVED 19FIa y-COTT
jA.1 1� QUARTAFAAFiQ
W.MUTT q Ll C-RJ8LG, OULCE.JS
„ANICC L 6N6A,. E31.727.17!17 I la0h A,AZZA'O'
WATHRYN DALL
CAN1151.11.1,11
OCT 2 6 2006 A
1,4 .AIJAALGM'��
,AA KELLY E.KINISON46
4f�'P,SV MAPIL Cj::;SCSS7^LL
itt TAXA I SON T
"T�Tl PLANNI U�
$011ithOld Town Cled Ni:�A 6An%0
IMMSA a
8 y i7UN 1) NJ J, �ql!
& "ka
N,, 06A D. V+
77'7. W N�.CT A FL OAKS
PbZU11pi Board
Tovvn of 11,(Aitlxnd
?.0, Buy, 1 i79 CCS' 2 M 0 6
Southold, I'N Y 1 19-,%
Re: Oki-Do, Ltd.
Preniisc,s: 2835 Sh,,pya.d ,.aae-,, East Marion, NyC.—,z,
SC-114.
Dear Menibery of tl,.,! Planning Board;
nAs firfu rtqm;;ejit5 Cie-a,6Q.i Condoinitu'um Association,'-Cleaves Point"),neighbors
directly to the wo,st of the above-referenced premises and the proposed site of the Gan Holistic
Center
We appeared at the,coping > slon held on October 16,2006 and voiced our client's concerns
regarding the._�xopc of the apphattt's Draft Environmental Impact Statement('"DEiS"`). As we
stated at tree session,we are presetting those concerns in Writing at this time. in addition, we are
submitting, an independent traffic sridy prepared by Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. dated August 3,
2006, and the writteli commept., of Robert Grover,,Chief Environmental Consultant for
Greentnan-Pedersen. Inc., dated October 24, 2006,
The entrance to and I-xit from Cleaves Point is on Shipyard Lane. The proposed ingress and
egress locations to the Gaja Holistic Center are situated directly across from those of Cleaves
Point As such,and for other , sons,aserious traffic conflict is created, While traffic is one of
the primary concerns, of Cleaves Point,there are many other issues of environmental concern as
outlined below.
TRAEML
The applicant's traffic sti.4 cone iudes that there Will be no detrimental elfect on traffic
coriditions. Mix! conLIUS1011 is not only sell'-serving, but misleading. The conclusion is not
M-41CIN STF:.LE' it,5 POL;Tt!112.FL 1S, -CC TQWN[lNe TOAD U340 h4AJN ROAD,A O.&OX 325
,.X, f- P,:-RT JEEFF'EASOM STA.NY 1 "16 NY 11-1813 90JIH04C).NY 11971
63, 11,"4 1-rC _F7-_;W 651.929140} e3i.7aS 2300
Yrt_1 M.E'I.' L.14 i il M [A 05, 00°8
based.on CR.aves Point's independent traffic stun y raises significant
issuc-i, w lv;neAy disctusiscd.Nnow,am cl which are more fully discussed in the umcxzd report.
.1 ' fit guests will be us f
0 'i it ghh, uin'klilk only L
wg the. kclhty-
*
It r highly au,iLly that the. vestaurant will limit public.patrons;
J'hljtfok-cr, fo a proposed[sigh-end. facilic", are not accurately rtflccted;
e
fax that aA apt e roiftm
wiv enitles will have to be maintained, thereby requinne
io ccnistantly enter acrd leave the facility, is not accurately reflected-,
jkf, the lf-.rsvx, traffic study states, with the increased traffic to and from the
there likely kvil I be a ','I to 2 U2 minute wait to enter on-to Roue 25 from.Shipyard
Lane, "Vaich wait, undoLbtedly, will lead to unsafe driving choices, esp�-,Cially given the
n1md!3pot look-Mg tirest on Route 25-1
to And from the facility Is highly unlikely and purt�iy speculative
J
1:�IiVcn ibe hJub-card natmeand remote location of the facility,
I he(e are 3 dnveways proposed to enter and exit the fuiliq,,,the ni.-In entrance of which
iI
d vectly across from the access to Cleaves Point. This configuration prec'ents a
Duce critrances wili prove:confusing to visitors,and require more signagz than would be
ue�,cssary Aith fevvci: critninces. Further,3 entrances will require more disturbance or
breakiriv up oftht, sci-eeiwj�of the facility, There should tic 2 evitrancei at the most—
une l'rt'servicc vehicalts and one for all others-,
* 1.1's!ng Gillette Roada.-. an alternate access to the facility will greatly -educe traffic
problemor ShlpRard Latie and any backup of vehicles, both service and guest,entering
lbefactlity. 1,1 th; alternatiyc% one road cats be used to enter the facility and the other
S11tw-,a" Lane Lnust not bare the t6WgtiAloja .. Sharing the
t)uiden of traffic nium be artailyzed and considered. Or, one road can be used for
efrip)oy", and se.,victvehicles anti die other road for guests;
* Theie should be conside"afioii of any pedestrian traffic and whether sidewalks %vould be
warrantedor the widen-Ine of Shipyard Lane-,
* Will largebraesor trad.�Vs be allowed to enter the facility? [f so,the noise and resultant
ernissiops shutild bo analyzed, and they should be able to park and tw,n around inside the
I tit, cvei-iricueasixg, year-round fern- traffic niust be considered.
iit Q 0 6 Q0
killiME"'Y ANV LK'Ji"UNG
I I he pias.,calls L'Or pw-kirii;, to bo pread out over(3) three sides of'the prupercy, including the
�rifire leklyth C;-i`sbipyare Latli:- 11 will Iris required that all the roadways and parking areas be fit.
, that Llhe fighting will produce a'-glow" or"hah"efleci, If the
,Jai 'kele cenu:,,
IlLzed: such an effect could be minimized.
Flier must no,,,be arty parking on Shipyard Lane.
� 13.1tJiF there 6 -e be -utdoor deck or
K 't z� wi!I e at the restaurant?Laurant? 'W I i I there -ar, o
wlit Aig.-iting` Again, Cleaves Point is concerned about the"glow' or
Taio- effect ofany ouid,7,cr lighting, as well as the noise,
ALEU R
. Wh,,a kjid of)ulferl vvtl°: t-,,re be atone, Shipyard Lane,?
THE MARINk
tt�tl br, st,,,W4A, k!,o klic prentises and,if so,who would have accessio the fuel PUMPO
HE VE1 MENVI
TA is oat undevi tared ,g thaT k%atc, has broken throug-li the old existing bulkhead, which means
tbaz rKe h.eh wmem
r a;k has ch,,tuged ari.d is now closer to the exishae, Structures. 'Ns Fact
foeccssari!ly i4 ill cffcat the requ,i-el setbacks. As a result, the wetlands should be reflagged to
dewruiln*,the appTopX,,iatt-, scibacks,
Wivat.swps art Vie VEX' and the Board of Trustees going, to take to preserve the existing
Will there ire study as to the impact any dredging will have on vegetation and ivildlifc,
E 41&
TIC 'Del the CJSPTIa) fle-!;tS''
What crosioll confrul mcasti-res and prwtineswill- be instituted}
What impact,wtil the location ol'the proposed revetment have on the existing revetment
at CWvcks Point and the suiTouriding areas?
flh� Plan :211'i�,�or dic uistaflation of drainage systems in close prox,mity to the wetlands.
Cieaw� is concerned that the water table will be effected thereby, There presently exist
dra,tnagc pfohlcm.�;on Shipyaro Lar.e.
7 I)U
wik 'Li.e applicarit bt r(.,q)wrccl to make any improvernents regarding drainage that will
addss
Will tA4r� be,limy Jfaillae-t-', WiLl tile bay?
PUBLIC WAIER
'The play) indludes ma.riv roan-rna(le ponds, poets and facilities requiring a vers' substantial water
suPPIN,
:A!I tnc rtf"Ijistte water come from?
Willi 6-1(: 'app"It'ant t-� iequlij-ea to install new water mains along Shipyard Lane?
FEMA REO U RLMEN I'S
F�MLA that ail zaui.,iur<;s maintain an cievation of at least 10 feet above sea level, The
violative of this rule,
Sun of Jr. pLcs�xjseLu-0ijings we only 6 feet above sea leveL
If tLe bu-Adin."'s axcIII-wed Landward a,,, a result, ttw visual impact on the n6ghbors would
bc-, lessentc,
k1eaves Point i., eonctrn,::d Lha-.Lie proposed location of the duripsters will create noise and
ty-iffi,-,to and flOM the dLL-TDPSV-,rS,avd the likelihood of vermin.
Ifthe dumpsiers ware nwvcd cioser to the main building,these concerns would be
ENAFRING P USILI(-:�A F EIN
I he trxi,-.1mg buy idirizat the Yitn is in disrppalr. The S iete, al.;L-full of debr,'s, Roof panels
lid-ve betri blown off, and will coni.',nus Lo blow off., causing safety concerns for the surrounding
Wit! tf4e Ownerlappli-cant bt iequired to address these safety issues attJ11S time')
• --fic arca presently ccmstitutes an attractive nuisance to the neighborhOOd.
NOISE
% will be mad to control, the noise fi-ow the public areas"
M L HAM Q�Q 0 G, C',
• 'iefl"t th(-rc. be Outdool- paalws. concerts o,-special eventsbringingin crowds for a day(s)or
COIISIATLCriOil oe liawrd to weekdays and certain hourO
',v It; there bi: lvwdspeakers, outdoor music or announcements" Ti so, will the noun be
• Mli comrneifnal dehvd.mes be limited to certain hours?
A`c trd,;t that the Planninc-,&--)ard, as lead agency, will require the applicanc to study and address
i!wse is!,ues so that.the BOWt.1 C4LI taJCC 3 hard look at thern and make cemin that they are, MIN
addresscd in the DE,14 and FFI. .
We appro.cialle v,'2,ir inclLding this lever and Its attachments as pan of the record of this matter.
T-rionk, roe: 16, .�oz conilderatien.
CC �t Poml Cordow.111,mr-.1 Assuclation
0 • MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERSP.O. Box 1179
JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE
O��QF SDUryOI Southold, NY 11971
Chair Q
OFFICE LOCATION:
KENNETH L.EDWARDS � � Town Hall Annex
MARTIN H.SIDOR G Q 54375 State Route 25
GEORGE D. SOLOMON (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND li`COU '� Southold, NY
Telephone: 631 765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
To: Scott Russell, Supervisor
Members of the Town Board
Cc: Trustees, Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chair l\
Subject: Oki Do Ltd. Comments for Public Hearing on unsafe building at 2835 Shipyard Lane
Date: December 3, 2007
The Planning Board encourages the remedy of the unsafe conditions at the site, and supports emergency
measures and temporary structures to accomplish that goal.
Please be advised the site in question is currently undergoing SEQR review of a proposed site plan for the
Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board. Construction of a permanent wall outside the site plan
process circumvents the Planning Board's authority to help the applicant craft a site plan that is in the best
interest of the applicant, as well as the public safety and welfare. A permanent wall will eliminate the
Planning Board's ability to find the safest, and least intrusive (to the abutting residences)ingress and
egress, and internal circulation patterns as they relate to the entire site development proposal.
The proposal to place rip rap along the shore also should not be allowed while the site is undergoing
SEQR review. Allowing any shoreline hardening of the site before SEQR is finished will amount to a
segmentation of the SEQR process. The Planning Board recommends against segmentation. The owner
should be able to clean up the site, and remove dangerous elements, without constructing new permanent
shoreline structures and circumventing the SEQR process currently underway.
Any construction of structures at the site, including walls,rip rap, and buildings, should consist only of
the minimum necessary to remedy the unsafe conditions currently existing. Thank you for this
opportunity to make recommendations.
PQ s
OF SOU • �,l�.
�o�� ryOlCSouthold Town Hall Annex
54375 Route 25, P.O. Box 1179
EDWARD FORRESTER Southold, New York 11971-0959
DIRECTOR OF CODE ENFORCEMENT Telephone(631) 765-1939
Q Facsimile (631) 765-6639
e-mail:
Ol�Comm� ed.forrester@town.southold.ny.us
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMORANDUM
r
TO: J. King, President, Board of Trustees .7
G. Woodhouse, Chairperson, Planning Boarh
M. Verity, Chief Building Inspector
FROM: Ed Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement �
DATE: November 20, 2007
RE: Oki-Do Ltd, Property at 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion
An unsafe Building Hearing concerning this property will be held before the Town
Board on Tues. Dec. 4, 2007 at 9:00 AM. It is requested that a representative
from your Department attend, as proposed remedial action may require
approvals from your agencies. The Town Board may be interested in your
comments concerning this property as it relates to the proposed remedy. A copy
of the proposal is available in my office for review.
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold,New York 11971
Tel: (631)765-4330
Fax: (631)765-4643
November 20, 2007
Attn: Bruno
Planning Board
Town of Southold
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
e
RE: OKI-DO, LTD.
Dear Bruno:
With reference to the above, enclosed please find a copy of the Town's Unsafe
Structure Notice together with my response to Ed Forrester, Code Enforcement Officer.
I have also notified the NYS DEC and the Board of Trustees and have requested
letters of permission to begin the necessary corrective measures.
Thank you and please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions.
Ve tru y yours,
P tricia Moore
PCMby
encls.
SDuriy Southold Town Hall Annex
54375 Route 25, P.O. Box 1179
EDWARD FORRESTER .�, ,�, Southold, New York 11971-0959
DIRECTOR OF CODE ENFORCEMENT T b Telephone (631) 765-1939
G Q Facsimile(631) 765-6639
i0
e-mail:
COMM ed.forrester@town.southold.ny.us
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
NOTICE Pursuant to Chapter 100 Southold Town Code
DATE: October 19, 2007
TO: OKI - DO Ltd.
20 West 64' Street #24E
New York N.Y. 10023
A. The last Assessment rolls of the Town of Southold shows you are the owner of
the following described premises;
Located on Shipyard Lane East Marion NY, bounded on the south by Gardiners
Bay, on the west by Shipyard Lane, on the north by Cherepowicz property, and
the east by Marion Manor subdivision.
The above described premises are the same described in a deed recorded in the
Suffolk County Clerk's Office in Liber 11954 Page 055.
Also referred to as Suffolk County Tax Map Designation : District 1000, Section
38, Block 7, Lot 7.1
B. The premise indicated above and the structures located on the property are
unsafe and dangerous and as such constitutes a hazard to safety by reason of
the following; The perimeter fence has been cut, and sections removed. The
shoreline has eroded and the bulkhead is in disrepair and in danger of collapse.
All exterior windows in the buildings have been broken, overhead doors are
open. Large sections of the corrugated metal roof have fallen or been blown off.
Remaining sections of roof are loose and pose an imminent danger of falling or
becoming missiles. The southeast portion of the building has begun to collapse.
There is evidence of vandalism and intrusion of and within the buildings. The
condition of the structure has deteriorated to a much greater extent than was
noted pursuant to the previous unsafe building investigation.
The buildings are deemed to be unsafe due to inadequate maintenance, neglect,
dilapidation and abandonment.
r
C. You are hereby ordered to make the buildings and premises safe and secure, or
demolish the premises and remove the debris
D. The above work shall commence within ten (10 ) days from the date of this notice
and shall be completed within thirty ( 30 ) days thereafter.
E. In the event you fail to comply with the above, a hearing will be held before the
Southold Town Board concerning same at 9:00 A.M on "b e.L-. L a-o o-
at Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold 11971
F. In the event that the Southold Town Board after the hearing herein shall
determine that the building or structure is unsafe or dangerous to the public, the
Town Board may order the building or structure to be repaired and secured or
demolished and removed.
G. In the event that the building, structures and premises shall be determined by the
Town to be unsafe or dangerous and in the event of the neglect or refusal of the
owner to repair or remove same within the time provided, the Town may remove
such building or structure by whatever means it deems appropriate and assess
all costs and expenses incurred by the Town in connection with the proceedings
to remove and secure, including the cost of actually removing said building or
structure, against the land on which said building or structure is located.
Edward Forrest
Director of Code Enforcement
Cc: Patricia Moore, Esq.
Encl; Certified Mail, return receipt requested (#7007 1160 0002 8650 4683)
This Notice posted on property pursuant to Town Code Section 100-513
0 � s
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold,New York 11971
Tel: (631)765-4330
Fax: (631)765-4643
November 16, 2007
VIA FAX AND HAND DELIVERED
Attn: Edward Forrester, Director
Code Enforcement
Southold Town Hall Annex
Main Road
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
RE: OKI DO LTD
PREMISES: 2835 SHIPYARD LANE, EAST MARION
SCTM: 1000-38-7- 7.1
Dear Mr. Forrester:
Please be advised that we have responded immediately to your notice of an
"unsafe" condition. We have retained the services of numerous persons to address the
existing condition of the property.
As you may know, my client wishes to maintain a safe property while she
undergoes the extensive review of the necessary regulatory permits required by
multiple agencies to redevelop the property. The owner installed a perimeter fence
several years ago and has repaired the fence damaged by trespassers on multiple
occasions. The fence along Shipyard Lane has been destroyed with vehicles by
vandals. A more permanent measure is needed and desired by the property owner.
• Creative Environmental Design has been retained to temporarily repair the
perimeter fence. In addition, in order to provide a permanent barrier to
trespassers and vandals who have repeatedly destroyed the perimeter fence
with vehicles, Creative Environmental Design will construct a concrete wall,
covered with a stone veneer and trees. The fence will hide the unsightly
buildings from view and also provide permanent security on the property.
Creative Environmental Design is also working with a construction crew to close
all accessible openings and remove any portions of the building which are not
secure.
• The owner's architect has obtained the special services of a structural engineer
to analyze the structural integrity of the metal building. A copy of the Engineer's
letter is enclosed. He will also advise the construction crew and architect on
what portions of the building may be removed without compromising the
structural integrity of the existing structure. This building will be secured in
accordance with the engineer's instructions.
• As to remedying the existing conditions along the Mean High Water (shoreline),
my client can not remedy the existing conditions along the waterfront due to
regulatory prohibitions. We can not stop the public from walking along the
remains of the bulkhead and buried shoreline structures.
However, the owner is agreeable to making a separate application to the DEC,
with the Town's cooperation, to remove the existing bulkhead and secure the
upland structures with rip rap (matching the structures located on Cleaves Point
Condominium). The applicant is in the process of completing a Draft EIS for the
Town Planning Board as lead agency, and the DEC, as an involved agency.
The Planning Board must agree that due to the existing unsafe condition of the
property it is appropriate to segment the bulkhead and rip rap construction for
the overall project development.
Removal of the bulkhead and construction of the rip rap to maintain the upland
structures will enable the owner to clean up and remove existing cement rings,
remnants of buildings and boats, and clean up the shoreline.
If the Town agrees, we can mitigate the unsafe condition by making the
improvements to the shoreline immediately rather than waiting for the
redevelopment of the property. The shoreline will match the conditions of the
Cleaves Point property and enhance public access along the shoreline.
I will provide you with a time line for the work from the contractor as soon as it is
available.
Very truly yours,
Patricia C. Moore
PCM/bp
encls.
C: Town of Southold Supervisor, Scott A. Russell
Town Board of Southold Town, c/o the Southold Town Clerk's Office
Building Department, Town of Southold
Board of Trustees, Town of Southold
NYS DEC
CREATIVE
39160 Route 25
Post Office Box 160
ENVIRONMENTAL Peconic,NY 1195 8
DESIGN 631-734-7923
631-734-7924 fax
Division of Indian Neck Corporation
Ed Butt, Architect
Butt* Otruba * O'connor Architects November 15, 2007
1062 Northern Blvd.
Roslyn, NY 11576
516 635-6625 Of.
Patricia C. Moore Atty.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
631 765-4330
Gaia Holistic Circle
Shipyard Lane
East Marion, NY
Demolition and security of existing buildings
1. Removal of two eastern most structural bays in their entirety.
2. Construct a new gable wall at the newt
Proposed
( all in accordance with the engineers recommendations ndd�ng.
requirements.)
3. Repair the breached roofing by overlaying the existing roof with new
corrugated steel roof deck.
4. Clearing of only a pathway adjacent to the southern side of the steel
building, for equipment access, and disposal of unwanted debris.
5. Clearing of all debris adjacent to or within steel building, being made
secure, and deposal.
6. Steel structure to be constructed in accordance with S D G Engineering,
P.C. recommendations and requirements.
Gaia Holistic Circle page 2
7. Close up all openings in the buildings around the property on the first
floor level with 3/" plywood fastened to building and studded 2 x 4 walls
as needed for security of access to building. ( 1 locked access to each
closed space as access for future construction.)
Special notes********
Current proposed work and materials to be approved
By S D G engineering, due to different existing conditions.
NOTE: ALL NECESSARY WRITTEN APPROVALS BY LOCAL
AGENCIES TO BE SUPPLIED BY OTHERS,
BEFORE WORK TO BEGIN.
Project may expedited as needed
Total Price $ 119,000.00
i
f f
~� 7
i
.$ _ ,• .
µ�
Ow
14
on of
q � oot� building
Y1 ty
' r YF to be removed,
' � r
• `r .=»r, ,* •,,y,a,. t ilk
,
1
f
access required to
4 _ • `� "' �. - - 4 complete rem-oval
iy
46
-tea a
r
-'• it 'i+i' .'.f. ..,
r ��rShipyard Lame
s
-
`Tf r
� _iF�J'1„l. � ` ,.►yam��, +`` E..c., _
,
s
,
s •R"1t .
f
x
Ir
A` t
z�fy4
}.2
VAll
T x 1
S� {� *4, a 8y�'"'fir.✓•.` M '.K'..k f'}
S d G ENGINEERING, P.C.
Structural Engineering
121 Huntington Road Tel(5161 944�5430
Port Washington,New York 1105Q Fax 45161 944.5431
November 6, 2007
Butt Otruba O'Connor Architects, AIA
1062 Northern Blvd.
Roslyn, NY 11576
Re: GAIA
Shipyard Lane
Southold,NY
Dear Mr. Butt,
Pursuant to your request a structural survey of the existing prefab steel building was
performed for the above referenced property on October 30, 2007. The purpose of this survey
was to determine the condition of the existing building framing.
Existiniz Configuration
The building is comprised of 9 structural bays of 20 feet each for a total length of 180
feet and a clear width of 60 feet. The building height to the underside of the steel roof framing is
32 feet. The steel roof trusses are 2 feet in depth at the building perimeter and slope up to a
height of 4 feet at the building centerline.
Existing Condition
The existing steel of the prefab building is in structurally adequate condition with the
exception of the two eastern most structural bays. As stated above these two structural bays
represent an area of 40 feet by 60 feet for a total of approximately 2400 square feet. The steel
framing members of the seven western most structural bays exhibit superficial rusting due to the
breaches in the existing corrugated steel roof deck. A walk in box occupies the full building
width and 4 bays in length. The eastern most perimeter of the walk in box is coincident, yet
unrelated, with the seventh structural framing bay as described above as the intersection of the
structurally sound portion of building to where the building framing is severely deteriorated.
Recommendation and Conclusions
Structurally this building exhibits a severely deteriorated condition for the two eastern
most structural bays. The balance of the building, while currently structurally sound, warrants
roofing repairs in order to maintain a sound structure.
It is our opinion that by addressing the following items the building can be retained:
1. Remove the two eastern most bays of structure in their entirety.
2. Construct a new gable wall at the newly proposed eastern end of the building.
3. Repair the breached roofing by overlaying the existing roof with new corrugated steel
roof deck.
It should be noted that these items have been documented on a drawing prepared by
SDG Engineering, P.C. and will be delivered to your office under separate cover.
Lastly, should the above described construction be implemented, the building would be
considered structurally sound. Should you require additional information or further clarification
of the information presented in this report please contact our office at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
D.
r
Stuart D. Gold, P.E.
R" ,. t� }" .ro •� REVISIONS Y
4",D„ Dore anuars
.aa•,..n ..D: ....wn.. O
eDwDD�N. eaD.��•�•
,w
i A,..w Dn,...w. ,D.•
i
i '11
_ __ __-___-_._._._.__._._.____.___-�__._._.------- _
.m R
n w
�ta twwD 9 wfw gra � S
'---' ----
---------
- ..
I mn•
I!�
I.I s
// II
J ii /--cmw N� SII ,•rn�i �� �t+w..w 4 n - _ _._ ._._.-_.R----
I!1 ;'J>
I!I mew �
I!1 4
li _ sa,cre.+e
I!1 snam sa.awe•se
w iauswx �
uDnD j �
cnr•�s
•
i
i •w+w ro[m+r �r>o�rws
ELEVATION SECTION®RAKER
"
W.
mu+. I I ,n•..ca 1 I .,v.a.eur A iI - - '---- ------- -fe.w•e frm?__.
~ I I I I I 1 i I I i t .nemni•see°vem ��-, -
---------
�!
7"T
I I I I I I n«w.•.m:
I I I I it
I I 1 I ..im•e.ro.o
aL..
,ELEVATION ,- ELEVATION '•'•n"'°'r ,SECTION PLAN
x ram
6ENERALNOTE5: STRUCTURAL LEGEND: ABBREVIATIONS: {�
>,vu 5o ren..ec.r,oN" O rw.rir.�nAr n.wrE-.sanNCF W
um ra�wrogrwoar A caN+xeao rs � •+aexrcOr«ecrOr, es:-Dor.soy �...Rw•...UCURz
Aon TTAL
DETAILS W
STEEL:
—,, D o AND NOTES
rrxreaue.N..a
JLoo .ND 5
S D • G
r Taava55wW COWONN FiSv.r,ox C+..xe[ � pun Oa.pDr Raerv.rOx aN0_O60DO11 Q
e .cD)l,wLLeSrtR/M•t0 Qy\
DV a.S lAeTrLDn[iDRD Wt8�i055A 1
uNOTES o ,DETAIL DETAIL 5.301 alb
REVISIONS Y
W
---------------------
j1
7iI
ro� I
i;
i
i'
--------
1 STRUCTURAL 2ND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
W��M n MTF ill
,.�.�GTURAL z
TRU.
2ND FLOOR d W
ROOF FRAMING
PLANS
i
s i
D G
,a
d
w BNO_ GOi♦Q
n5TRUGTURAL ROOF FRAMING PLAN
5.201 D
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold,New York 11971
Tel: (631)765-4330
Fax: (631)765-4643
November 16, 2007
Board of Trustees
Town of Southold
Main Road
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
RE: OKI DO LTD.
PREMISES: 2835 SHIPYARD LANE, EAST MARION -
SCTM: 1000-38-7-7.1
Dear President King:
In accordance with our conversation, Creative Environmental Design needs to
clear a pathway adjacent to the southern side of the steel building for equipment
access.
The Town Board has deemed this property unsafe and we wish to address the
condition immediately. Could you provide a letter of permission allowing us to proceed
in accordance with the attached plans.
Thank you and please do not hesitate to contact my office should you have any
questions.
Very truly yours,
Patricia C. Moore
PCM/bp
encis.
C: Creative Environmental Design
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold,New York 11971
Tel: (631)765-4330
Fax: (631)765-4643
November 16, 2007
Attn: Charles Hamilton
NYS DEC
Building 40 - SUNY
Stony Brook NY 11790 �,;,�
RE: OKI DO LTD.
PREMISES: 2835 SHIPYARD LANE, EAST MARION
SCTM: 1000-38-7-7.1
Dear Mr. Hamilton:
With reference to the above, enclosed please find a copy of an unsafe structure
notice wherein the Town Board has deemed this property unsafe and we wish to
address the condition immediately.
Enclosed please find our response wherein we outline the steps we would like to
take to remedy the situation. Specifically, Creative Environmental Design needs to
clear a pathway adjacent to the southern side of the steel building for equipment
access. Could you please provide us with a letter of permission allowing us to proceed
in accordance with the attached plans.
Thank you and please do not hesitate to contact my office should you have any
questions.
Very truly yours,
Patricia C. Moore
PCM/bp
encls.
LAN STATUS REPORT �0/a0 6
SITE PLAN TYPE: AM�E/�NDE NEW ,WITHDRAWN INCOMPLETE
PROJECT NAME: /T//t 1—,,41116 4 ^��1� ZONE 1:/4ZONE2: ZONE3:
LOCATION: 35 !< HAMLET: E,fJ
SCTM# 1000 -
OWNER NAME: /[ (-Q p z-776
TEL#(_)_-
APPLICANT NAME: TEL#(_)
AGENT NAME: 7Wro ao TEL#(�Z,�5 j j
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: rc,.rSY<._(
EXISTING USE: PROPOSED USE:
DATE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTICE:S/P REQUIRED Y OR N ZBA APPEAL REQUIRED Y OR N
PRE—SUBMISSION CONFERENCE(WITHIN 30 DAYS OF WRITTEN REQUEST)
NOTES:
INFORMAL REQUEST FOR REVISIONS: —/—/
APPLICATION RECEIVED DATE: / / APPLICATION PROCESS DATE:
PAYMENT RECEIVED: AMOUNT RECEIVED:$ —/—!
NEW SP:$500./ACRE&.10/SF, AMENDED SP:$250.+.10/SF, AGRIC SP:FLAT$500
FEE AMOUNT:($ .00 X =$ )+($.10 X SF=$ )_$
NEW APPLICATION WORK SESSION(WITHIN 10 DAYS OF RECEIPT),PB ACCEPTED Y OR N
APPLICANT ADVISED OF NECESSARY REVISIONS (WITHIN 30 DAYS OF REVIEW)
BUILDING DEPARTMENT MEEETING 100-254B3(WITHIN 30 DAYS)
NOTES:
REVISED SUBMISSION RECEIVED:
NOTES:
REFERRED AGENCIES:(WITH MAPS=W/P) —/—/—
STZBA_,STBD_,STC/IB_,]H_STBT_,STS_,SCDHS_,NYSDEC_USACO"S_,NYSDOT_,SCWA-SCPD-SCDPW_,LWRP_
RESPONSES NOTES
LEAD AGENCY: TOSPR:_,OTHER:_REV W:PARTI_,PART 2_,PART 3_,SHORT EAF_,LONG SAF_ -/-/-
NOTES:
ACTION TYPE:COORDINATED:_ UNCOORDINATED:_ (TYPE1:_TYPE2:_UNLISTED: )
REFERRED TO:STZBA_,STBD_,STCTrB_,JH_,STBT_,STE_,SCDHS_.NYSDEC_,USACORPS_,NYSDOT_,SCWA_,SCPD_,SCDPW_
SEQRA DETERMINATION:NEG DEC Y OR N,
APPROVALS REQUIRED: REFERRED DATE NOTES APPROVAL DATE NOTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: —/—/—
LWRP COORDINATOR: —/—!—
BUILDING DEPARTMENT CERTIFICATION: —/—!—
FIRE COMMISSIONERS: —/—/—
TOWN ENGINEER APPROVAL: / / —/—/—
DEROF TRANSPORTATION:DOT DPW , TOS / / —/—/—
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING: —/—!—
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT OF HEALTH:PERMIT#:
OPTIONAL APPROVALS:
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:APPEAL#: / / -/-/-
BOARD OF TRUSTEE'S: /
NYS DEC WETLANDS/TIDAL/SPDES / / =-:777
PLANNING BOARD DECISIONS: CONDITIONAL FINAL: ! I
DENIED: APPROVED:
FINAL: _
NOTES
ENDORSEMENT OF SITE PLAN: -/-/-
FIELD INSPECTION FOR C/O:
DISTRIBUTE APPROVED SITE PLANS TO: BUILDING DEPT / / TOWN ENG
GENERAL N TES:
10/4/2005
ARTICLE XII, EN Marine II (Mil) District [Added 1-10-1989 by L.L. No. 1-1989]
§ 100-120. Purpose.
The purpose of the Marine II(MII)District is to provide a waterfront location for a wide range
of water-dependent and water-related uses, which are those uses which require or benefit from
direct access to or location in marine or tidal waters and which, in general, are located on major
waterways, open bayfronts or the Long Island Sound.
§ 100-121. Use regulations.
In the MII District, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building
shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part,
for any uses except the following [one(1) use per eighty thousand(80,000) square feet of land
above mean high water, unless otherwise specified]:
A. [Amended 5-9-1989 by L.L. No. 6-1989] Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted
uses and, except for those uses permitted under Subsection A(1) hereof, are subject to site
plan approval by the Planning Board:
(1) One (1) one-family detached dwelling per single and separate lot of record in existence
as of the date of adoption of this Article.
(2) Marinas for the docking, mooring and accommodation of recreational or commercial
boats, including the sale of fuel and oil primarily for the use of boats accommodated in
such marina.
(3) Boat docks, slips, piers or wharves for charter boats carrying passengers on excursions,
pleasure or fishing trips or for vessels engaged in fishery or shellfishery.
(4) Beach clubs, yacht clubs or boat clubs, including uses accessory to them, such as
swimming pools, tennis courts and racquetball facilities.
(5) Boatyards for building, storing, repairing, renting, selling or servicing boats, which may
include the following as an accessory use: office for the sale of marine equipment or
products, dockside facilities for dispensing of fuel and, where pumpout stations are
provided,rest room and laundry facilities to serve overnight patrons.
(6) Mariculture or aquaculture operations or research and development.
(7) Boat and marine engine repair and sales and display, yacht brokers or marine insurance
1
own tri
PC/Cnc�eX��rrj�+�'�°'tnpTot�vs
Ut
brokers.
(8) Buildings, structures and uses owned or operated by the Town of Southold, school
districts, park districts and fire districts.
(9) Retail sale or rental of fishing, diving or bathing supplies and equipment if accessory to a
marina or boatyard or ship's loft or chandlery.
B. Uses permitted by special exception by the Board of Appeals. The following uses are
permitted as a special exception by the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter provided, subject to
site plan approval by the Planning Board:
-(4�rants, excluding outdoor counter service, drive-ins or curb-service establishments.
Such prohibition shall not prevent service at tables on a covered or uncovered terrace or
porch incidental to a restaurant.
(2) Ferry terminals.
t3� t hotels or motels, subject to the following conditions:
(a) The minimum area for such use shall be not less than three (3) acres.
(b) The number of guest rooms permitted in the hotel or motel shall be determined by
the proportion of the site utilized for such use and the availability of public water and
sewer. The maximum number of guest units shall be one (1)unit per four thousand
(4,000) square feet of land with public water and sewer.
(4) Fish processing plants.
(5) Fish markets, which may include a combination of wholesale and retail sale of finfish
and shellfish.
(6) Museums with a nautical theme or art galleries.
C. [Amended 5-9-1989 by L.L. No. 6-1989] Accessory uses. The following uses are permitted
as accessory uses and, except for residential accessory uses and signs, which are governed by
Article XX, are subject to site plan review:
(1) Accessory uses as set forth in and regulated by § 100-31C(1)through (7)of the
Agricultural-Conservation District, and subject to the conditions of§ 100-33 thereo£EN
§ 100-122. Bulk, area and parking regulations.
No building shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the M11
District unless the same conforms to the Bulk Schedule and Parking and Loading Schedules
incorporated into this chapter by reference,with the same force and effect if such regulations
2
PG1CodelSaarcj�S fit
were set forth herein in fu11.EN
3
�— SITE PLAN STe+TU&*EP
SITE PLAN TYPE: AMENDED NEW ' WITHDRAWtd " "vLETE
PROJECTNAME: 6A14- f OX/-,00 zovill ' "zom: ZONEs:_
LOCATION: .�
PROJECT USE:
SCTM# 1000- 8- - 6 -
OWNER NAME:
APPLICANT NAME: TEL#U—
AGENT NAME: TeL#U—
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THIS SITE PLAN IS FOR ON ACRES PARCEL
IN THE ZONE LOCATED AT
IN SCTM#1000------ (SEE ABOVE).
DATE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTICE:S/P REQUIRED Y OR N A APPEAL REQUIRED Y OR N1—
PRE-SUBMISSION WRITTEN REQUEST: _/—/—
PRE-SUBMISSION CONFERENCE(WITHIN 30 DAYS OF WRITTEN REQUEST)
INFORMAL REQUEST FOR REVISIONS:
PRE-WORK SESSION:
APPLICATION
I—I—
APPLICATION RECEIVED DATE:_/_/. APPLICATION PROCESS DATE:
PAYMENT RECEIVED: AMOUNT RECEIVED:$ /—/—
FEE AMOUNT:($300.X _=$_____)+($.05 X SF=$ =$
NEW APPLICATION WORK SESSION(WITHIN 10 DAYS OF RECEIPT)
APPLICANT ADVISED OF NECESSARY REVISIONS (WTTHIN 30 DAYS OF REVIEW)
REVISED SUBMISSION RECEIVED, 3 / S _REFERRED
J—I—
REFERRED AGENCIES: _
STZBA-STBD-STCIB-JH�STBT_,STE_,SCUHS--,NYSDEC_,USACORPS_,NYSDOT SCWA_,SCPD_,SCDPW_
PONSESNOTES yl G!
/ O oor ow
LEAD AGENCY:ToseB:_,oTfl :_mmm.P"m_,PART z_,PARTS_SHORT W_,LONG my_
ACTION TYPE:COORDINATED:— UNCOORDINATED:— (TYPE :—TYPE2:—UNLISTED:—)
REFERRED TO:STZBA_,STBD_,STC?B_,JH_,STBT_,STE_,SCDHS_,NYSDEC_, CORPS_,NYSDOT_,SCWA—SCPD_, W
_
SCDP
�t
SEQRA DETERMINATION:NEG DEC Y OR N,
APPROVALS REQUIRED: REFERRED DATE NOTES APPROVAL DATE NOTES e*p „-
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: 9 I lO H Df- _l-1 �.5�� t
BUILDING DEPARTMENT CERTIFICATION:
FIRE COMMISSIONERS: -
TOWN ENGINEER APPROVAL: I—
DEP.OF TRANSPORTATION:DOT ,DPW TOS
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING: / /
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT OF HEALTH:PERMIT#: / I
OPTIONAL APPROVALS: ---
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:APPEAL#: l l s n 1 I I
BOARD OF TRUSTEE'S: da 1,23 1 fl4t
NYS DEC WETLANDS/TIDAL/SPOES l l —1 l iQJ t �pwa.
PLANNING BOARD DECISIONS: CONDITIONAL FINAL:_/—I—,
DENIED: APPROVED:
FINAL:
NOTES
ENDORSEMENT OF SITE PLAN: —/—/—
FIELD INSPECTION FOR C/O: —/—/
DISTRIBUTE APPROVED SITE PLANS TO: BUILDING DEPT L_/_ TOWN ENG / I
GENERAL NOTES:
3t3lrAN
SITE PLAN STATUSBEP4B1z
SITE PLAN TYPE: AME1,44D_NEW ✓WITHDRAWN '}INCOMPLETE
PROJECT NAME: OZDNE-,:AJIX�ANEz:_ ZONM:_
LOCATION: S 35 s4. o/L'e +r �'r�c HAbiT.LrI: L�uT i�ares.l
SCTM# 1000 - 3 8 - o -
OWNERNAME: OKr-QOcTO Nr TEL# (_) -
APPLICANT NAME: & n c/o TEL# 26--<--t3_30
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THIS SITE PLAN IS FOR o a4.e s e O e/ 1l/$ ACRES PARCEL IN
THE / ZONE LOCATED AT
IN SCTM#1300- -3A-0_-_2,L_(SEE ABOVE).
DATE
PRE-SUBMISSION WRITTEN RE VEST:
PRE-SUBMISSION CONFERENCE IN 30 DAYS OF WRITTEN REQUEST)
INFORMAL REQUEST FOR REVISIONS:
PRE-WORK SESSION:
APPLICATION RECEIVED: /� /�S/��
PAYMENT RECEIVED: AMOUNT RECEIVED:$S O&—t iV,LO e71I6 K33
FEE AMOUNT: $300.X B,) 1 -$ 5,c J. $.OSx SF=$ Sa _$ / O, /rQ,
NEW APPLICATION WORKSESSION HIN 10 DAYS OF RECEIPT (r),/-21 /Q3 ,
APPLICANT ADVISED OF NECESSARY REVISIONS 30 DAYS OF RETIE L 07/A2-lgq
REVISED SUBMISSION RECEIVED: O .J S - Y ff
i — q 128 2 '�f�-S K.O -1 Or.ca—
LEAD AGENCY: f�j a o.r s TOS_ OTHER
COORDINATED:_ UNCOO DINRTED:_ (TYPE1:_TYPE2:_UNLISTED:—)
SE RA DETERMINATION: / !
RECEIVED/REVIEW: RECEIVED DATE REVIEWED DATE
DRAINAGE PLAN:
LANDSCAPE PLAN;
LIGHTING PLAN:
REFERRED FOR APPROVALS: 3� REFERRED DATE APPROVAL DATE NOTES
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:APPEAL#:
BOARD OF TRUSTEE'S C 1 jl^ // o 7 1 3.4 /0-3 / / $ e. -<-k
BUILDING DEPARTMENT CERTIFICATION: // 07
TOWN ENGINEER APPROVAL: , r/ 67 1 1 Q7
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: / 30 ! 04
DEP.OF TRANSPORTATION:DOT✓DPWZ TOSL/
— I
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT OF HEALTH: P r/ _/ / _/ / I
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ,/
FIRE COMMISSIONERS: 06 r/ ® /,01*, 103 o--;>/ /f / p3 9
TOWN ATTORNEY C&I I - REFERRED DATE APPROVAL DATE I NOTES
DRAFT COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS:
FLED COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS:
PLANNINGEb,ARD APPROVALS PREPARED: CONDITIONAL FINAL'.-_-.L—_L_ FINAL—._/__J_
NOTES
ENDORSEMENT OF St-.E PLAN:
FINAL SITE PLAN INSPECTION:
DISTRIBUTE APPROVED SITE PLANS TO: BUILDING DEPT TOWN TOWN ENG_/
GENE NO S:
e C -77x o V 70
...cam
Ia Nr
A
FORM NO. 3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
SOUTHOLD, N.Y.
NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL
DATE: July 5, 2004
RENEWED & AMENDED: October 26, 2005
AMENDED: February 3,200
AMENDED: February 26, 2006
TO: Patricia Moore A/C Oki-Do Ltd.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Please take notice that your application dated March 17, 2004
For permit for construction of transient motel a single family dwelling two restaurants and aprivate
marina at
Location of property: 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY
County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 38 Block 7 Lot 7.1
Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds:
The proposed construction on this conforming 800,624 square foot lot in the M-11 District is
not permitted pursuant to Article =11 Section 100-239.4, B
"All buildings or structures located on lots upon which a bulkhead concrete wall rips or
similar structure exists and which are adjacent to tidal water bodies other than sounds shall be
set back not less than 75 feet from the bulkhead "
Following the proposed construction the proposed project will have a 48-foot setback to the existing
bulkhead.
In addition, the proposed transient motel use and proposed restaurant uses require special exception
approval from the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 100-121.
In addition, the proposed construction is not permitted pursuant to Article YXII Section 100-
122, which states, "No building shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or
altered in the MII District unless the same conforms to the Bulk Schedule and Parkina and
Loading Schedules incorporated into this chapter by reference, with the same force and effect if
such regulations were set forth herein in full."
Pursuant to bulk schedule, all principal structures are limited to 35 feet in height The
architectural features, listed on the most recent site plan as "arcs," measure 35.83 feet 55 feet
and 43 feet at their highest points respectively.
Site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board will also be required.
This Notice of Disapproval was amended (10/26/5) following changes in the scope of the project. This
Notice of Disapproval was amended (2/3/6) following changes in the scope of the project. This Notice
of Disapproval was amended (2/26/6) following additional information submitted to the building
department in reference to this application.
----Wb/rnizeuip
------
Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require
further review by the Southold Town Building Department.
Cc: File, ZBA, Planning
Oki-Do Referral List
Referrals sent: Manch 23, 2006
Referred To: Site Plan Site Plan Arch Arch EAF SP Use Info Letter Traffic Env Site LWRP
App— 3/10/06 Plan Elevations Diagram from B&O Impact Assess.
2/28/06 2/13/06 Recd Architects Feb 2006 Report
3/17/06 1/10/06 6/22/05
ST ZBA X X X X
ST Building X X X X* X X** X X
ST Town Clerk X X X X
Scott Russell X X X X
• ST Trustees X X X X
ST Engineer X X X X* X X** X X X
LWRP Coord. X X* X X X X
SCDHS X X X X
NYSDEC X X X X** X
NYS DOT X X X** X X
SC Water X X X X
SCPlannin X X X X* X X** X X
ARC X X* X X
ACOE X X X X
NPV X X X X" X X** X X X
East Marion FD X X X X**
X
*Color copies x
**Color site plan use diagrams are attached to the site plan. \�
Yv
�`3iI0()
191all 4 OImo/ QC
91,.
/ -_ i, �y�c .icJ 1_- 3 .•ec +7ks at _ �s/.e k 7�
�i
',j
,n
f
}
AIN�s
. �,O
j
� i � Il � Illl �_
aM
� :± ����yh. � x` fid, � r• . ..��. e_ a� `.
09 /2.._007:.
n Y
OA
f «►
1�,
ov" ✓e" .. � �Yjs ss�'s�`dd ::.e►.°s•^�°' ;"- �.
` x
'a
a�
rv`RI I •j � �f ,E �, � x�,..
t yA
_ � .
�3�
,^ I � I
i p(�'
\u \__q�'1�� I � 1 � .�� r.
\ \ \ '�
� � A A � .� V '\,.ATi \. �\'V A, ��, �
Via' '\n� ' .4�"� ,� � �\ I �^"'^ \ 'y
?..��., y � . i _ �
y, �
w
�� ,,
_��,� ,
MAILING ADDRESS:
' PLANNING BOARD MEMBER �fjF so�Ty Southold, x 1179
NY 1971
JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE ��� Old
Chair OFFICE LOCATION:
KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall Annex
MARTIN H.SIDOR G . 54375 State Route 25
GEORGE D.SOLOMON (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
JOSEPH L.TOWNSENDcoorm Southold, NY
111, Telephone: 631765-1938
r ,- — �^* ,meq Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
c
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
To: Town of Southold Planning Board
Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Southold Board of Trustees
Mike Verity, Chief Building Inspector
^ � NOV — 6 tuba
From: Mark Terry, Senior Environmental,Planner,+
LWRP Coordinatorr
Date: November 6 , 2006 1.
Re: Proposed Site Plan for Gaia Holistic Circle at East Marson T�'
SCTM #1000-38-7-7.1 Zone: M-II
This proposed action requires a special exception and site plan to construct a holistic health
center with a total of 114 transient motel rooms consisting of 23 guest lodges totaling 87
accessory motel units (14 lodges containing 3 unit motel rooms & 9 guest lodges containing 5
unit motel rooms). The remaining 27 motel units are to be located in the main spa building along
with a 185 seat restaurant (103 private guest seats, 72 public guest seats), 10 public bar seats,
office space, retail gift shop, 27 personal service treatment suites and accessory uses. The
proposed action also involves a 3,864 sq. ft. private restaurant annex with 45-99 private guest
seats and a covered 758 sq. ft. deck, 1,987 sq. ft. manager's residence with a 687 sq. ft. deck,
pool, a 7,205 sq. ft. maintenance and utility building, a sanitary waste treatment facility, 1,160
sq. ft. for three (3) gazebos, man-made water features, replacement of the existing bulkhead,
dredging of the 16 slip private marina basin, and various outdoor amenities on a 18.7 acre parcel
in the MII Zone located approximately 3,278 ft. south of New York State Road 25 at the south
east end of Shipyard Lane known as 2835 Shipyard Lane in East Marion. SCTM # 1000-38-7-
7.1
The LWRP identifies the former Long Island Oyster Farm site at the foot of Old Shipyard Lane as
a underutilized commercial property. It is discussed in detail in Subsections, 7 and B.
Section V Subsection 7 states "the abandoned fish processing site at the foot of the Shipyard Lane,
at Cleaves Point, has great potential to provide additional public access to the water as a Town
marina. The Heavy use of the ramp at gull Pond Inlet suggests a need for more good Boating
access between Greenport Village and Orient Harbor." In addition, the LWRP identifies the site in
section B. Summary and Conclusions; Item 1. Opportunities for land use changes: as "having
potential to be developed into a multi-use facility accommodating water enhanced recreational uses
as well as the typical water dependent uses allowed under the existing zoning. This site is also a
1
feasible location for a Town manna Public ownership of this site may be more compatible with
the surrounding residential neighborhood than commercial operation It would also provide access
within this reach"
The action has been reviewed to Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of
Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy
Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form
submitted to this department as well as the records available to me, it is my determination that
the proposed action supports most of the policies of the LWRP, however, the proposal is
INCONSISTENT with the below Policy Standards and therefore is INCONSISTENT with
the LWRP based upon the following:
Policy 4. Minimize loss of human life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and
erosion.
Policy Standards
4.1 Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards.
The following management measures to minimize losses of human life and
structures from flooding and erosion hazards are suggested:
A. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures
away from flooding and erosion hazards.
1. Avoid development other than water-dependent uses in coastal hazard
areas. Locate new development which is not water-dependent as far
away from coastal hazard areas as practical.
The term Water-dependent use means a business or other activity which
can only be conducted in on over, or adjacent to a water body because
such activity requires direct access to that water body, and which involves
as an integral part of such activity, the use of the water. Existing uses
should be maintained and enhanced where possible and appropriate.
Portion of the property are located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
as identified by the NYSDEC Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Map_
Portions of the Transient Motel building, Proposed outdoor terrace a
portion of the parking area and leaching fields are all proposed seaward of
the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line. It is recommended that the structures be
relocated to the greatest extent practical to meet the above policy and sub-
policies
ub
olp icies
2. Avoid reconstruction of structures, other than structures that are part
of a water-dependent use, damaged by 50% or more of their value in
coastal hazard areas.
The Transient Motel and accessory uses are proposed to be built within the
footprint of the Oyster processing facility. The use is not a "water
2
GAIA HOLISTIC CIRCLE @ EAST MARION JUL 2 7 2006
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PREMISES: 2835 SHIPYARD LANE, EAST MARION NY
SCTM#1000-38-07-7.1
The proposed action includes the construction of a 114-unit motel. The location of units
will vary by building type, including a transient motel building with 27 units, nine
buildings containing five units each, and 13 buildings containing three units each. The
total building area dedicated to motel units is 85,874± square feet. The proposed
development also includes a 3,834±-square-foot restaurant, a 1,987±-square-foot
manager's residence, and a 1,373±-square-foot pool house with a swimming pool. On-
site parking consisting of 189 spaces, including 27 landbanked spaces, will be
constructed to accommodate guests and employees. A private marina with 16 boat slips
is also proposed.
In order to facilitate development the action will require the demolition and disposal of
approximately 35,165 square feet of existing structures (the old oyster processing plant);
material will be recycled as appropriate. Debris and old bulkhead (approximately 456
linear feet) will be removed along Gardener's Bay. A stone revetment, matching the
shore protection structure of the condominiums to the west, will be in stalled where the
old bulkhead was located. The refurbishment of the existing boat basin, to create the
private marina, will include replacement in-place of approximately 515 linear feet of
existing bulkhead. The existing fixed pier will be removed and replaced with
approximately 540 feet of floating docks (including eight (8) 4-foot by 30-foot floating
finger piers) within boat basin. In addition, approximately 2,500 cubic yards of material
will be dredged from the inlet of boat basin. Dredge spoil to be used as beach
nourishment, fill behind stone revetment and/or disposed of at an approved upland
location.
The aesthetics of the property will be diverse with natural features, including a man-made
lake that traverses the unit areas, Japanese gardens and native plantings as landscaping.
Access to the subject property would be from Shipyard Lane, at its southern extent. The
project shall seek LEED green building status. This includes, but not limited to energy
usage and efficiency, restoration of land and shoreline, recycling, water savings,
transportation, etc.
The proposed drainage plan would include drywells and a man-made lake, designed to
accommodate 100 percent of stormwater on the site. Sanitary discharge would be
accommodated on-site with a CromaglassTM treatment system, which would be subject to
review and approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services ("SCDHS").
Potable water for domestic use and fire protection is available along Shipyard Lane from
water mains owned by the Suffolk County Water Authority ("SCWA"). The proposed
plan would include the establishment of a new connection to the SCWA mains.
r.
�JUL 2 7 2006
�� qW
v
v^,xq• f '
a
—10
Y N
8
x
4 r y
r�
,x �
r`
n a -
r
4ai �
fA
s
� ; �•wr r`r .k
F ;
+� J
r ',m' s4 y s�•' r
v d
r til'OVA
p
5. y dam.
- p+
• vG
I2006 �- ., 126
War
Jv
' r
s r:...
w #
11
4
mir �
7 S
10/06/2006 Y.'
rr � -
_ 31
w ,
d ny'
✓ a a
X14106/2006 x'2006
10
4p a�
I Ci 06, `)`J��
L r. r�'.
�
' � 1
10/06 ;2006 10/06/2006
�'! 'est :ems -0r 71�.•• � ��� '
lit �+1
J
`$ , 10/06 /2006 1 0 ./06 % 2006
4 iV
floc ,1 y
+ a
10/06/ 006 10/06/ 2006
1 � F
br*� •� F jr,M J � �T.
i .iM. ir�.Sx Y 1 •h L,. . p a vt k"4�.1.
A
IT s
Iti
10/06/2006 10/06/-2006
40
101/06/ 2006 •��� , o ,
1
10/ 06 /2006 10/06/2006
�p I
CY P
10/06/2006 006
Irl' r�
IMPW F,
y•
_ F
S
10/06/2006 ry :< .106 / 2006
ANEW-" .,.
IpAft� .�
WIN
aS`
_' n-Watx ry_ 'y�r• ,�� -N,�"„y�,,.. &.�k;[��'*n.� ... '.. T'^4 fwt ` $:'� ..A,. 1f!n'�. ��
z '
-
YW A
olw
/2006 10�0'6/ 2-006`.
r ?t ` r
i
�+�II
I 1 ai j
006
1 FIS
ZVO
Yr >1w ttf' Mv. ,yJ rY1
x��y �
MV7,'��Frgf
`.y
i as
� ae. •+
x.
i
l N I
pp PJ
OPP" Jim
hl '
10/06 /2006
aB:
I •
-
a.�� '
-���_ • • •
�I NN ,`�
���� j •� I N I Y f I
%M ,,
Wi
1
A
6
1 , 06 2006
rI
R M
1 yLl/
i
I�
Y tti-
rN
10/06/2006 l �26.
Y
m yr ':.. . • _ � I
4 O�
f
r. 'filit A IN,rer m du
7119wo 0 5
� F
I
N
uh
10 !06! 2006
150
a I
r
'r4i
,t r .y
I � �
/ 2'
r �
Ell 10/06/2006
i�
Y
f
�r
.a
9 9
Ali
*06 /2006 10/06/2006
ti
CD
r
.,c^ � . .. .d'. f �d,J ��-✓ y. �. 'fir ,�, �ws,�
� 3 yyy A
t -
�
10 /06 %2006 l( �
VA m
10 /06/ 2006 - 10/06/2006
10 / 06/ 2006 10/06 /2006
e
-: 10/06/2006
t
,tiii�.... .........
r
NJ
CDx — ,
1 I i
s �
k
10/06/2006 10/06/2006
r y4
10 /06 / 2006 10/ 06/ 2006
F. x
I
I # E s
I
rw.
10/06/2000 10 ; 00 ,, 200
Llilk
-
10/06/ 2006 10/ 00 201.10
Al
n
9.%a
t. ," • 10/06/2006
i
a4w Lr'.y( E I la,. ..ye S _. rF� � �r��d� h""S�f•
w 10/06 / 2006 . : 10/06/2006
n'
-gyp„ ."
1
4
AL
e J�
1
,
t t i
}
1y R
' 4 i!.- st I Fry sy m 'may
-' 10/06/2006 10/06/2006
_ - Ak,
a
".0/06/20H 10/06/2006
A.
- •y k
r
10/06/2006 10/06/2006
CM'S •-'� ,
10/06/2006 101/06/2006'
a _y y. [ � � �T. •`' � ��*, {Aid
�t�- f/:
a i
t I
r
10/ 06/2606 / / 0
k Y
I
e$
r � ► P t.
V
,I
�
r�.,,
10/06/2006 °` 10/ 6/, 0'6
` of
s i
2006 10/06/2006
M.. • O Yy, r r
IV
10/06,/2006 ` .. 10/01,
} y
1 .
2
1
10/06/2006 10 /06/2006
10/06/ 2006 10/06/2006
v.3;. . N
V
aF: 3.:• a. ��
x T
war,
h.
10/06/2006
y
-pow wc
"I M1 ' X1721W
r.
_� 1. ..
• / 10/06 /2006
�S
Tye _ Ow�m P k_
__ :i,.
�Y
Y
s 1
P
1.
rs.
C � �
I'-
K
q•
Ao%��
10 /06/2006 •
rv'
y
c _
r v t
As',.r
� v
( it
c
'il p '� 10� : r Y� f 1 �� �i i t"�i `� i I�� "Gl�'A � u' ? � 1( • wr tic �r -..+b' '� ul� � 1,
ty�� J
b. ) 111 .n,ql
Vii.►- s,' � ^ /
,
t
10/46"!20
y
11
yy
r
/2,006 612006
� ..:sL M . .. '�vz'%.,+aTae�-.. .mwt s .r �:. e,.. _ i _•�
Y'
106/2006
60
rtt-s +u'+ava - w ..
f p r @ 'rte
10/Q6/2006 10/06/2006
N �
'~ •) ;. FAY .:� l 5! � '
w � `.yam '�;�Z.:. % . y., `�,� •.- a
1 Jpy¢ae _
161
Jt
.10/06/2006
'Sd
F
M �
:y .._+•.roe-p"^Y4^A•-.' �L+kw"+
n' -
` `
1 ,0/06 /2006
TO
WrY
Y
C
1
d
10;%06/ 2006
dependent' use. However, the percent of value loss has not been provided
and therefore a recommendation on whether the proposal meets this policy
cannot be made. The proposed marina is a water dependent use.
3. Move existing development and structures as far away from flooding
and erosion hazards as practical. Maintaining existing development
and structures in hazard areas may be warranted for:
a. structures which functionally require a location on the coast or
in coastal waters.
The Transient Motel, restaurant and other accessory uses do not
require a coastal location and therefore are inconsistent with this
sub-policy. It is recommended that the structures be designed
and/or located to avoid flooding and erosion hazards.
b. water-dependent uses which cannot avoid exposure to hazards.
The proposed marina is the only water dependent use within the
proposal. There is no ability to relocate the marina.
C. sites in areas with extensive public investment, public
infrastructure, or major public facilities.
A public use is not proposed and therefore the action in
inconsistent with this sub-policy.
d. sites where relocation of an existing structure is not practical.
The applicant proposes to reconstruct the main building which
houses the Transient Motel, restaurant and other accessory uses
within the original footprint of the Oyster processing facility.
However, the building is located within Flood Zone AE Zone
Elevation 9, an "Area of Special Flood Hazard". It is
recommended that the applicant amend the proposal to theegr atest
extent practical to avoid and/or mitigate all potential flooding and
erosion hazards.
5. Manage development in floodplains outside of coastal hazard areas so
as to reduce adverse environmental effects, minimize the need for
future structural flood protection measures, or expansion of existing
protection measures and to meet federal flood insurance program
standards.
The main building which houses the Transient Motel, restaurant with other
accessory uses sleeping units 16C 17C and 18C the pool house and pool
and the Transient Motel private cafeteria are located in Flood Zone AE
Zone Elevation 9, an "Area of Special Flood Hazard". Therefore the
proposed action is inconsistent with the above policy and sub-policies.
Flood Zone AE Zone Elevation 9 corresponds to the 100 year floodplains
that are determined in the Flood Insurance Study by detailed methods A
3
100 year flood refers to an elevation that has a 1% chance of being
exceeded or equaled each vear. It is recommended that the applicant
amend the proposal to the greatest extent practical to mitigate all potential
flooding hazards.
4.2 Protect and restore natural protective features. Natural protective geologic features
provide valuable protection and should be protected, restored and enhanced.
Destruction or degradation of these features should be discouraged or prohibited.
C. Minimize interference with natural coastal processes by:
1. providing for natural supply and movement of unconsolidated
materials and for water and wind transport
2. limiting intrusion of structures into coastal waters
D. A limited interference with coastal processes may be allowed where the
principal purpose of the structure is necessary to:
1. simulate natural processes where existing structures have altered the
coast
2. provide necessary public benefits for flooding and erosion protection
3. provide for the efficient operation of water-dependent uses
Limited interference is to be mitigated to ensure that there is no adverse impact to
adjacent property, to natural coastal processes and natural resources, and, if
undertaken by a private property owner, does not incur significant direct or
indirect public costs.
4.3 Protect public lands and public trust lands and use of these lands when undertaking
all erosion or flood control projects.
A. Retain ownership of public trust lands which have become upland areas due
to fill or accretion resulting from erosion control projects. (However, in
situations where erosion control projects have created public land updrift,
but also resulted in damage or erosion to public lands and public trust lands
downdrift of the control structure, the public benefit of that structure or
project should be re-examined and appropriate modifications made as
conditions suggest.)
Public lands on the property involve all waters of the state no to the high tide
mark. The placement of channel bulkheads entering the marina has caused the re
nourishment of the beach to the northeast of the bulkheads (uupdrift) and the
severe erosion of the beach to the southwest of the channel bulkheads (downdraft).
This area has eroded to landward of the shoreline east/west timber bulkhead
forcing the low/high tidal range to move landward from the historic location The
high tide mark is now located north of the failed shoreline east/west timber
bulkhead. The alteration of the tidal range on the property is a direct result of the
channel bulkheads and therefore it is recommended that the length of the
bulkheads in the channel be re-evaluated to allow the beach to naturally re-
establish and improve public access in the area southwest of the channel
4
B. Avoid losses or likely losses of public trust lands or use of these lands, including
public access along the shore, which can be reasonably attributed to or
anticipated to result from erosion protection structures.
The beach to the northeast of the channel bulkheads is accessible to the public to
the northeast bulkhead. The beach southwest of the channel bulkheads has
significantly eroded. The erosion of the beach coupled with the large amount of
hardened shoreline structures severely limit public access. It is recommended
that the length of the channel bulkheads be re-evaluated to allow the beach to
naturally re-establish.
4.4 Manage navigation infrastructure to limit adverse impacts on coastal processes.
A. Manage stabilized inlets to limit adverse impacts on coastal processes.
1. Include sand bypassing at all engineered or stabilized inlets which
interrupt littoral processes.
2. Avoid extending jetties when it will increase disruption of coastal
processes.
3. Consider removing existing jetties when they do not protect existing
water-dependent uses and disrupt coastal processes.
As indicated above the channel bulkheads have disrupted the normal sand
drifting patterns and have caused adverse impacts to the natural coastal
processes. The length of both the north and south bulkheads should be re-
evaluated and re-designed to improve the natural sand downdrift process to the
greatest extent practical to meet the above sub-policy.
B. Design channel construction and maintenance to protect and enhance natural
protective features and prevent destabilization of adjacent areas.
See above response.
Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold.
5.3 Protect and enhance quality of coastal waters.
A. Protect water quality based on an evaluation of physical factors (pH,
dissolved oxygen, dissolved solids, nutrients, odor, color and
turbidity), health factors (pathogens, chemical contaminants, and
toxicity), and aesthetic factors (oils, floatables, refuse, and suspended
solids).
In June of 2005, a Phase 11 Environmental Assessment report was prepared for the
site by Longshore Environmental Inc. The report concludes that the site contains
MTBE's areas of petroleum impact and levels of copper and zinc that exceed
NYDEC recommended soil cleanup objectives.
5
One concem with the results listed in the report is that soil analysis was not
performed at all areas containing underground storage tanks including a 10,000
gallon Diesel underground storage tank. It is strongly recommended that the
Board require a that soil analysis be conducted for all underground storage
tanks storing petroleum products and require that a remediation plan to
clean up the contaminated sites be submitted to the Town..
In addition, it is strongly recommended that any dredge spoil and fill soils be
tested for contaminants prior to use on site.
Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem.
6.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands.
A. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the Southold
Town Board of Trustees laws and regulations for all Andros Patent
and other lands under their jurisdiction.
1. Comply with Trustee regulations and recommendations as set forth in
Trustee permit conditions.
The proposed setback from the Transient Motel building to the bulkhead is XXX
feet. The proposed setbacks from the Transient Motel cafeteria building is 55 feet
from the wood decking to the bulkhead: from 16c 17c 18c sleeping rooms the
setback cannot be accurately determined until the wetland iurisdictional boundary
has been established by the Board of Trustees . A minimum setback of 100 feet is
required pursuant to Chapter 275 and a minimum setback of 75 feet is required by
Article XXIII Section 280-239B of the Town of Southold Town Code. Please
require that the applicant amend the application to meet the above policy to the
greatest extent possible
Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and
hazardous substances and wastes.
8.2 Manage hazardous wastes to protect public health and control pollution.
C. Remediate inactive hazardous waste disposal sites. Future use of a site should
determine the appropriate level of remediation.
The Town's Site Plan application process will uncover inactive hazardous
waste disposal sites. Remediation efforts will be specified during the
environmental review of those sites prior to development or redevelopment.
8.3 Protect the environment from degradation due to toxic pollutants and substances
hazardous to the environment and public health.
6
A. Prevent release of toxic pollutants or substances hazardous to the
environment that would have a deleterious effect on fish and wildlife
resources.
The Town's Site Plan application process will determine whether proposed
land use activities will involve toxic substances. Protection measures to
prevent their release to the environment, particularly fish and wildlife
resources, will be determined during the environmental review.
Further, the dredging of toxic material from underwater lands and the
deposition of such material shall be conducted in the most mitigative manner
possible so as not to endanger fish and wildlife resources, in either the short
or long term.
E. Take appropriate action to correct all unregulated releases of substances
hazardous to the environment.
In June of 2005, a Phase II Environmental Assessment report was prepared for the site by
Lonashore Environmental Inc. The report concludes that the site contains MTBE's areas
of petroleum impact, and levels of copper and zinc that exceed NYDEC recommended
soil cleanup objectives.
One concern with the results listed in the report is that soil analysis was not performed at
all areas containing underground storage tanks including a 10,000 gallon Diesel
underground storage tank. It is strongly recommended that the Boards require that a soil
analysis be required for all underground storage tanks storing petroleum products and a
remediation plan to clean up the contaminated sites be submitted to the Town
Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands,
and public resources of the Town of Southold.
The LWRP states that "public ownership of this site may be more compatible with the
surrounding residential neighborhood than commercial operation It would also provide access
within this reach". The property and proposed use is private; there is no proposal to enhance
public access or recreational use of coastal waters so therefore the proposal as submitted is
inconsistent with the above policy.
Policy 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-
dependent uses in suitable locations.
10.1 (a) Protect existing water-dependent uses.
The term Water-dependent use means a business or other activity which can only be conducted
in, on, over, or adiacent to a water body because such activity requires direct access to that water
body, and which involves, as an integral part of such activity, the use of the water. Existing uses
should be maintained and enhanced where possible and appropriate
7
• •
Proposed Marina: The plan incorporates a marina use which is a water dependent use that
requires direct access to the water body. Therefore the marina use is consistent with 10.1 (a)
above .
10.1 (b) Improve the economic viability of water-dependent uses by allowing for non-water
dependent accessory and multiple uses, particularly water enhanced and maritime
support services where sufficient upland exists.
The term Water-enhanced use means a use or activity which does not require a location adjacent
to coastal waters, but whose location on the waterfront adds to the public use and enjoyment of
the water's edge. Water-enhanced uses are primarily recreational cultural retail or
entertainment in nature. These uses may be necessary for the successful financial operation and
viability of water-dependent uses.
Proposed Transient Motel: The proposed transient motel use is a special exception use in the
MII zoning district and a water enhanced use. The use is also non-water dependent however, it
improves the economic viability of the marina and overall project and therefore is consistent with
the above sub-policy.
Proposed Restaurant: The proposed restaurant use is a special exception use in the MII zoning
district and a water enhanced use. The use is also non-water dependent however, it improves
the economic viability of the marina and overall project and is therefore consistent with the
above sub-policy.
Cc: Amy Ford, Senior Planner
File
8
BUTT•OTRUBA-O'CONNOR ARCHITECTS, AIA
1062 Northern Boulevard, Roslyn, NY 11576
Tel. (516) 625-6625
Fax. (516) 625-6629
Danita Otruba-O'Connor
Edward P. Butt
Uses - Separate site plan - color code uses
1 st Principal Use: Transient motel ( min. 3 acres required) - Total number of units is
114: 27 in motel building and 87 detached clusters ( clusters of 3 units and 5 units)
(456,000 square feet)
Special Permit required 100-121(B)(3)
Transient Motel Accessory Uses:
a. Restaurant in annex center(50 seats)
b. office area (dedicated for motel use)
c. Accessory "personal services" (27 rooms)
d. Swimming pool (pool house)
e. Maintenance & utility building
• 2nd Principal Use: Restaurant— Special Permit 100-121 (B)(1)
80,000 square feet require
72 seats for public, 126 for transient motel only
Accessory- Gift shop & 2 offices
• 3rd Use: Private marina 100-121 (2A) / 80,000 square feet (permitted use)
1. Private Boat slips for restaurant and transient motel guests (not for rent)
2. basin is 60,380 square feet under water+ 19,618 upland
3. Office for marina
• 4th Use: Single family residence for owner— 80,000 square feet (permitted use)
lofI
FORM NO. 3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
SOUTHOLD, N.Y.
NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL
DATE: July 5, 2004
RENEWED & AMENDED: October 26, 2005
AMENDED: February 3, 2006
AMENDED: February 26, 2006
TO: Patricia Moore A/C Oki-Do Ltd.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Please take notice that your application dated March 17, 2004
For permit for construction of transient motel, a single family dwelling, two restaurants and a private
marina at
Location of property: 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY
County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 38 Block 7 Lot 7.1
Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds:
The proposed construction, on this conforming 800,624 square foot lot in the M-II District, is
not permitted pursuant to Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4, B
"All buildings or structures located on lots upon which a bulkhead concrete wall riprgp or
similar structure exists and which are adjacent to tidal water bodies other than sounds shall be
set back not less than 75 feet from the bulkhead."
Following the proposed construction the proposed project will have a 48-foot setback to the existing
bulkhead.
In addition the proposed transient motel use and proposed restaurant uses require special exception
approval from the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 100-121
In addition, the proposed construction is not permitted pursuant to Article XXII, Section 100-
122, which states, "No building shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or
altered in the M11 District unless the same conforms to the Bulk Schedule and Parking and
Loading Schedules incorporated into this chapter by reference, with the same force and effect if
such regulations were set forth herein in full."
Pursuant to bulk schedule, all principal structures are limited to 35 feet in height. The
architectural features, listed on the most recent site plan as "arcs," measure 35.83 feet, 55 feet,
and 43 feet, at their highest points, respectively.
Site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board will also be required.
This Notice of Disapproval was amended (10/26/5) following changes in the scope of the project. This
Notice of Disapproval was amended (2/3/6) following changes in the scope of the project. This Notice
of Disapproval was amended (2/26/6) following additional information submitted to the building
department in reference to this application.
-------- --- -- - --------------------
Au 6rize me
Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application, may require
further review by the Southold Town Building Department.
Cc: File, ZBA, Planning
0 • MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS O f soG P.O. Box 1179
JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE O�� rye Southold,NY 11971
Chair o
l� OFFICE LOCATION:
KENNETH L.EDWARDS Town Hall Annex
MARTIN H.SIDOR G Q 54375 State Route 25
GEORGE D. SOLOMON i2` Ap�� (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
JOSEPH L. TOWNSENDOIiYCom Southold, NY
�1 I 1 Telephone: 631 765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 12, 2007
To: Stacey Norkelun, Records Management
From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer
Re: Subpoena, GAIA Holistic Circle OKI-DO SCTM 1000-38-7-7.1
In reference to the request of the Town Clerk, attached are the three files from the above project,
please scan the pages in each file after the last noted scan date of 5/29/07.
After you completed the scanning, please return the files to the Planning Department.
Thank you in advance for your time.
Cc: File
Attachment: 3 of 3 files
Ud,13,2007 06:41 FAX 031 705 4043 MOORE LAN' OFFICES X1001
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Tel: (631)765-4330 -_
Fax: (631)765-4643
.ti
June 13 , 2007 iy
Southold Town Planning Board1
Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chair
P.O.Box 1179
Soutncld, NY 11971
By Fax.
Re: OKI-Lo Ltd.
Phase II Environmental Audit
Dear Ms. Woodhouse;
In accordance with my telephone conversations with Bruno Semon
Of your office, please be advised that Longshore Environmental is
conducting teat holes on the above referenced property.
Pursuant to our Phase lI Environmental Audit, Longshore
Environmental is continuing their testing for the location and
ultimate removal of underground petroleum storage tanks.
Very Truly Yours,
Patricia C. Moore
CC: Mr. MChael Verity,
Southold Building Inspector
0
r�s
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold,New York 11971
Tel: (631)7654330
Fax: (631)765-4643
March 9, 2007
Attn: Bruno
Planning Board
Town of Southold
Main Road, PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971 �7
1
_J
RE: OKI-DO, LTD. __ - --
Dear Bruno:
reference o the above, enclosed please find my clients check in the
amoun of $882.92 made payable to the Town of Southold for reimbursement of the
SEORA 1;'
Thank you and please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions.
Very rul yours,
4�
Patrlci�e
PCM/Wg
encls.
V V vJ
)45
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
i
March 9, 2007
i
Town Planning Board I.. ' `h
Southold g su �. ,..:,:I c_.. _
Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chair -
P. O.Box 1179 —J
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Ms . Woodhouse;
In accordance with my telephone conversations with Bruno Semon
of your office, we requested an opportunity to meet with the Board
to keep the Board informed of our progress in the preparation of
the DEIS, the alternative (s) we are addressing, and to seek the
segmentation of certain aspects of the project out of the SEQRA
process so we can do them as soon as possible . Specifically, demo
of the building, landscaping and wall along the road.
This letter confirms that we will be meeting with the Board at
a public work session on Monday, March 12 , 2007 at 4 : 30 pm.
We thank you for the opportunity to meet with the Board and
staff .
Very TryLly Yours,
C-�a'{=ricia C. Moore
NelsoNelson Pope & Vo is LLC �'`
n, f Property: 03261 Project: VA02084
572 Walt Whitman Road Phone: E1W 7-5665
Melville NY 11747 Fax: 631-427-5620 Oki-Do Ltd,East Marion
Manager: Voorhis,Charles
Invoice - -7 --7 ,
To: Town of Southold Invoice#: 4637
Town Hall Invoice Date: February 02,2007
53095 Main Rd,PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Attention: Amy Ford
MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO NELSON POPE&VOORHIS Invoice Amount $88Z92
Prepare scope for DEIS and meeting preparation.
Work Performed thru 11/6/06
Professional Services Bill Hours Bill Rate Charee
Municipal
Managing Partner Municipal Scoping 4.50 190.00 855.00
Municipal Total: 4.50 $855.00
Professional Services Totals $855.00
Outside Services Date Bill Units Charee
Outside Services-Eneineerine-N&P(5110) 12/04/06 1.00 412.50
Traffic Study Review
Nelson&Pope Project Manager
2.50 hours @$165/Hour
Work Performed thru 11/6/06
Outside Services Totals $412.50
Project Subtotal: $1,267.50
Retainer Applied: -$384.58
*** Total Project Invoice Amount $882.92
All invoices are due net 30 days A late charge of I% per month will be added m any unpaid balance after 30 day&
Please make all checks payable to NELSON POPE&VOORHIS
Please include invoice number on check
NELSON POPE&VOORHIS NOW ACCEPTS C .
VISA - MASTERCARD - AMERICA S °
CIO
lin
Fac
r k
a
�
® Net
® .. �.
2a
Itiyi �S��T'^-r
`mss
4 MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS �pF SO(/jP.O. Box 1179
JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE ��� Ol0 Southold, NY 11971
Chair
OFFICE LOCATION:
KENNETH L.EDWARDS y Town Hall Annex
MARTIN H.SIDOR G @ 54375 State Route 25
GEORGE D.SOLOMON '�� • i�
(cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
JOSEPH L.TOWNSEND COU Southold,Southold, NY
Telephone: 631 765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
January 11, 2007
Patricia Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Proposed.Site Plan for GAIA Holistic, Oki-Do, Ltd.
2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion
SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1
Dear Mrs. Moore,
As per your request attached you will find the following copies of information:
• 5-pages of the Twoomey,Latham,Shea,Kelley Dubin&Quartararo letter dated 10/26/06.
• 6-pages GPI Greenman-Pedersen,Inc.Traffic Study Assessment dated 8/3/06.
• 5-pages GPI Greenman-Pedersen,Inc.Gaia Holistic Center 10/24/06
Additionally, as you requested the enclosed information was faxed to Doug Adams at Young &
Young yesterday.
If there are any questions you can contact us at (631) 765-1938 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m.
Res fully y rs,
Bruno Semon
Senior Site Plan Reviewer
CC:file
enc
facsimile
transmittal
To: Doug Adams Fax: 631-727-0144
From: Bruno Semon Date: 1/10/2007
Re: Gaia Holistic/Cleaves Point Condo Pages: 17
information
CC: File
❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle
m
a
core's request attached is the information received from the Cleaves Point Condominium
OWN! d _ .
ig� "You will find the following:
-M
Twoomey,Latham,Shea,Kelley Dubin&Quartararo letter dated 10/26/06.
GPI Greenman-Pedersen,Inc.Traffic Study Assessment dated 8/3106.
GPI Greenman.Pedersen,Inc.Gaia Holistic Center 10/24106.
Thank You
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T06MEY, LATHAM, SHEA, KEWY,
DUBIN & QUARTARARO LLP
Attorneys at Law
THOMAS A.TWOMEY,JR. Melling Addrees LoceOoq of COUNSEL
STEPHEN B.LATHAM Post Office BOX 9398 33 West Second Street KENNETH P. LAVALLE
JOHN F.SHEA, Ill Riverhead Riverhead JOAN C. HATFIELD A
CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY New York 11901-9398 NOW York 11901-9398 LAURA I. SGUAZZIN 4
DAVID M.DUBINO
JAY P.OUARTARAROt BRYAN C. VAN COTT•
PETER M. MOTT Telephone: 631.727.2180 GYRUS G. DOLCE,JILL
JANICE L SNEAD Fecei mile.631.727.1767 LISA A.AZZATO+
JANE DiGIACOMO KATHRYN DALLI
PHILIP D.NYKAMP DANIEL G.WANI t
MARTIN D. FINNEGANO www.suffolklaw.com JENNIFER A.ANOALORO
ANNE MARIE GOODALE KELLY E. KINIRONS
LM
IN TAXATION t
M.INESTFTE PLANNING O
�JiY 8 L BARS 0
BY HAND
•�•Y e C ARS 0
Nv.IM ARS p
aYary ARS.
October 26, 2006 NY N' CT'X"BAPS '
Planning Board
Town of Southold i
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
Re: Oki-Do,Ltd.
Premises: 2835 Shipyard Lane,East Marion,NY
SCTM#: 1000-038.00-07.00-007.001
Dear Members of the Planning Board:
This firm represents Cleaves Point Condominium Association ("Cleaves Point"), neighbors
directly to the west of the above-referenced premises and the proposed site of the Gaia Holistic
Center.
We appeared at the scoping session held on October 16, 2006 and voiced our client's concerns
regarding the scope of the applicant's Draft Environmental Impact Statement("DEIS"). As we
stated at the session, we are presenting those concerns in writing at this time. In addition, we are
submitting an independent traffic study prepared by Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. dated August 3,
2006, and the written comments of Robert Grover, Chief Environmental Consultant for
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc., dated October 24, 2006.
The entrance to and exit from Cleaves Point is on Shipyard Lane. The proposed ingress and
egress locations to the Gaia Holistic Center are situated directly across from those of Cleaves
Point. As such, and for other reasons, a serious traffic conflict is created. While traffic is one of
the primary concerns of Cleaves Point, there are many other issues of environmental concern as
outlined below.
TRAFFIC
The applicant's traffic study concludes that there will be no detrimental effect on traffic
conditions, which conclusion is not only self-serving, but misleading. The conclusion is not
20 MAIN STREET 51 HILL STREET 105 ROUTE 112,FL 1S 400 TOWNLINE ROAD 56340 MAIN ROAD,P.O.BOX 325
EAST HAMPTON,NY 11937 SOUTHAMPTON, NY 11968 PORT JEFFERSON STA., NY 11776 HAUPPAUGE,NV 11788 SOUTHOLD, NY 11971
631.324.1200 631.287.0090 631.928 4400 631.265.1414 631.765.2300
based on realistic assessments. Cleaves Point's independent traffic study raises significant
issues, as briefly discussed below, and which are more fully discussed in the annexed report.
• It is highly unlikely that only overnight guests will be using the facility;
• It is highly unlikely that the restaurant will limit public patrons;
• The delivery activities for such a proposed high-end facility are not accurately reflected;
• The fact that all the many amenities will have to be maintained, thereby requiring
maintenance vehicles to constantly enter and leave the facility, is not accurately reflected;
• As the Greenman-Pedersen traffic study states, with the increased traffic to and from the
facility, there likely will be a 2 to 2 1/2 minute wait to enter onto Route 25 from Shipyard
Lane, which wait, undoubtedly, will lead to unsafe driving choices, especially given the
blind spot looking west on Route 25;
• Public transportation to and from the facility is highly unlikely and purely speculative
given the high-end nature and remote location of the facility;
• There are 3 driveways proposed to enter and exit the facility, the main entrance of which
is directly across from the access to Cleaves Point. This configuration presents a
dangerous condition;
• Three entrances will prove confusing to visitors, and require more signage than would be
necessary with fewer entrances. Further, 3 entrances will require more disturbance or
breaking up of the screening of the facility. There should be 2 entrances at the most—
one for service vehicles and one for all others;
• Using Gillette Road as an alternate access to the facility will greatly reduce traffic
problems on Shipyard Lane and any backup of vehicles,both service and guest, entering
the facility. In the alternative, one road can be used to enter the facility and the other
road to exit the facility. Shipyard Lane must not bare the burden alone. Sharing the
burden of traffic must be analyzed and considered. Or, one road can be used for
employee and service vehicles and the other road for guests;
• There should be consideration of any pedestrian traffic and whether sidewalks would be
warranted, or the widening of Shipyard Lane;
• Will large buses or trailers be allowed to enter the facility? If so, the noise and resultant
emissions should be analyzed, and they should be able to park and turn around inside the
facility;
• The ever-increasing year-round ferry traffic must be considered.
s •
PARKING AND LIGHTING
The plan calls for parking to be spread out over(3)three sides of the property, including the
entire length of Shipyard Lane. It will be required that all the roadways and parking areas be lit.
• Cleaves Point is concerned that the lighting will produce a"glow" or"halo'effect. If the
parking were centralized, such an effect could be minimized.
• There must not be any parking on Shipyard Lane.
• What kind of lighting will there be at the restaurant? Will there be an outdoor deck or
outdoor seating with lighting? Again, Cleaves Point is concerned about the"glow" or
"halo" effect of any outdoor lighting, as well as the noise.
BUFFER
• What kind of buffer will there be along Shipyard Lane?
THE MARINA
• Will fuel be stored on the premises and, if so,who would have access to the fuel pumps?
REVETMENT
It is our understanding that water has broken through the old existing bulkhead, which means
that the high water mark has changed and is now closer to the existing structures. This fact
necessarily will effect the required setbacks. As a result,the wetlands should be reflagged to
determine the appropriate setbacks.
• What steps are the DEC and the Board of Trustees going to take to preserve the existing
wetlands?
• Will there be a study as to the impact any dredging will have on vegetation and wildlife,
including the Osprey nests?
• What erosion control measures and practices will be instituted?
• What impact will the location of the proposed revetment have on the existing revetment
at Cleaves Point and the surrounding areas?
DRAINAGE
The plan calls for the installation of drainage systems in close proximity to the wetlands.
Cleaves Point is concerned that the water table will be effected thereby. There presently exist
drainage problems on Shipyard Lane.
• Will the applicant be required to make any improvements regarding drainage that will
address the existing problems?
• Will there be any drainage into the bay?
PUBLIC WATER
The plan includes many man-made ponds, pools and facilities requiring a very substantial water
supply.
• Where will the requisite water come from?
• Will the applicant be required to install new water mains along Shipyard Lane?
FEMA REQUIREMENTS
FEMA requires that all structures maintain an elevation of at least 10 feet above sea level. The
existing plan includes structures violative of this rule.
• Some of the proposed buildings are only 6 feet above sea level.
• If the buildings are moved landward as a result, the visual impact on the neighbors would
be lessened.
THE DUMPSTER
Cleaves Point is concerned that the proposed location of the dumpsters will create noise and
traffic to and from the dumpsters, and the likelihood of vermin.
• If the dumpsters were moved closer to the main building,these concerns would be
mitigated.
EXISTING PUBLIC SAFETY
The existing building at the site is in severe disrepair. The site is also full of debris. Roof panels
have been blown off, and will continue to blow off, causing safety concerns for the surrounding
neighbors.
• Will the owner/applicant be required to address these safety issues at this time?
• The area presently constitutes an attractive nuisance to the neighborhood.
NOISE
• What efforts will be made to control the noise from the public areas?
• Will there be outdoor parties, concerts or special events bringing in crowds for a day(s) or
night(s)?
• Will construction be limited to weekdays and certain hours?
• Will there be loudspeakers, outdoor music or announcements? If so, will the hours be
regulated?
• Will commercial deliveries be limited to certain hours?
We trust that the Planning Board, as lead agency, will require the applicant to study and address
these issues so that the Board can take a hard look at them and make certain that they are fully
addressed in the DEIS and FEIS.
We appreciate your including this letter and its attachments as part of the record of this matter.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Kathryn Dall
/enc.
cc: Cleaves Point Condominium Association
GPIGreenman - Pedersen, Inc.
Engineering and Construction Services
August 3, 2006
Ms. Sue Hallock
Cleaves Point Condominiums
P.O. Box 29
Greenport, N.Y. 11944
RE: Traffic Study Assessment
Gaia Holistic Center Traffic Study Review
Dear Ms. Hallock;
I have reviewed the traffic impact study prepared for the Gaia Holistic Center application.
The purpose of the applicant's traffic study is to assess the present traffic conditions, estimate
additional traffic the project is expected to generate and then quantify impacts that may be imposed
upon the local road network. While the study was prepared in a generally acceptable manner, its
conclusion that the "... Center will not have a detrimental effect on trajic conditions on the
surrounding roadway system in the vicinity of the site.. " is misleading and thus, self-serving.
Shipyard Lane is a quiet residential street leading to the edge of Peconic Bay. According to
the report, the weekend peak hour generation of trips for the project is about 118. Later in this
report we take exception to the generation of trips and believe the project's true trip-making
potential may be understated. However, accepting the report's projections for the moment, our
recent observations noted 62 vehicles either entering or exiting Shipyard Lane during the Saturday
midday peak hour. This means that the community can expect a 90% increase in vehicular activity
on their roadway. While the additional car a minute may not seem significant in absolute numbers
to the applicant, it will definitely have both a noticeable and detrimental impact on the local
residents.
Our evaluation of the report identified several issues of concern that need to be addressed
and considered by the board. They are as follows:
Trip Generation. The report states that only overnight guests would be using the on-site
facilities such as the spa etc. This does not seem realistic since it is likely some folks
would want to visit the site for daily use only. This could amount to a substantial number
of unaccounted traffic activity at the site. Similarly, restricting most of the available
seating in the restaurant for overnight guests is again an unlikely scenario. The report
suggests that only 72 of 198 seats in the restaurant will be reserved for public use. If the
restaurant is there and customers come, they will be accommodated. This is an additional
generation of traffic the study does not consider.
Lastly, we are not confident that the trip rate for hotels utilized in the study will
accurately reflect the delivery activity such a high-end resort-type facility would require.
0:\2006\2006324 Gaia Tmffic Study\Chia report 080406.doc
325 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702
Tel: (631)5875060 Fax: (631)422-3479
GPI
There are not a significantly large number of rooms but the site supports large landscaped
grounds, spa, 2 restaurants, a marina and pool. All these amenities require maintenance
and supplies. It is likely that off-site vendors requiring various trucks to access the site
will perform much of the maintenance. As such, it is likely that the vehicle trip rate,
which is based upon the number of rooms and is low compared to the site amenities
requirements, will not account for the truck and delivery activity this site will necessitate.
We suggest that the applicant adjust the generation numbers.
When all these potential understated trips are considered, the site can generate much
more vehicular activity than estimated.
LEDD Certification Rideshare Credit. This credit actually amounts to a very small
number of vehicles: three trips during the am or pm period and 5 during Saturday.
However, while seeming inconsequential, it is curious that users of such a high — end
facility would really be ridesharing. It appears to be an ironic incompatibility that facility
guests with the means to visit the Holistic Center would do so by sharing a ride in a van.
Furthermore, as the van itself generates one trip in and one trip out for such an operation
there really isn't any true meaningful credit and thus shouldn't even be noted. The
mention of this credit seems much ado about nothing.
Sight Distance. Sight distance exiting from Shipyard Lane poses no problem in winter
months but, due to a large Kwanzan Cherry tree on the opposite side of the road where
the road bends northward, west of Shipyard Lane, it may impede the line of sight when
the tree is leafed out and in bloom. The photo below shows some obscurity and, since
speed can be an issue here and motorists have to patiently wait to find available gaps in
order to enter SR 25, the sight distance can be a factor. We suggest the Town seek to do
some selective pruning at this location whatever the outcome of the applicant's request is.
v
,
fi
LOOKING WEST ALONG RT.25
GPI
Capacity Analysis. The applicant's traffic engineer conducted intersection capacity
analyses and the results are shown in the report. The table below summarizes the
capacity analysis results for the critical Shipyard Lane approach to SR 25, as reported in
the traffic study. This intersection is a stop-controlled unsignalized location and thus, it
is the ability of the side street traffic to find available safe gaps to enter the major thru
street(SR 25)that is measured.
EX sting No Build Build Build/mod
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
(sec/veh (sec/veh (sec/veh) sec/veh)
AM 16.8 C 21.2 C 27.4 D 25.4 D
PM 18.3 C 22.3 C 29.7 D 28.4 D
Sun 31.6 D 50.5 F 150.3 F 129.3 F
As can be seen under the existing conditions, the current operations work reasonably well
and, while undoubtedly there are periods of long waits, most times during the peak hours
the operations produce acceptable results. Under the No Build condition, the levels of
service worsen a bit during the week but it is the Sunday weekend period that experiences
a more dramatic drop in operations. This is because the analysis is very sensitive to the
reduction in gaps on the artery caused by increased traffic flow. Even though the future
condition was performed for a period of only 3 years later, the operations would degrade
to an F. We do note however, that it is barely in the F range. The average motorist
exiting Shipyard Lane would have to wait about 50 seconds to enter SR 25, up from the
current 32 seconds.
Under the Build conditions, it is evident how dramatic an effect the proposed site would
have on the safe operations of the intersection and specifically those motorists seeking to
exit Shipyard Lane. The weekend levels of service drop threefold, creating a situation
that would result in excessive delays and hazardous conditions as impatient motorists
would make unsafe decisions in trying to enter SR 25. A motorist under the future
proposed condition would have to wait 2 '/2 minutes to enter the roadway. While
somewhat helpful to the overall approach, the report freely admits that the proposed
roadway modification of widening the northbound Shipyard approach to accommodate a
segregated right turn lane "will not address the high delays associated with the
northbound left turns out of Shipyard Lane... ". Even under a modified Build scenario,
motorists would still have to wait for an average of 2 minutes. Thus, it is puzzling that
with such a drastic change in level of service, the report states "the Gaia Holistic Center
development will have no significant adverse traffic impact... ". This of course does not
consider the negative effects of the additional generation of traffic that the study may be
overlooking as previously noted, which would further exacerbate the problems.
It should be clearly understood that the project will have a dramatic negative effect on the
operations at this intersection and no simple mitigation is available.
GPI � 0
Accident Experience The report repeatedly asserts that the rate of accidents and safe
traffic operations will not be negatively impacted. While currently accidents at the
Shipyard intersection are not a problem, most assuredly as the gaps for motorist's to exit
the street decrease so dramatically and their impatience increases, accidents will occur.
Any motorist subjected to a wait of 2 or 2 '/3 minutes, especially in a North Fork
environment where they seek to escape such problems, will lose patience and make
unsafe choices. It is inevitable.
Public Transportation The amount of space afforded this topic in the report implies
that customer/employee use of local public transportation is a real possibility. Similar to
our comments about the rideshare credit, any use of ferry or train service still requires a
van or taxi service to the site and thus generates its own trip anyway. We don't believe
this will happen and certainly not to any extent that makes it worthwhile to discuss in the
report and attempt to claim credit, directly or indirectly, regarding its speculative use. Our
opinion is that if a credit is warranted, then a study should employ it. If on the other hand
it is so subjective or minor that the traffic consultant opts not to use it then it should not
even be discussed or mentioned at all in the study. It simply appears that there is an
attempt to garner an indirect credit or kudos for not using it.
Site Access Location. The site plan calls for three driveways to service the site, with the
main entrance to be located directly opposite the driveway to the Cleaves Point
Condominiums. A secondary entrance would be located further south near the dead end
and an entrance at the north end of the site would be used for deliveries and service
vehicles. Since the traffic report seems to assert that the project will not generate
significant traffic volumes, we do not understand the need for three driveways. The
photo below shows the quiet nature of the environs with the entrance to the condominium
development off to the left.
t° x
{n
TRANQUIL SHIPYARD LANE WITH GAIA PROJECT SITE ON RIGHT
GPI •
The project will significantly alter the bucolic environment currently afforded to the
residents. Locating the driveways opposite each other further exacerbates the situation.
There is no traffic operation rationale that warrants this access configuration on this dead
end street. Aligning the two driveways only serves to ensure that the busy activity of the
Holistic Center is placed squarely on the front door of the existing residential
condominium development, creating the normal conflicts and delays associated with such
an operation. Few visitors would pass the main entrance to use the secondary access
driveway to the south.
ENTRANCE TO CLEAVES POINT DEVELOPMENT
It seems that a far better solution would be to consolidate the two proposed customer use
driveways of the Gaia site to one and locate it further north, away from the condominium
driveway. From a planning standpoint, if all the vehicular movements can at least be
located away from the condominium's driveway and thus, their front door, the residents
maintain at least some measure of harmony. There is sufficient real estate along the
frontage of the proposed site to accomplish this and preclude significant traffic activity
adjacent to the condominiums and the final dead end stretch of Shipyard Lane.
Alternative Access Distribution. The report indicates another entrance/exit location
that is to be used for emergency access only. This driveway would access Cleaves Point
Road and thus, Gillette Drive immediately to the east of the project site. Gillette Drive is
similar to Shipyard Lane in width and land use.
We understand that the applicant has proposed employees use this rear exit. We also
suggest that the location be used and signed as an alternative access/egress location. If
customers of the holistic center are encouraged to use this driveway, it should offer some
improvement, however limited, to the Shipyard Lane intersection.
GPI
Roadway Modifications This section of the report warrants some discussion. The
report offers two build alternatives to help alleviate the adverse delays caused by the
project. The first is to widen SR 25 to permit left exiting traffic to cross the roadway in
two steps by having such vehicles cross the eastbound lanes and queue in a median lane
waiting for a gap to occur in the westbound lanes before merging in. This suggestion is
too expensive, probably requires property acquisition and thus, has virtually has no
chance of being accepted by the community. It would also require approved by the
NYSDOT. Lastly, queuing vehicles within a median is not a safe alternative.
The second alternative is to install a traffic signal. The report noted that the community
may be opposed to the installation of the signal. The nearest traffic control signal is the
flashing signal at SR 25A/CR 49. Historically, many residents of the east end and
particularly the North Fork, are opposed to signal installation as it is perceived that such
equipment is a blight on the picturesque landscape.
There is no magic panacea here to mitigate the traffic delays that will occur.
Encouraging use of the rear gate on to Gillette Drive would be helpful, but unless all
traffic exiting the Gaia Center is forced to leave via that driveway location, little
improvement will be seen at Shipyard Lane. Also, simply pushing the traffic to Gillette
Drive may also be simply pushing the problem over to another street. The true
advantages and disadvantages need to be studied.
While we do not like to install traffic signals as a matter of course, in this case, signal
installation will probably reap significant benefits should the Gaia Center be approved
and constructed. If this project moves forward, the Town should seriously consider the
installation of a signal, and its entire cost (about $80,000), should be borne by the
applicant.
In summary, while the report states that there will be no adverse traffic impacts, we have
clearly demonstrated with the report's own statistics that such a statement is fictional. Delays
increase substantially and accidents will undoubtedly occur that presently do not. We see that as a
significant impact. We have identified several issues that require the report's revision and further
consideration of the necessary mitigation that is needed.
Sincerely,
GPI/Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
ichael alatti, PE, PTOE
Vice President
Director of Transportation Services
GPIGreenman - Pedersen, Inc.
Engineering and Construction Services
October 24, 2006
Planning Board
Town of Southold
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Gaia Holistic Center
GPI File No. 2000303
Members of the Planning Board:
We have reviewed Draft Scope for the preparation of a DEIS for the referenced
project, and provide the following comments for your consideration as Lead Agency.
We have a number of concerns regarding the proposed marina and
shoreline work. The DEIS should provide a detailed description of the proposed
revetment, with plans and cross-sections, including materials to be used, including stone
sizes. The discussion should include an analysis of this structure on both the physical
(sediment transport, etc) and biological littoral processes. Any wetland vegetation,
including submerged aquatic vegetation, should be accurately mapped, and the project's
impacts on these resources should be evaluated.
The boat basin refurbishment raises many important questions. First, bulkhead
replacement can only be considered "in-place" if the existing bulkhead is "functional."
Typically, with old sites such as this, that is not the case. If not, then the actual shoreline,
behind any failing bulkhead sections, should be mapped and incorporated into the marina
Page 1 of 5
325 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702
Tel: (631) 587-5060 Fax: (631)422-3479
www.gpinet.com
GPI
design. The extent to which this impacts upland design considerations should be
disclosed.
The proposal calls for the dredging of approximately 2500 cubic yards of spoil
from the marina(that equates to 125-250 dump trucks). The dredge spoil is to be used as
"beach nourishment, fill behind stone revetment and/or (upland) disposal." The DEIS
should present testing results on this material, including grain size, organic content, and,
of course, the presence of any contaminants. Dredge spoil from an enclosed marina is
almost never suitable for use as beach nourishment, as it is too fine grained and often
contains organic material. If the proposed revetment is to be placed along the existing
shoreline,than there will be no need for fill behind it. Therefore, it must be assumed that
the dredge spoil will have to be transported off-site for disposal. This off-site disposal
area must be identified.
In terms of regulatory procedures, the NYSDEC defines maintenance dredging as
dredging to restore an area to its previous depths. Documentation is needed regarding the
proposed dredging depth and prior surveys demonstrating that the depth previously
existed. Otherwise, the dredging will be considered "new dredging," which is
presumptively incompatible with the tidal wetlands regulations. Finally, with regard to
dredging, marina dredge spoil is typically 80%-95%water content. This may require that
it be dewatered, on site, prior to transport. The location and design of any temporary
dewatering facilities need to be presented along with a discussion of odor potential and
control and vector control.
GPI 0 •
Turning our attention to the upland, an extensive man-made lake/stream feature is
proposed. Although this feature could provide a wonderful site amenity, there are certain
details which need to be discussed in the DEIS. As with the dredging, the quantities,
nature, and disposal of excavated materials needs to be presented. The depth of the
proposed water feature and its relationship to groundwater is important. Typically, for a
feature such as this to function properly, it must be equipped with a liner system to
prevent the water from simply draining into the surrounding soils. We will assume that a
liner system is proposed. This being the case, in terms of site hydrology, the water
feature must be considered impervious surface. Details of the water feature, including
quantity and source of initial and make-up water, need to be presented. Also, details of
any filtration and/or treatment system should be required, including a discussion of vector
control. Will the pond have fish? If so, what provisions will be included to prevent
attracting raccoons, a serious nuisance wildlife problem and health threat, to the site?
Also, plans for maintenance of the water feature during the winter should be discussed.
The proposal calls for Japanese gardens. Again, these could provide a nice site
amenity. However, the species to be planted should be discussed. Any species
considered invasive, such as Wisteria and bamboo, should not be permitted.
With regard to drainage, the scoping memo states that drainage on site will be
accommodated using drywells and the man-made lake. As noted above, this artificial
water feature must be considered impervious, and will not contribute to on-site
accommodation of drainage. In fact, the opposite is true. Being impervious, the water
feature must be added to the 93,068 square feet of building area, the parking area, on-site
GPI
Regarding cultural resources, the entire North Fork is considered archaeologically
sensitive. Therefore, a Phase IA study and report, at a minimum, should be included.
As noted in the draft scope, the DEIS will describe and evaluate reasonable
alternatives. We believe that an alternative scale or scales should be included as an
altemative(s). The proposed project appears to include a large mass, including all of the
impervious surfaces, for this property. Presentation of a reduced scale alternative should
be included on the DEIS.
Please contact me if you have any comments or questions on this analysis of the
Draft Scope. We look forward to assisting you with review of the DEIS.
Sincerely,
GPI/Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
Robert Grover
Director
Environmental and Coastal Sciences
O:\2000\2000303\CORRES\TRANSMITTALS\GaiaPlanningBoard 102506.doc
Office Location: ��. OGy Mailing_Address:
Town Annex/First Floor,North Fork Banky x 53095 Main Road
54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971d �! Southold, NY 11971-0959
viol � �a
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Tel. (631) 765-1809 Fax (631),70*94064
INTER-OFFICE MEMO –
.r
TO: Planning Board and Planning Staff
FROM : Ruth D. Oliva,ZBA Chairwoman
—
DATE: November 20, 2006
SUBJECT: Recent Report from Soil &Water Conservation`Distritt "'" "
Oki-Do, Ltd. CTM 38-7-7.1 at East Marion
You may be interested in the attached copy of a letter received today from the Suffolk
County Soil and Water Conservation District regarding the above pending applications
with Town Departments.
Thank you.
Encl.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
9
Steve Levy
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
SOIL AND WATER Thomas J. McMahon
CONSERVATION DISTRICT DISTRICT MANAGER
FAX: (631)727-3160 (631)727-2315
R VC
_C1:1
October 31, 2006
IP
Chairwoman Ruth Oliva 2oN(N�OObRD
Town of Southold
Zoning Board of Appeals
53095 Main Road
PO Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971-0959
RE: ZBA File No. 5869(Oki-Do, Ltd)
Dear Chairwoman Oliva:
A site investigation was conducted at SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1 on Shipyard Lane in East Marion on October
26, 2006 in response to your request for an evaluation and recommendations of the above project. No
limitations were found at the site.
According to the survey provided,surface elevations on site range from 0 feet at the shoreline up to 18 feet
on the northwestern portion of the parcel; as per the Suffolk County Water Table Contours Map 2002,the
groundwater elevation is less than 3 feet throughout the site. Therefore, there is minimal separation to
groundwater. The existing wooden bulkhead along Gardiner's Bay is completely dilapidated and ineffectual;
the wooden bulkhead in the marina has also deteriorated but is in better condition than the previous. The site
was inspected during low tide and it was obvious that sand has accumulated in the inlet to the marina. In
order to have a functioning marina that is passable by boats,the inlet will need to be dredged. The proposal
by Butt-Otruba-O'Connor Architects made no mention of dredging the marina inlet or replacing the
bulkheading at the marina.
Although this appears to be an innovative and exciting project, it could not be fully evaluated because no
final grading or drainage plan was provided. The only mention of drainage structures was stated in a
correspondence from Butt-Otruba-O'Connor Architects that the parking areas"will be of permeable gravel
material;" this is a viable alternative to conventional asphalt paving. It is of utmost importance that all
surface water runoff be treated before it reaches Gardiner's Bay. Also, in order to protect against
contamination, a minimum of 2-4 feet separation to groundwater is recommended for drainage structures
such as leaching rings.
Cornell Cooperative Extension Building * 423 Griffing Avenue * Riverhead, NY 11901
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
CS,
Steve Levy
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE 7.
SOIL AND WATER , Thomas J. McMahon
CONSERVATION DISTRICT t �},YA''tyTf DISTRICT MANAGER
FAX: (631)727-3160 OLVIcf, (631)727-2315
Butt-Otruba-O'Connor Architects have indicated that the Cromoglass system for wastewater treatment will
be utilized. This is a completely contained sequential batch reaction system. This appears to be a viable
wastewater treatment system as long as nitrate levels in the effluent reach drinking water standards(10 ppm)
as this site is in close proximity to both surface and ground waters.
Butt-Otruba-O'Connor Architects have also indicated that the bulkhead along Gardiner's Bay will be
replaced by stone riprap to match the adjoining property to the west. This type of shore protection should
prove to be sufficient because fetch at the site is approximately 0.6 miles. Fetch is the distance of open
water that wind blows across before reaching land. Fetch is a good indication of the potential erosion at a
shoreline; greater fetch means greater erosion potential. Since this site is located on the south shore of the
north fork it will be affected mainly by the winds coming out of the southeast which occur mostly in the
summer and with less severity than the northwest winds in the winter.
Lastly, development of this site will involve disturbance of greater than 1 acre of land, therefore it is
necessary for the developer to file a NOI(Notice of Intent)before construction begins with the NYS DEC.
This project falls under the regulation of the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from
Construction Activity(GP-02-01);under this program a S WPPP,or Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan,
for sediment and erosion control must be developed and implemented in order to prevent contamination of
surface waters.
Should you require further assistance or a more detailed review once the drainage plan and/or SWPPP is
available please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Best regards, a
t �Y
Nicole Spinelli
Soil District Technician
Cornell Cooperative Extension Building * 423 Griffing Avenue * Riverhead, NY 11901
1 MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS rjF soti P.O. Box 1179
JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE h0� Old Southold, NY 11971
Chair
OFFICE LOCATION:
KENNETH L.EDWARDS w Town Hall Annex
MARTIN H.SIDOR G Q 54375 State Route 25
GEORGE D. SOLOMON O A��� (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND �ycourm �`(.`" Southold, NY
1111 Telephone: 631 765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 31, 2006
To: Suffolk Times via Fax to 298-3287
From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer
Re: Southold Town Planning Departments Schedule
In reference to the above, attached you will find a schedule with revisions. We would
appreciate that the paper update the schedule on Thursday November 2, 2006.
The Planning Board will meet as follows:
November 6, 2006 @ 4:30pm Public Meeting- GAIA Holistic Circle-OKI-Do
November 6, 2006 @ 4:45pm Work Session
Agenda schedules will be available on November 2, 2006 in the Planning Department Office
for review.
Thank you in advance.
Cc: file
4
NELSON, POPE 6 VOOFIHIS, LLC
Environmental Consultant to the Planning Board ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTING
Town Of Southold, New York 572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD,MELVILLE.NY 11747- 2169
(631) 427-5665 FAX (631) 427-5620
npvc�nelsonpopecom
iL l
To: Bruno Semon,Town of Southold Planning Board
From: Charles J. Voorhis, CEP,AICP !
Date: October 30, 2006 Pd( 4' - "'25 -�
Re: Gain Holistic Circle
SEQRA DEIS/FEIS Review Process .
Tasks and Budget for Consultant Review
PI
:
SEQRA 6NYCRR Part 617.13 allows the lead agency to recover the actual costs of either preparing or
reviewing the draft and/or final EIS, and to conduct the scoping process. As a result, this Memorandum
provides a list of tasks and anticipated fees for the EIS process in connection with the Gaia Holistic
Circule project. If the Planning Board is in agreement, and subject to input from the Counsel to the
Planning Board, it is recommended that a resolution be adopted to allow the Planning Board to have the
applicant for the Gaia Holistic Circle reimburse the Board for fees incurred during this process. The
following tasks and budget are provided. Fees would be based on the hours expended to complete the
tasks times the agreed billing rate for Town of Southold services.
We are in receipt of a check in the amount of$5,000.00. This amount will be held in escrow at NP&V
and drawn against for review services. We will advise if additional fees are required as the project review
proceeds.
Task 1 Scoping-Assist the Planning Board with the scopine[)recess
1. Review applicants draft scope.
2. Prepare a Preliminary Final Scope.
3. Prepare an outline of the scoping procedure for use at the scoping meeting.
4. Attend and assist in conducting the scoping meeting (s)
5. Prepare a Final Scope for adoption by the Planning Board.
6. Address questions and comments from the Board or at the request of the Board and provide
consultation as necessary.
Estimated Budget: $5,000.00
Task 2 Draft EIS Review-Assist the Planning Board with review of the Draft EIS
1. Review applicants DEIS.
2. Prepare letter report of findings with respect to DEIS review to determine consistency with Final
Scope and adequacy of the document for public review.
3. Prepare letter report of findings with respect to subsequent DEIS review.
4. Conduct further review of DEIS after acceptance to ensure that all Planning Board questions are
addressed through the Final EIS process.
Gain Holistic Circle
Tasks and Budgets
For DEIS Review Process
5. Prepare Notice of Complete DEIS and assist with acceptance process, setting of DEIS hearing,
etc.
6. Attend and assist with conducting DEIS public hearing.
Estimated Budget: $10,000.00
Task 3 Final EIS Review—Assist the Planning Board with review/completion of the Final EIS
1. Compile comments on the DEIS, public hearing transcripts and relevant documents submitted
during the DEIS public comment period.
2. Prepare or direct the preparation of a Final EIS to respond to comments on the Draft EIS.
3. Review, revise, obtain Planning Board input and generate a Final EIS acceptable to the Planning
Board.
4. Conduct further review of Final EIS to ensure that all Planning Board questions are addressed
through the document so that the Board has adequate information on which to base a Statement of
Findings.
5. Prepare Notice of Complete Final EIS and assist with acceptance process.
Estimated Budget: $15,000.00
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this list of tasks and budgets for the review of
the EIS for the Gaia Holistic Circle project Subdivision.
Page 2
c x T�
MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Qf SQ°rti P.O. Box 1179
JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE SOV` Ol0 Southold, NY 11971
Chair
OFFICE LOCATION:
KENNETH L. EDWARDS H Z.-C Town Hall Annex
MARTIN H.SIDOR G C 54375 State Route 25
GEORGE D. SOLOMON Ol • ,� (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
JOSEPH L.TOWNSEND Mum �� Southold, NY
I�1, Telephone: 631 765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
November 6, 2006
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Proposed Site Plan for Gaia Holistic Circle, Oki-Do Ltd.
Located approximately 3,278 ft. s/o New York State Road 25 at the s/e end of Shipyard
Lane known as 2835 Shipyard Lane in East Marion
SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1 Zone: M-Il, Marine II District
Dear Mrs. Moore:
The following resolution was adopted at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on
Monday, November 6, 2006:
WHEREAS, this proposed action requires a special exception and site plan to construct a holistic
health center with a total of 114 transient motel rooms consisting of 23 guest lodges totaling 87
accessory motel units (14 lodges containing 3 unit motel rooms & 9 guest lodges containing 5 unit
motel rooms). The remaining 27 motel units are to be located in the main spa building along with a
185 seat restaurant (103 private guest seats, 72 public guest seats), 10 public bar seats, office
space, retail gift shop, 27 personal service treatment suites and accessory uses. The proposed
action also involves a 3,864 sq. ft. private restaurant annex with 45-99 private guest seats and a
covered 758 sq. ft. deck, 1,987 sq. ft. manager's residence with a 687 sq. ft. deck, pool, a 7,205 sq.
ft. maintenance and utility building, a sanitary waste treatment facility, 1,160 sq. ft. for three (3)
gazebos, man-made water features, replacement of the existing bulkhead, dredging of the 16 slip
private marina basin, and various outdoor amenities on a 18.7 acre parcel in the MII Zone located
approximately 3,278 ft. south of New York State Road 25 at the south east end of Shipyard Lane
known as 2835 Shipyard Lane in East Marion. SCTM # 1000-38-7-7.1, and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617, Article 6 of
the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
initiated the SEQR lead agency coordination process for this Type I action pursuant to Part 617.4
(b) (6) (i); and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board assumed lead agency for this
Type I action; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2006, the Southold Planning Board adopted a Positive
Declaration for the proposed action; and
GAIA Holistic Circle (OKI-DO) Page Two November 6, 2006
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2006, that pursuant to Article 617.13 of the 6NYCC, Part 617
State Environmental Quality Review Act the applicant agents will be financially responsible for
costs incurred for the review and posting of the draft and final Environmental Impact
Statements by the Town of Southold; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2006, the Southold Planning Board pursuant to Article 617.8 held
a public scoping meeting from 4:30p-6:00pm and allowed for comments to be received at the
Planning Department up to October 26, 2006; be it therefore
RESOLVED, pursuant to Article 617.13 of the 6NYCC, Part 617 State Environmental Quality
Review Act the applicant will be financially responsible for costs incurred for the review and
website posting of the draft and final Environmental Impact Statements by the Town of
Southold as reflected in the estimate of Nelson Pope & Voorhis dated October 30, 2006,
subject to modification; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board pursuant to Article 617.8 adopts the
FINAL SCOPE FOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT prepared by Nelson Pope &
Voorhis, LLC dated November 6, 2006 and require that the agent address all issues.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
erllyn B. Woodhouse
Chairperson
cc:
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Southold Town Building Department NYSDEC - Stony Brook
Southold Town Clerk for Southold Town Board New York State Department of Transportation
Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Suffolk County Water Authority
Southold Town Board of Trustees Suffolk County Planning Department
Southold Town Engineer Architectural Review Committee
Mark Terry, LW RP Coordinator Army Corps of Engineers
Commissioner, NYS DEC Suffolk County Department of Public Works
New York State Department of State Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Environmental Notice Bulletin Department of Ecology, Kimberly Shaw
File
Enc: Final Scope
ill-
NELSON,POPE & VOORHIS,LLC
Environmental Consultant to the Planning Board ENVIRONMENTAL • PLANNING • CONSULTING
Town of Southold, New York 572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD,MELVILLE,NY 11747-2188
(631) 427-5665 PAX (631) 427-5620
npv@nelsonpope.com
FINAL SCOPE FOR
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
"GAIA HOLISTIC CIRCLE"
Proposed Special Exception Permit for Transient Motel
Shipyard Lane, East Marion, Town of Southold
Suffolk County,New York
Prepared for: Town of Southold
Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
(631) 765-1938
Prepared by: Nelson, Pope &Voorhis, LLC
572 Walt Whitman Road
Melville,New York 11747
(631) 427-5665
Contact: Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP
Date: November 6, 2006
1.0 Introduction
This document is the Final Scope of the issues and analyses to be included in the DEIS for the
proposed transient motel on a 17.325-acre parcel located at the southerly end of Shipyard Lane
on Gardener's Bay, in the hamlet of East Marion, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk known
as Gaia Holistic Circle.
The analysis of the Gaia Holistic Circle project in a DEIS has been required by the Town of
Southold Planning Board, as Lead Agency for administration of the subdivision review and as
required by the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The requirement
for a DEIS was contained in a Positive Declaration issued by the Planning Board on September
11, 2006.
The information prepared in conformance with this scope and the SEQRA process is intended to
provide comprehensive input in the decision-making process for use by involved agencies in
preparing their own findings and issuing decisions on their respective permits. The document
• • Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
must be concise but thorough, well documented, accurate and consistent. Figures and tables will
be presented in support of the discussions and analyses contained in the document. Technical
information will be summarized in the body of the DEIS and attached in their entirety in an
appendix.
2.0 Brief Description of the Proposed Project
The proposed action requires a special exception and site plan to construct a holistic health
center with a total of 114 transient motel rooms consisting of 23 guest lodges totaling 87
accessory motel units (14 lodges containing 3 unit motel rooms & 9 guest lodges containing 5
unit motel rooms). The remaining 27 motel units are to be located in the main spa building along
with a 185 seat restaurant (103 private guest seats, 72 public guest seats), 10 public bar seats,
office space, retail gift shop, 27 personal service treatment suites and accessory uses. The
proposed action also involves a 3,864 sq. ft. private restaurant annex with 45-99 private guest
seats and a covered 758 sq. ft. deck, 1,987 sq. ft. manager's residence with a 687 sq. ft. deck,
pool, a 7,205 sq. ft, maintenance and utility building, a sanitary waste treatment facility, 1,160
sq. ft. for three (3) gazebos, man-made water features, replacement of the existing bulkhead,
dredging of the 16 slip private marina basin, and various outdoor amenities on a 18.7 acre parcel
in the MII Zone located approximately 3,278 fl. south of New York State Road 25 at the south
east end of Shipyard Lane known as 2835 Shipyard Lane in East Marion.
A parking area containing 162 spaces is proposed along the length of the western property line
and extending into the northwest portion of the site. A total of 27 stalls will be landbanked for
future parking area expansion. The practicality and adequacy of the proposed parking lot
location is not known at this time, and may var'v based on the proposed site uses and duration of
guest stay. Three (3) ingress/egress points are proposed along Shipyard Lane. An additional
gated ingress/egress point is proposed from Cleaves Point Road along the eastern property
boundary. A loading dock will be provided at the transient hotel building and will be accessible
from the proposed access point located at the southwestern corner of the property. A 20-foot
wide interior, gravel roadway is proposed along the northern and eastern property line to connect
the parking lot area to the Cleave Point Road entrance. It is not known if the Cleave Point Road
access will be utilized for emergency access only, or if this access will be utilized far through
traffic and maintenance vehicles. Ornamental landscaping is proposed throughout the site,
including the required minimum twenty-foot buffer of supplemental landscaping and natural
vegetation maintained along the eastern and northern property perimeters and required minimum
15-foot buffer is proposed along the western property line.
The proposed project also includes repairing/replacing the existing wooden bulkhead that
extends along the western half of the boat basin and adding boat slips along a new dock. This
portion of the bulkhead is in fair to poor condition. The wooden bulkhead indicated on the Site
Plan along the southwest property boundary fronting Gardiners Bay is dilapidated and no longer
functioning. This portion of bulkhead will be replaced with a rock revetment to match that
located on the adjacent Cleaves Point Village property. Information regarding NYSDEC
jurisdiction and permitting is discussed in the Wetlands section below. Any dredging or removal
of fill from the access channel or the boat basin will require acquisition of all the applicable
Page 2
Gain Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
permits from the Town Board of Trustees, the Army Corps of Engineers, the NYSDEC, and the
NYS Department of State (discussed in the Wetlands section below).
A large manmade pond, containing a landscaped island, several recreational bridges and wooden
decks are proposed in the central portion of the property. The water feature will be accessible
from several different paths throughout the site and will be surrounded by Japanese Gardens and
native landscaping.
A drainage system of catch basins, leaching pools and piping is proposed throughout the site. A
wastewater treatment facility is proposed for the northwest comer of the site. However, no
sanitary calculations are provided in the plans. Additionally, a series of leaching pools and catch
basins are proposed for Cleaves Point Road, in the vicinity of the proposed entrance. The
proposed density and design will be subject to review and approval by the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services.
Site History
The subject property was improved with an oyster-processing facility circa 1964, together with
three smaller detached wooden and metal buildings. One or more of these detached buildings
was used for maintenance and/or repair activities, since equipped with waste oil and other oil
USTs, and as a machine shop. In addition, an existing metal storage and maintenance building,
likely used for boat maintenance, was completed in 1983 and East End Diesel, Inc., a diesel
engine repair and remanufacturing company, occupied the southernmost building from the late
1980s to circa 1996. The oyster-processing facility ceased operations circa 1988 and the subject
property is currently vacant. Single-family homes and crop fields historically surrounded the
subject property.
Approvals
In order to develop the site as proposed, the following approvals are required:
l
rA
Town of Southold Board of Appeals Special Exception Use
Town of Southold Planning Board Site Plan
Town of Southold Highway Department Road Work Permit
Town of Southold Town Trustees Wetlands Permit
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Article 4 Water Supply
Article 6 Sewage Treatment Plant
Suffolk County Water Authority Water Su2ply Connection
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 1. Notice of Intent—SPDES General
Permit for Stormwater Discharges
During Construction Activities
2. SPDES Discharge Permit
3. Tidal Wetlands Permit
4. Mining Permit for Ponds (if
applicable)
NYS Department of State Coastal Consistency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Individual Permit
-. . Page 3
• • Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.0 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts
The following description of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed project has been taken
verbatim from the Planning Board's Positive Declaration of September 11, 2006:
1. The site has been evaluated in accordance with the Criteria for Determining Significance as contained
in SEQRA 6NYCRR Part 617.7 (c). The proposed action has been evaluated through review of the
following materials:
• Site and architectural plan and architectural elevation drawing prepared by Butt, Otruba-
O'Connor Architects,
• Part I and II of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF),
• Site plan application,
• Traffic Impact Study prepared by Dunn Engineering,
• Environmental Site Assessment(ESA)Report prepared by Longshore Environmental,
• Site plan use diagram,
• Informational letter from Butt, Otruba-O'Connor Architects,
• Independent site inspection,
• Planning Board deliberation on materials supplied by the applicant, the consultant, and planning
staff.
Based upon this thorough review, the Planning Board identified potential significant adverse
environmental impacts in connection with the proposed project. Additional supporting findings are
provided below.
2. The Criteria for Determining Significance are specifically evaluated with respect to this action, as
follows:
a. Substantial adverse change in existing ground or surface water quality or quantity, traffic or noise
levels; increase in solid waste production; leaching or drainage problems.
The proposed action may significantly change the subject site such groundwater or surface water
quality, traffic, noise levels, solid waste production, leaching or drainage problems may occur.
Insufficient information has been provided in which to accurately assess these impacts.
b. The removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation or other significant adverse impact to
natural resources.
The NYS Heritage Program Database Records indicates there are no known rare species or
ecological communities located within the project area; however, historical and recent records
indicate the presence of several threatened and endangered vascular plants and birds in the
vicinity of the project site.
c. The impairment of the environmental characteristics of a Critical Environmental Area as
designated pursuant to subdivision 617.14(g).
The EAF indicates that the subject site is not located within a Critical Environmental Area
(CEA). However, due to the site's location on Gardiners Bay / Orient Harbor, potential
Page 4
• • Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
significant adverse impacts were identified as a result of the proposed project, particularly as it
relates to water quality, harbor use and scenic resources.
d. The creation of a material conflict with a community's current plans or goals as officially
approved or adopted.
The proposed project had a preliminary evaluation in terms of land use, zoning, and land use
plans that establish a community's plans and goals. The overall size and scope of the project
appears to be in conflict with adjoining land uses and zoning. The project's consistency with the
East Marion Hamlet Study, Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, State Coastal Management
Program, etc. shall also be evaluated.
e. The impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural, or
aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character.
NYS OPRHP has noted that the area of the proposed project has not been comprehensively
surveyed and recommended that a Phase I archeological survey be conducted unless sufficient
evidence of substantial prior ground disturbance can be documented.
f. A major change in the use of either the quantity or type of energy.
The proposed project involves a significant increase in energy use. Impacts to local facilities
shall be analyzed.
g. The creation of a hazard to human health.
The proposed project rnay result in unsafe pedestrian movement throughout the site in addition to
use of public streets for site operations.
h. A substantial change in the use, or intensity of use, of land including agricultural, open space or
recreational resources, or in its capacity to support existing uses.
The proposed project significantly increases the intensity of use on the site, resulting in potential
adverse impacts to traffic, sanitary and water generation/use, water quality, noise and visual
resources, as well as community character.
i. The encouraging or attracting of a large number of people to a place or places for more than a few
days, compared to the number of people who would come to such place absent the action.
It is expected that the proposed action would attract a significant number of people for more than
a few days, however, proposed site uses, possible public access to site facilities like the
restaurants and duration ofguest stay have not been specified.
j. The creation of a material demand for other actions that would result in one of the above
consequences.
The proposed project is not expected to create a material demand for other actions that would
exacerbate or create other impacts.
µ� - Page 5
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
k. Changes in two or more elements of the environment, no one of which has a significant impact on
the environment, but when considered together result in a substantial adverse impact on the
environment.
The proposed project does propose a significant physical site alteration and the intensity of
proposed use may have combined adverse impacts on the environment.
1. Two or more related actions undertaken, funded or approved by an agency, none of which has or
would have a significant impact on the environment, but when considered cumulatively would
meet one or more of the criteria.
There are no other pending projects in the vicinity of the project site which when considered
cumulatively with the proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental
impacts.
3. The site's sensitive waterfront location and area resources may be affected by the proposed project
and insufficient information has been provided in which to accurately assess significant
environmental impacts that may be associated with the proposed project. Anticipated adverse
impacts do not appear to be minimized or mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Alternatives
to the proposed action that will reduce potential impacts shall be examined.
4.0 Oreanization and Overall Content of the DEIS Document
The DEIS must conform with the basic content requirements as contained in 6NYCRR Part
617.9 (b)(3). The outline of the DEIS shall include the following sections:
COVER SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
1.1 Project Background,Need, Objectives and Benefits
1.1.1 Background and History
1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives
1.1.3 Objectives of the Project Sponsor
1.1.4 Benefits of the Project
1.2 Location and Site Conditions
1.3 Project Design and Layout
1.3.1 Overall Site Layout
1.3.2 Grading and Drainage
1.3.3 Access, Road System and Parking
1.3.4 Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply
1.3.5 Site Landscaping and Lighting
1.3.6 Open Space
1.4 Construction and Operation
1.4.1 Construction
1.4.2 Operation
1.5 Permits and Approvals Required
o uaav•, Pae 6
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
2.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
2.1 Soils and Topography
2.1.1 Existing Conditions
2.1.2 Anticipated Impacts
2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation
2.2 Water Resources
2.2.1 Existing Conditions
2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts
2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation
2.3 Ecology
2.3.1 Existing Conditions
2.3.2 Anticipated Impacts
2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
3.1 Transportation
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
3.1.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.2 Land and Water Use, Zoning and Plans
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.3 Community Facilities and Services
3.3.1 Existing Conditions
3.3.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.3.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.4 Aesthetic Resources and Community Character
3.4.1 Existing Conditions
3.4.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.4.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources
3.5.1 Existing Conditions
3.5.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.5.3 Proposed Mitigation
4.0 OTHER REQUIRED SECTIONS
4.1 Construction Related Impacts
4.2 Cumulative Impacts
4.3 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided
4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
4.5 Growth-Inducing Aspects
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 No Action Alternative
5.2 Alternative Site Designs
6.0 REFERENCES
APPENDICES
,�. ��. . .. Page7
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
5.0 Extent and Quality of Information Existine and Needed
As required under SEQRA, the DEIS shall include "a statement and evaluation of potential significant
adverse impacts at a level of detail that reflects the severity of the impacts and the reasonable likelihood
of their occurrence". Included in this evaluation shall be reasonably related short-term and long-term
impacts, with other required sections identified in the Section 6.0 of this scoping document. This section
further describes the level of analysis and the type of analysis expected with respect to the key
environmental impacts of the project as outlined in the Positive Declaration. Each major section is
followed by a description of the extent and quality of information needed to perform the evaluation of
each of the impacted resources.
Description of the Proposed Project
Background and History
• There shall be a brief description of the site and application history; this shall include a
full description of the existing and historic use of the site, dredging and site
improvements, status of current use, site ownership and related background and history.
• Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments related to site conditions shall be
summarized and attached or excerpts attached to establish background conditions; site
remediation shall be identified.
Public Need and Municipality Objectives
• Include justification of proposed project in terms of Town goals for site.
• Public need for the project shall be discussed; indicate market study used to assess the
need and viability of the facility; indicate potential for conversion of site to other use
based on non-viability of facility or lack of need.
• Population served by the project shall be identified.
• Public access to the waterfront shall be discussed.
Objectives of the Project Sponsor
• The objectives of the project sponsor shall be included and discussed.
• The objectives of the project sponsor shall indicate the Gaia Holistic Circle form of
treatment/lifestyle as related to site use and design.
Benefits of the Project
• Include a discussion of the community benefits expected to accrue from the proposed
proj ect.
Location and Site Conditions
• Using appropriate mapping and/or tables, describe location of site, in terms
adjacent/nearby significant properties, zoning and service districts, available services, etc.
• The existing conditions of the site in terms of bulkheads, mean high water, mean low
water, site survey, structures, vegetative cover shall be provided as an overall background
of existing site conditions.
• A summary of subsurface conditions and features, suspected contamination on the site
and in the area proposed for development, as well as remediation initiatives.
Page 8
0 Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Project Design and Layout
• Overall Site Layout - include a brief description of the site and project layout; describe
basis for site yield, proposed structures, services, utilities, access points, road system,
drainage, marina and include a site quantities table.
• Use Design/Description - address breakdown of use areas from a structural standpoint;
indicate if the "patio" will be covered; describe any retail activities on site (sale items,
access to public).
• Architecture - the architecture, height and appearance of structures shall be identified.
• LEED - Details on the LEED green building certification being sought for this project.
• Regulations - ADA compliance features and FEMA Flood Plain development compliance
as related to structural improvements; indicate requirements, design parameters and
proposed design; indicate first floor elevations of buildings required and proposed.
• Dredging - details on dredging and bulkhead project; dredge spoil, volume and quality;
dredge spoil dewatering, dredge spoil disposal.
• Marina and Bulkhead/Revetment - the marina installation shall be fully described
including bulkheading and revetment (including cross sections, materials used, stone size,
bulkhead type, backfill, etc.), dredging, piles and floats, access, function; etc.; indicate if
fuel tanks will be installed anywhere on premises and who will have access.
• Grading - the grading program and associated areas disturbed shall be discussed along
with volumes of soil excavated, cut/filled, removed from site and maximum depths of
cut/fill; fill needed for sanitary, drainage or structures shall be identified; grading for the
proposed access to the managers residence shall be outlined; quantity of fill behind
proposed bulkhead.
• Drainage - site drainage and proposed drainage system and provide capacity and function
information shall be provided along with a discussion of conformance to NYSDEC
SPDES stormwater and erosion control regulations for construction and post-construction
conditions; use of the lake/stream system for drainage shall be identified if intended as
well as function, capacity and viability in view of depth to groundwater constraints.
• Lake/Stream System - details on the lake and stream system, method of
construction/lining; water supply; soil removal/re-grading, design and depth of features,
make-up water and source, vector control, filtration/treatment equipment, stocking with
fish and species, wildfowl control, stormwater retention qualities if applicable; vegetation
and landscaping.
• Access - the vehicle access points, internal roadway layout and traffic circulation shall be
identified.
• Parking - the adequacy of on-site parking shall be discussed; required parking as required
by a breakdown of parking requirements for each sub-use shall be provided; this will
establish the basis for the parking variance; the amount and adequacy of proposed
parking shall be determined; use of permeable pavement shall be described in detail in
terms of location and use; identify the location of loading docks and dumpster locations.
• Water Supply - include a description of water supply source, infrastructure and
availability, water main routing to access the site; irrigation well water supply,
lake/stream "make up" water, and proposed wastewater handling and corresponding use
of water supply and sanitary design flow.
s
Page 9
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Utilities - the sizes and locations of all utilities and services shall be described along with
the status of future possible connection.
• Lighting - the Town lighting requirements, proposed lighting and an illumination analysis
shall be provided and described for all aspects of the project including parking areas, the
restaurant and other site improvements; compliance with "dark skies" shall be identified.
• Landscaping - information on the type, amount and location of landscaping proposed
shall be provided as well as information on maintenance requirements such as irrigation
and fertilization under operation and maintenance; information on buffers around the site
perimeter, retention of existing trees and other buffering techniques shall be identified;
the plant list shall be reviewed and described to ensure that "invasive" species are not
introduced to the site; screening of dumpsters, recreational activities and parking shall be
addressed.
• Amenities — describe all amenities on site including outdoor use, tennis courts, arenas,
playgrounds, use of beach and limits on off-site use of facilities, etc.
• Open Space Management - include a discussion on retained open space areas; areas of
dedication, areas of retention by applicant; easements or restrictions to ensure retention of
open space.
Construction
• The construction and operation/maintenance of the site shall be fully discussed.
• Demolition of the existing buildings including safety and protection of neighboring
properties.
• Remediation based on the Phase 1/II ESA.
• Project phasing (if applicable).
• Method of construction, construction schedule/timetable, days of the week; indicate
Town code restrictions of nuisance activities and compliance.
• Construction management, equipment storage/staging, delivery routes, hours of
operation, workers' parking, protection of natural and sensitive areas.
• Protection of workers and worker safety during construction shall be evaluated.
• Need to modify overhanging trees on Shipyard Lane for construction or operation.
• Quantity of soil import/export, truck routes, management and mitigation.
• Dredging and bulkhead project details; staging areas; construction methods; dewatering
areas; disposal areas; dredge removal truck trips; time frames for construction.
Operation
• In terms of operation, describe the management and protection of open space; describe
Organization management and operation; describe road, landscape and open space
maintenance practice, describe any special conditions which may apply.
• Detailed description identifying which of the site uses (if any) will be open to the public
(i.e., the marina, restaurant, spa, etc.) and which will be exclusive for hotel guests.
• Uses expected of various locations and facilities within the site; seasons of use, intensity
of use, whether the site will be open to special events such as weddings, conferences or
catering events, retail sales.
• Projected number of employees required for the various uses for weekdays, weekends
and seasonal peak periods.
�u;;etnia rme m waw.. .i�� Page 10
IPPNhBJiPL..R.MNMLi.[F®y�YJ[i
0 Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Indicate activities such as outdoor parties, placement and use of loudspeakers, concerts or
special events including frequency, location time periods and schedule.
• Truck sizes expected for deliveries and delivery routing, delivery times and truck
unloading areas.
• Location of dumpsters, truck access to dumpsters, hours of dumpster pickup shall be
addressed; indicate if trash compactors will be used.
• Details on internal traffic circulation plan, use of gravel road and general on-site
activities.
• Description of use of golf carts on site.
• Valet parking shall be fully described.
• Description of any generators proposed for the facility.
• Description of operation of the proposed marina, users, frequency of use, etc.
• Seasons of operation of various components of the facility.
• Lighting operations in terms of type, hours lit and controls shall be discussed.
• Snow removal shall be described as related to parking surfaces and operation.
• Entity responsible for site operations.
• Restrictions on Emergency Access (if proposed) and how the restrictions will be ensured.
• Lake/stream system operation and maintenance; lake "make-up" water; fish stocking;
wildfowl population control; nutrient influx control; mosquito/vector control; aesthetics.
• Water use shall be fully described including: maximum size of vessels, turning radius,
depths, vessel speeds in marina, potential for increased number of private vessels
docking, channel enhancements (increased dredging potential, navigation aids), and
access to existing navigation channels.
• Use and management of open space areas.
• Operation of the marina shall be identified; indicate if fuel storage will occur for marina
patrons.
permits and Approvals Required
• Identify all required permits and reviews
• Indicate the filing date and status of submissions to the lead and involved agencies.
Natural Environmental Resources
Soils and Topography
• Existing soil, subsoil and topographic conditions shall be analyzed in terms of existing
conditions, proposed conditions and measures which may be employed to minimize
potential significant adverse environmental impacts.
• The existing soil types shall be determined pursuant to the Suffolk County Soil Survey.
• Soil borings shall be described to detcm ine subsurface soil quality and depth to
groundwater.
• The topography of the site shall be determined using site specific topographic srweys of
the property.
• The soil quality shall be described in terms of analytical results from Phase II sampling.
F a. Page 11
• • Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Impact to soils shall be discussed in terms of soil constraints pursuant to the Suffolk
County Soil Survey based on the type of land use proposed and the constraints for each
soil type.
• Constraints in terms of depth to groundwater shall be evaluated by establishing that
sanitary and drainage systems can function property; vertical profiles of these systems
establishing minimum surface elevation, maximum groundwater elevation and system
installation to required design standards shall be included.
• Topographic alteration of the site shall be determined through evaluation of the grading
proposed for the site and determination of resultant slopes, volume and disposition/origin
of cut or fill, and proposed changes to topographic elevations; impact of fill for sanitary,
drainage and buildings shall be evaluated; evaluation may include description, profiles,
contour maps and/or other methods to perform effective evaluation; impact of grading for
the proposed managers residence road shall be evaluated.
• Mitigation in terms of soil remediation, erosion control, retention of soils, fugitive dust
and related impacts shall be identified.
Water Resources
• The groundwater management zone as classified under Article 6 of the Suffolk County
Sanitary Code shall be referenced.
• The depth to groundwater in key development locations of the site shall be determined by
use of on-site soil borings; soil borings in all areas of proposed leaching must be included
given constrained site soils, fill, oyster shell, etc.
• The expected direction of groundwater flow based on hydrologic interpolation shall be
identified.
• The existing groundwater quality shall be referenced from existing literature.
• The water supply source, infrastructure and availability, service provider and capacity of
systems shall be established through communication with the water district and analysis
of impacts; water main routing and growth impacts must be evaluated; irrigation water,
well installation and impacts must be examined.
• The expected impact of the project with respect to water quality shall be fully examined
in terms of sanitary discharge compliance, wastewater treatment system operation and
regulatory requirements.
• Applicable Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) regulations and
requirements will be identified in terms of density and current policy on the proposed
wastewater system, and the compliance of the action with same will be evaluated.
• Calculations of projected sanitary flow and consistency with the Suffolk County Sanitary
Code will also be provided.
• The nitrogen budget for the site (considering all potential sources of nitrogen) shall be
determined using mass-balance modeling methods.
• Other water quality impacts related to pesticides, snow melt chemicals (if applicable),
chemical storage and any other sources shall be analyzed.
• The consistency of the proposed action with the findings of the Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program (NURP) and Nonpoint Source Management Handbook will be evaluated as
related to stormwater management and discharge.
• The existing stormwater management system and surface drainage conditions on the site
O. C—. Page 12
• • Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
will be described. This will include, but not be limited to: stormwater generated,
available information relative to collection and management systems, and system
capacity. In addition, post-development stormwater management conditions will be
evaluated. This evaluation will include: calculations of stormwater to be generated,
details of the proposed collection and management systems, system capacity, future
maintenance practices for stormwater collection and leaching structures and analysis of
how the proposed stormwater management system will comply with applicable
regulatory requirements, including the NYSDEC SPDES GP 02-01 Phase 2 stormwater
regulations.
• The change in hydrology of the site in terms of quantity of recharge under existing and
future conditions shall be established using appropriate hydrologic analysis methods; use
of the irrigation well, drawdown and potential for salt-water intrusion shall be included;
drought conditions water consumption and impact to neighboring private wells; issues
regarding increased water table elevations, functioning of sanitary/drainage recharge
systems and potential to increase flooding in the area shall be addressed.
• Constraints and impacts related to depth to groundwater must be evaluated; depth of
leaching structures (sanitary and stormwater) placement to ensure minimum 2-3' above
the water table, capacity and function shall be considered.
• The DEIS will provide calculations of projected water consumption for each use
proposed and, in consultation with the Suffolk County Water Authority, will evaluate the
ability to meet this projected water demand; the evaporative loss of water from new
surface water features, pond "make up" water, irrigation and all water use shall be
included.
• As the proposed action includes the installation of an irrigation well, the yield of the well
must be provided to determine the need for a Long Island Well Permit and to evaluate the
potential impacts associated therewith.
• Area conditions in terms of drainage and potential for or reported flooding shall be
described.
• As the site is situated in Zone AE, base elevations as promulgated by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would be identified, and a consistency
analysis with same would be included; the Flood Zone line shall be interpolated based on
"on-site" topography and shall align with the nine (9) foot contour.
• Impact of flooding on sanitary system function, generator function, and
restaurant/hotel/cottage evaculation.
• Mitigation measures which may reduce potential water quality impacts shall be
identified; measures to correct existing flooding and assurance that flooding will not be
exacerbated shall be included; resurfacing of Shipyard Lane and installation of drainage
in the Town right-of-way shall be considered as mitigation; drainage mitigation for area
of Cleaves Point Road near east part of site.
Ecology
• Existing upland habitats shall be inventoried through an inspection of the site by a
qualified biologist/ecologist to detennine the vegetation, wildlife, and general habitat
character. An inventory of flora and fauna observed and expected will be provided in this
section of the DEIS.
N
-_; Page 13
Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• In addition, protected native plants, plant and animal species listed as endangered,
threatened, special concern (or with other protective status) and significant habitat areas
on or in the vicinity of the project site will be identified.
• The NY Natural Heritage Program shall be contacted for site file information concerning
habitats, plant and animal species.
• Impact to upland habitats shall be quantified and discussed qualitatively in terms
ecological impact to plants and animals.
• The type, quantity and quality of wetlands present on, adjoining, or in the vicinity of the
site shall be mapped and described using current site conditions and recognizing that the
location of high water has moved landward; wetland jurisdiction of the Federal
government, State and Town shall be established; existing biological conditions of
proposed dredging areas including submerged aquatic vegetation.
• The jurisdiction, regulatory framework and controls of the Federal government, State and
Town shall be established.
• Hydrologic systems supporting these wetlands shall be presented.
• Federal and State wetland maps indicate that the proposed action would be under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the NYSDEC as well as
the Town Trustees. As such, all required wetland permit applications to the ACOE,
NYSDEC and Trustees must be made. Copies of all existing wetland permits would also
be provided (e.g., the existing maintenance dredge permit) and a discussion of each
permit will be included.
• Potential impacts to wetlands shall be evaluated in terms of maintaining or enhancing all
wetlands, maintaining adequate setbacks and ensuring that the hydrology of the systems
(sanitary, stormwater, erosion control, etc.) supporting wetlands is not degraded in
quality or quantity.
• Water use impact must be evaluated including: manna impacts associated with
installation and operation, adequacy of navigation channels and boat access to site as well
as boat maneuvers within site; include assessment of available pumpout facilities.
• Historical dredging of the basin and historical depth of the basin shall be documented to
establish pre-existing conditions to support the proposed "maintenance" dredging; impact
of dredging on vegetation and wildlife including osprey nests shall be evaluated.
• Dredging and bulkhead project impacts of construction; installation/spoil removal;
dewatering (odor and vector control); dredge spoil placement/disposal; dredge spoil
quality (grain size, organic content, volatile/semivolatile organic compounds, metals,
PCB's and related contaminants) shall be included; impact of the proposed revetment on
surrounding properties shall be determined; analysis shall include physical and biological
littoral processes and impact on submerged aquatic vegetation.
• Setbacks required by State and Town wetland review shall be located and evaluated in
terms of compliance with maintaining setbacks for disturbance/fertilized vegetation,
structures and sanitary installation.
• Management of the land within wetland setback areas shall be formulated to ensure
conformance with the code requirements.
• Mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts shall be identified and method of
implementation determined; details on erosion control to protect site ecology shall be
included.
Page 14
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Human Resources
Transportation
• Provide a thorough analysis of the traffic impacts of the proposed development on the
area's roadway system. The study shall consider future traffic associated with
employees, guests, visitors, and all aspects of site operations.
• Include analyses of the proposed plan and internal roadway system and a full traffic
impact study assessing the proposed development's impact on the surrounding roadways.
• Sight distance at site and Shipyard Lane and Route 25, road/lane width, circulation and
parking shall be included in this analysis.
• The Traffic Impact Study will include: collection of data regarding planned roadway
improvements and other developments, field surveys and counts of existing traffic
volumes, estimates of future traffic volumes, analyses of existing and future traffic
volumes and identification and timing of required roadway improvements and the entity
responsible for initiating those improvements. The following specific tasks will be
undertaken and documented in the traffic and transportation section of the DEIS:
1. Several personal, on-site field observations to observe the traffic movements under
various conditions.
2. A physical inventory of the adjacent street network.
3. The hourly volume report of the NYSDOT traffic count on Main Road shall be obtained
and included in the traffic study. A review of the count should be performed and the peak
hours occurring on the weekday and weekend should be identified.
4. The following should be included as study intersections with turning movement counts
and analysis conducted during all the time periods:
• Shipyard Lane and Main Road:
• Gillette Drive and Main Road:
• Cleaves Point Condominium driveway and Shipyard Lane.
5. In addition to weekday AM and PM peak period counts, Saturday peak period
intersection turning movement counts at the study intersections should be conducted
during the afternoon and/or evening peak periods identified by review of the Main Road
hourly volumes. Sunday is not typically the busiest weekend day. However, the hourly
volumes should identify which day should be included in the study.
6. Hourly volumes for a seven day period should be collected on Gillette Chive and
Shipyard Lane.
7. Perform a gap study at the study intersections during the peak periods to record available
gaps in traffic along Main Road.
8. The accident analysis should include a request for accident records along Shipyard Lane
and Gillette Drive, at both intersections with Main Road and along Main Road for an
appropriate distance in either direction from each intersection. The accident records
should be reviewed and tabulated.
9. The trip generation calculation should be conducted based upon each of the separate uses
on the site, such as, the restaurant, marina, spa and hotel. The hours of operation, size of
each facility, maximum employees during peak activity, and whether the facility is open
to the public should be identified. Any credit assumed for intemal trips should be
supported with documentation. The data from the Hotel Land Use Code provided by ITE
is not appropriate.
10. A directional distribution analysis to distribute the site-generated traffic onto the
On. �c..��� Pae 15
• • Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
operate the facility(housing, schools, etc.).
• The DEIS will include detailed projections of service demand with supporting
documentation.
• The existing tax revenue of the site shall be established.
• The DEIS shall consider future taxes, and if it is expected that the use will not be taxed, a
determination shall be made to determine if payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) is
necessary to offset potential impact to community service providers.
• The emergency services (ambulance, police and fire) which serve the site shall be
identified and contacted for input with respect to continued ability to serve the site.
• Changes associated with the proposed project shall be evaluated in terms of emergency
service access; a practical approach shall be taken to ensure that safe and efficient
emergency service vehicle access to the site can be provided to the site.
• Hydrant instal lation/location and other development considerations which assist in
addressing emergency services shall be included.
• Mitigation for emergency service access to ensure that equipment can ingress/egress the
site shall be included.
,s .= Page 18
W.yNEM1rf T..wJJN NT r:OVEy.l.ilrv[i
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Aesthetic Resources and Community Character
• The importance of the site in terms of open space character in the community shall be
established; the type of open space which the site represents and locations of other open
space in the community shall be used in this evaluation.
• The visual character of the existing site conditions shall be identified through ground and
aerial photography using a key for locations of all ground photography.
• The significance of visual character shall be established in terms of the viewing public
and view accessibility.
• Other aspects of the existing visual character in terns of vegetation, lighting, utilities, etc.
shall be identified. "Dark sky" compliance shall be addressed.
• Impacts of the proposed project in terms of community character and visual setting shall
be determined by discussion as well as graphic methods. Locations shall be determined
through analysis of significance to the viewing public, but at a minimum shall include the
view of the site from Gardiners Bay. "To scale" photographic and architectural
renderings are anticipated, with supporting cross-section evaluation and descriptive text
to fully disclose the change of visual character of the site.
• Impact of shadows of large buildings shall be evaluated.
• The impact of use of fill, increase in site elevations, and visual appearance of structures
will be evaluated. The significance of visual impacts will be assessed and mitigation
proposed. Lighting impacts will be discussed from a visual impact perspective; the "dark
sky" compliance shall be evaluated as well as the potential for a "glow" or "halo" effect
from parking areas, the restaurant or other site improvements shall be addressed.
• The change in character and visual setting shall be detennined in terms of landscape
vegetation, lighting and utilities.
• Impact associated with the marina operation shall be evaluated in terms of activity, lights,
noise and community land use compatibility impacts.
• The existing noise environment will be evaluated in terns of ambient noise, sensitive
receptors and community character. The potential noise impacts of the project will be
assessed through identification of source areas, traffic circulation/volume, golf carts, car
doors, backup alarms, building/grounds maintenance, restaurant, waterfall, generator use,
dumpster location, trash compactors (if used) and use, proximity to receptors, distance
and other attenuation, and the significance of potential noise impacts will be assessed.
• Impact of special events (if proposed) shall be evaluated in terms of community
character.
• Impact of gas dock (if proposed) on community safety and pollution potential in
consideration of the surrounding area.
• Population/demographic impacts associated with the use of the site.
• Measures to minimize the impact of loss of open space and change in visual character
and the means for their implementation shall be provided.
Historic and Archaeological Resources
• The historic and archaeological resources of the site will be addressed through a
determination of historic and archaeological sensitivity and preparation of a Stage IA/IB
Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA). The site is within an arca of archaeological
Woe
<� .4.,.r..� Page 19
• • Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
sensitivity and therefore a Stage IA/IB is required, unless significant ground disturbance
is documented to the satisfaction of the OPRHP. Any mitigation which may be needed
shall be identified.
6.0 Other Required Sections
In addition to the key resources identified in the Positive Declaration, SEQRA identifies other
required sections for a complete DEIS as included in 6NYCRR Part 617.9 (b)(3). Mitigation
measures shall be included with respect to each key impact area as noted in Section 5.0.
Alternatives to be studied are identified in Section 7.0. The following Other Required Sections
and evaluations shall be provided in the DEIS.
• Construction Impacts (Describe the impacts related to construction demolition,
construction, dredge operations, dredge spoil disposal, noise, dust, erosion and
sedimentation, area receptors, applicable nuisance regulations, applicable agency
oversight and safeguards, phasing of the project, staging areas, parking areas, operation
areas, duration, hours, and related mitigation measures to reduce construction impacts).
• Cumulative Impacts (Describe other pending or approved projects in vicinity (East
Marion), determine potential for impacts due to implementation of proposed project in
combination with others and discuss/analyze impacts).
• Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided (Provide brief listing of those adverse
environmental impacts described/discussed previously which are anticipated to occur,
which cannot be completely mitigated).
• Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources (Provide brief discussion of
those natural and human resources which will be committed to and/or consumed by the
proposed project).
• Growth-Inducing Aspects (Provide brief discussion of those aspects of the proposed
project which will or may trigger or contribute to future growth in the area).
7.0 Alternatives to be Studied
SEQRA requires a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action
that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor. As noted in
SEQRA, "The description and evaluation of each alternative shall be at a level of detail sufficient
to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed". The following alternatives
and methods of evaluation are anticipated:
• No Action Alternative - Alternative whereby the site remains in its current condition).
• Potential Acquisition of the site.
• Alternative Design(s) - Design(s) which incorporate(s) features or combinations of
features to provide the following reduced impact alternatives:
➢ Alternative which conforms to LWRP.
➢ Alternative design to conform to a 75 foot impervious/structure setback from current
location of wetlands and placement of the rock revetment above mean high water.
ne .� Page 20
• Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
➢
Alternative parking layout to provide convenience to proposed use areas and reduce
impact to neighboring residential properties (more interspersed parking).
➢ Conversely, consider an alternative to centralize parking and provide internal operations
to provide access to user access to site uses in order to better locate and buffer parking
and reduce off-site impacts.
➢
Alternative design to reduce impervious surface area (particularly the pool patio area) to
increase indigenous landscaping and reduce stormwater, groundwater and wetlands
impacts.
➢ Alternative to remove separate cottages near east property line.
➢ Alternative with reduced building mass of the large building to reduce visual impact.
➢ Reduction in site lighting design to reduce perimeter lighting, impact to Town roads and
adjacent properties.
➢ Alternative building locations to ensure FEMA compliance with less use of fill.
➢ Alternative dumpster locations to reduce impact on neighboring properties.
➢ Alternative driveway configuration to consolidate two driveways into one located farther
north from the Cleaves Point Condominiums.
➢ Alternative south end driveway location to avoid conflicts with public access to the road
end.
➢ Consideration for the use of the Gillette Drive driveway for alternate access in addition to
employee access to distribute vehicle trips.
➢ Consideration for the use of the Gillette Drive driveway for emergency access only.
➢ Consideration for use of the combination of Shipyard Lane and Gillette Drive as a
separate ingress and egress from the site.
➢ Removal of entire length of bulkhead extending seaward of upland property.
Attachments Useful in Document Preparation
• Town Engineer Review Letter of August 25, 2006
• Town LWRP Coordinator Review Letter of October 25, 2006
• Department of State Review Letter of October 17, 2006
Comments, Issues and Scope Items Deemed Not Relevant
• Increase in sea level due to global warming.
• Eminent domain issue.
This document is intended to fulfill the lead agency requirements for issuance of a Final Scope in
accordance with SEQRA Part 617.8. The document assists the lead agency in evaluating the
DEIS for content and adequacy for public review and assists the applicant in understanding the
extent and quality of information needed to evaluate the proposed project and allow the lead
agency and involved agencies to obtain the information necessary to reach an informed decision
on the project.
Pa g
a 21
MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER �q SO(/jy P.O. Box 1179
JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE �0� ��O Southold, NY 11971
Chair
OFFICE LOCATION:
KENNETH L. EDWARDS N Town Hall Annex
MARTIN H. SIDOR G • 54375 State Route 25
GEORGE D.SOLOMON (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
JOSEPH L. TOWNSENDyCOUNT'r Southold, NY
11 Telephone: 631 765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
October 27, 2006
Mr. Charles Voorhis
Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC.
572 all Whitman Road
Melville, NY 11747-2188
Re: Proposed Site Plan for GAIA Holistic Circle OKI-DO
2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY
SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1 Zoning District MII
Dear Chick,
Attached you will find information submitted to the Planning Department in reference to the
scoping meeting for the project listed above. We have included correspondences, internal
responses, involved agency responses and the draft minutes of the meeting.
Additionally, you will find a check for the sum of$5,000.00 from OKI-DO, LTD for the
environmental escrow account. Please keep us up to date on a summary basis of the account.
The Planning Board will hold a work session on Monday October 30, 2006 to be updated on this
project and will need the final scope by November 6, 2006 to be adopted by resolution.
If there are any questions you can contact us at(63 1) 765-1938 between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m.
pectfull urs,
Bruno e ton
Seni ite Pla viewer
CC:file,
Enc
1-2
j OKI-DO LTD. Z�oaaa .{LJ 1673
a .II9 DATE
i PAY TO THE
ORDER OF VVV ,�ryryryer� LJ
UU
d� •� --DOLLARS
CH E�j
1PMorgan Chase Bank,N.A.
New York,New York 1001]
www. r��\1 i fl..`�
e Chase c(o�m G/s//Y F3�7N� ,nt
[EM,EN�
2i000020: 343S000i60GSw 1673
5�
' WOUNTY OF SUFFOLK • �S
a;
STEVE LEVY
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
GILBERT ANDERSON, P.E. LOUIS CALDERONE
CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
October 26, 2006
Town of Southold - �-
Planning Board Office
P.O. Box 1179 ( ; �
Southold,N. Y. 11971-0957
( - I
Attn: Bruno Semon t 11T `)l ,
Re: GALA Holistic Circle/Oki-Do,Ltd.
2835 Shipyard Lane,East Marion L
SCTM#1000-38-7-7.1
4
Dear Mr. Semon:
This Department has previously reviewed the above-referenced project. Enclosed please find a copy of our
comments dated September 29,2006.
If you have any questions,kindly contact this office at 852-4100.
Very truly yours,
William Hillman, P.E.
Chief Engineer
By:
M. Paul Campagnola
Director of Highway Planning&Permits
WH:MPC:ln
SUFFOLK COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
(631)852-4010
335 YAPHANK AVENUE ■ YAPHANK,N.Y. 1 1980 0 FAX(631)852-4150
WOUNTY OF SUFFOLK •
STEVE LEVY
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
GILBERT ANDERSON, P.E. LOUIS CALDERONE
CHIEF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
September 29,2006
Town of Southold
Planning Board Office
P.O.Box 1179
Southold,N. Y. 11971-0957
Attn: Jerilyn Woodhouse
Re: 3,278 ft.s/o New York State Road 25 at the s/e end of Shipyard Lane in East Marion
Gaia Holistic Circle,Oki-Do Ltd.
SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1
Dear Ms.Woodhouse
This Department has no objection to the Town assuming lead agency status for this proposed development.
Since this proposed development is not adjacent to a County maintained road and subsequently not under our
jurisdiction,a permit from this Department is not required.
If you have any questions,kindly contact this office at 8524100.
Very truly yours,
William Hillman, P.E.
Chief Engineer
r7
By:
M. Paul gampagnol
WH:MPCan Director of Highway Planning&Permits
SUFFOLK COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
335 YAPHANK AVENUE (631)852-4010
YAPHANK.N.Y. 11980 ■ FAX(631)852-4150
/ Li
00
t APPEAI•S BOARD MEMBERS • OF S0 • Mailing Address:
Ruth D. Oliva,Chairwoman �0�� yQIO Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road •P.O. Box 1179 P(�
Gerard P. Goehringer * * Southold,NY 11971-0959
James Dinizio,Jr. u+ Office Location:
Michael A. Simon :Mlim Town Annex/First Floor,North Fork Bank
Leslie Kanes Weisman Ql`COUa` 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Southold,NY 11971
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Tel. (631) 765-1809•Fax (631)765-9064
MEMO . . .
TO: Planning Board
FROM: Ruth D. Oliva, ZBA Chairwoman
DATE: October 25, 2006 }f
SUBJECT. SE RA—Oki-Do (Gaia Holistic Circle) �L
CTM 38-7-7.1
In reply to the recent coordination under SEQRA for agency comme ts, owing
additional
I
additional information is requested for evaluation and reviews when a ailable f[om--the
applicant:
• The current "apparent high water mark' is not shown on an up-to-date survey of
existing conditions; the current high water mark is much closer to the existing
building than shown. The wetlands boundary is not up-to-date.
• The current "apparent high water mark' is not shown on the proposed site plan,
instead an approximate high water mark and approximate low water mark are
shown, which do not reflect to current conditions.
• A landscape plan is requested to include the elevation of retaining walls and
other above-ground structures, and to show the dimensions and depth of the
proposed man-made ponds and slopes along the edge of the ponds, swimming
pool(s) and other types of ground level construction.
• Information is requested to determine the amount of fill proposed to be added to
the site.
• FEMA data and building elevations from the first floor area is requested for all
buildings, and basement elevation plan for all buildings.
• The bulkhead along the Bay was found to be non-functional, and the survey is
requested to show the measurement is from a "non-functional bulkhead. Also a
survey will require the setbacks to be shown from all building areas, including
but not limited to the roofed-over decks and open porches, must be measured
and shown on the site maps, to the existing non-functional bulkhead, the
property lines, and the wetlands at its closest points.
• A plan showing excavation within 100 feet of all water ways and basin is
requested to be shown on diagrams.
• Request for a drainage plan for the low-lying areas, especially to the east side of
the property near Cleaves Point Road where flooding occurs (possibly similar to
a holding pond or ponds for retaining water, reed beds or similar — with advice
from the Suffolk County Soil & Water conservation District and with our Town
Engineer).
Page 1 of 2
' Page 2—October 25, 20060
To: Planning Board, SEQRA Lead Agency
From: Ruth D.Oliva,ZBA Chairwoman
Re: Oki-Do (Gaia Holistic Circle CTM 38-7-7.1)
The Board of Appeals, as an involved agency in these reviews, recommends that the
above be submitted in order that an accurate review may be conducted of current site
conditions and proposed site changes, as well as discussions about building locations
with conformity to the applicable regulations.
sT
James F. King,Presidenterg sours Town Hall '�5J
Jill M. Doherty,Vice-President h�� �l0 53095 Route 25 M
P.O. Box 1179
Peggy A. Dickerson Southold,New York 11971-0959
Dave Bergen G Q
:N • �O Telephone(631)765-1892
, COUN Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO: Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson
Southold Town Planning Board
FROM: James F. King, President
Board of Trustees
1
DATE: October 24, 2006
RE: Gaia Holistic Circle—Oki-Do. r'
The Board of Trustees is familiar with and has conducted a site inspectieanf.Sh_isr)roperty,which)
was formerly Long Island Oyster Farms. This company harvested and processed oysters The
property has also housed a boat building company and a marine supply aid trap-building
company in more recent years.
Because of the magnitude of this project, the Board of Trustees will conduct a joint review with the
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation.
Environmental impacts of this proposal are our primary concern and consist of, but are not limited
to the following:
- verification of wetland line;
- any armoring of the shoreline;
- restoration of the shoreline;
- adequate buffers between human activities and the marine district;
- dredging needs for access to the existing basin and proper disposal of dredging
spoils;
- lighting, particularly along the shoreline;
- protection of wetland areas;
- maintaining any and all stormwater run-off on site;
- protection of wildlife habitat;
- no parking seaward of the restaurant;
- keep south parking lot entrance as far landward as possible.
The Trustees look forward to working with other Southold Town agencies as this project proceeds
through the appropriate permit processes.
SCOTT A. RUSSELL � o� �� JAMES A. RICHTER, R.A. �5
----ry ,6 ERVISOR = ENGINEER
TOWN HALL - 53095 MAQy,$f^kTQ�,, t TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK 11971
y Si
�('Fa , (6 l) ` 5 1 � �, �" Tel.(631)-765-1560
t i l�J !-� �'J JAMIE.RICHTER@TOWN.SOUTHOLD.NY.US
�' OCT 2 7 2006
OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
�n
Jerilyn-13. Woodhouse August 25, 2006
Chairperson - Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971 Re: Oki-Do Ltd. Site Plan
Shipyard lane, East Marion, NY
SCTM #: 1000-39-07-7.1
Dear Mrs. Woodhouse:
As per a request from your office, I have reviewed the Site Plans for the above referenced project.
The Site Plan drawings have been prepared by the office of Young&Young, Land Surveyor;and the office
of Butt•Otruba-O'Connor Architects, AIA. These drawings have been dated 3/17/04 & 12/28/05. Please
consider the following:
1. Please note that the proposed disturbance resulting from construction activities and grading of this
site will be greater than one (1) acre in area. This project will require coverage from NYS Department of
Environmental Protection (DEC)under the Phase II State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(SPDES)
Program. The Developer must obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm-water Runoff from
Construction Activity(GP-02-01) prior to the initiation of construction activities.
2. Drawing C-3: This existing condition drawing sheet shows the existing topography of the site and a
flood Zone line of AE (E19). These two items need to be coordinated. While the flood zone line was
interpolated from a large scale map it should also be modified to align with the nine (9')foot Contour that
runs through the property. This item should be reviewed by the Building Department.
3. It is apparent that the main access to the site is proposed by the way of Shipyard Lane. I have
reviewed this item with Mr. Harris and he has requested road improvement to Shipyard that would include
resurfacing of the road and the installation of new drainage systems in the Town Right-of-Way. Additional
drainage should be incorporated into the project design to recharge storm-water run-off before it reaches
Peconic Bay.
4. The proposed access roadway to the Managers Residence may require Excavation, Fill and/or
Grading to achieve a stable road design. The impact of this new road on adjacent property to the East
should be dealt with. Landscape Buffers, the maintenance of storm-water run-off and the elimination of
erosion problems should be addressed.
5. The Proposed Restaurant Building Setbacks from the High Water Mark should be reviewed with the
Zoning board of Appeals and the Town Trustees. It is understood that there is an existing structure but to
what extent will this building be reused? By the time the existing structure is made flood compliant it would
be well over a 50% threshold for new work. In addition, the proposed design of the new facility does not
appear to utilize any of the existing structure with the exception of its footprint. Therefore,it is recommended
that the proposed new Restaurant facility be relocated to meet the minimum standards of Town Zoning and
enhance the policies of the LWRP. This item should also be reviewed with Mark Terry for LWRP
Consistency.
Page 1 of 2
Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson - Planning Board • August 25, 2006
Re: Oki-Do Ltd. Site Plan
SCTM#: 1000-39-07-7.1 Page 2 of 2
6. Cross section "A-A" on sheet A-4 and the Rock Revetment Detail on sheet A-5 indicate the toe of
Revetment to be seaward of the High Water mark. It is recommended that this item be constructed
landward and above the Mean High Waterline. In addition to preserving the marine community along the
shoreline, this item would allow for the preservation of the foreshore that may be utilized by the General
Public. This item should be reviewed by the Town Trustees and the LW RP Coordinator.
7. Storm Water Leaching Pools should be installed a minimum of two (2')feet above the Water Table.
Some of the proposed leaching fields adjacent to Tidal Wetland areas may be set too deep. Leaching Pool
design depth and Test Hole information should be coordinated to maintain a minimum two foot separation.
8. The lighting plan on Sheet C-7 seems excessive when it appears that almost all of it will be located
immediately adjacent to Town Right-of-Ways and the rear yards of the existing residential properties. It
would appear that some of this site lighting and parking would be better suited if it were constructed within
the interior of the site to reduce the impact on the adjacent property owners.
9. The current proposed location for the Southerly entrance to the site is too close to the road end. This
Town road end is used for public access to the waterfront and should not be monopolized by the use of this
new facility. It is recommended that this entrance be moved in a northerly direction to align with the entrance
of the Condominium Complex located on the opposite side of the street.
10. Drainage calculations indicate that Tributary Area # 13 will have six (6) pools. The site plan only
indicates five. This item should be modified accordingly.
If you have any questions regarding this review, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,
James A. Richter, R.A.
cc: Peter Harris, Superintendent of Highways
Zoning Board of Appeals
Southold Town Trustees
Michael Verity, Principal Building Inspector
Mark Terry, LW RP Coordinator
. MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS QF soP.O. Box 1179
JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE SOV` Old Southold, NY 11971
Chair
OFFICE LOCATION:
KENNETH L.EDWARDS N Town Hall Annex
MARTIN H. SIDOR G • OQ 54375 State Route 25
GEORGE D.SOLOMON ` (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
JOSEPH L.TOWNSEND yMUM Southold, NY
111, Telephone: 631 765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
October 17, 2006
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Proposed Site Plan for Gaia Holistic Circle, Oki-Do Ltd.
Located approximately 3,278 ft. s/o New York State Road 25 at the s/e end of Shipyard
Lane known as 2835 Shipyard Lane in East Marion
SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1 Zone: M-II, Marine II District
Dear Mrs. Moore:
The following resolution was adopted at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on
Monday, October 16, 2006:
WHEREAS, this proposed action requires a special exception and site plan to construct a holistic
health center with a total of 114 transient motel rooms consisting of 23 guest lodges totaling 87
accessory motel units (14 lodges containing 3 unit motel rooms & 9 guest lodges containing 5 unit
motel rooms). The remaining 27 motel units are to be located in the main spa building along with a
185 seat restaurant (103 private guest seats, 72 public guest seats), 10 public bar seats, office
space, retail gift shop, 27 personal service treatment suites and accessory uses. The proposed
action also involves a 3,864 sq. ft. private restaurant annex with 45-99 private guest seats and a
covered 758 sq. ft. deck, 1,987 sq. ft. manager's residence with a 687 sq. ft. deck, pool, a 7,205 sq.
ft. maintenance and utility building, a sanitary waste treatment facility, 1,160 sq. ft. for three (3)
gazebos, man-made water features, replacement of the existing bulkhead, dredging of the 16 slip
private marina basin, and various outdoor amenities on a 18.7 acre parcel in the MII Zone located
approximately 3,278 ft. south of New York State Road 25 at the south east end of Shipyard Lane
known as 2835 Shipyard Lane in East Marion. SCTM # 1000-38-7-7.1, and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617, Article 6 of
the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
initiated the SEAR lead agency coordination process for this Type I action pursuant to Part 617.4
(b) (6) (i); and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board assumed lead agency for this
Type I action; and
GAIA Holistic Circle (OKI-DO) Page Two October 17, 2006
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2006, the Southold Planning Board adopted a Positive
Declaration for the proposed action; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2006, that pursuant to Article 617.13 of the 6NYCC, Part 617
State Environmental Quality Review Act the applicant agents will be financially responsible for
costs incurred for the review and posting of the draft and final Environmental Impact
Statements by the Town of Southold; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2006, the Southold Planning Board pursuant to Article 617.8
Scoping scheduled public participation on October 16, 2006 in a scoping meeting from 4:30p-
6:00pm and will allow for comments received at the Planning Department by October 26, 2006;
be it further
RESOLVED, the Southold Planning Board pursuant to Article 617.8 Scoping will review all
information and prepare a final scope for distribution as the Lead Agency.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
5���2 c�<-
enlyn B. Woodhouse
Chairperson
Enc.
Cc:
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Southold Town Building Department NYSDEC - Stony Brook
Southold Town Clerk for Southold Town Board New York State Department of Transportation
Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Suffolk County Water Authority
Southold Town Board of Trustees Suffolk County Planning Department
Southold Town Engineer Architectural Review Committee
Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator Army Corps of Engineers
Commissioner, NYS DEC Suffolk County Department of Public Works
New York State Department of State Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Department of Ecology, Kimberly Shaw
File
Ml
KL
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
41 STATE STREET
ALBANY, NY 12231-0001
GEORGE E. PATAKI CHRISTOPHER L. JACOBS
GOVERNOR SECRETARY OF STATE
October 17, 2006
Mr. Bruno Semon
Senior Site Plan Reviewer
Town of Southold Planning Board
PO Box 1179
54375 State Route 25
Southold,New York 11971
Dear Mr. Semon,
The New York State Department of State's (NYSDOS) Divisjotl Pf-Cpastal Resources has received a
draft scope and Notice of Public Sc*ing"Meeting for the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS)
for the proposed Gaia Holistic Circle/Oki-Do, Ltd. development on Shipyard Lane in East Marion and
has prepared the following written comments.
A coastal consistency determination will be necessary from NYSDOS as part of the federal review and
decision-making process for any required Army Corps of Engineers permits, such as for bulkhead
replacement or dredging. This coastal consistency determination should be included in any listing of
necessary federal permits or authorizations. The Town should also, as part of the local decision-making
process, identify which Town department or agency will be responsible for preparing and making final
determinations of consistency with the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) for
the proposed project.
The LWRP is a comprehensive land and water use plan that contains enforceable policies in addition to
locally established guidance and direction for future development. Due to the comprehensive nature of
the LWRP, the DEIS should discuss the consistency of the proposed project with the relevant policies
and purposes of the Town's LWRP as a stand-alone section. For example, the LWRP specifically
references the proposed development site(formerly the Long Island Oyster Farm property) in Section II
(Inventory and Analysis) during the discussion of Reach 5 in the context of a possible location to
promote public access. The DEIS should discuss this and all relevant components of the LWRP. In
addition, as State agencies are involved in decision-making related to the proposed development, the
DEIS is required to include an analysis of the potential affects on and consistency with the LWRP
associated with the proposed project.
The DEIS and all future plan documents should include the proposed dredging depths and identify
proposed upland placement footprints for the subsequent dredged material. The plans should also
provide estimates for the volume of sediment that may be necessary as backfill behind the proposed
WWW.DOS.STATE.NY.US E-MAIL:INFO@DOS.STATE.NY.US
0 0
restored bulkheading. The DEIS should also discuss the existing maintenance dredging permits for the
site and any modifications that may be necessary.
The proposed plans indicate that the applicant intends to remove approximately 100 feet of existing
bulkhead which currently extends into Gardiner's Bay. This modification will leave approximately 110
feet of bulkhead remaining. The DEIS should consider the removal of the entire length of bulkhead
extending seaward of the upland property.
The DEIS should include a section on Water Uses describing the maximum sizes of vessels that could
be moored at the proposed marina. This description should take into consideration turning radius,
depths and identified vessel speed limits in and around the proposed marina. This section of the DEIS
should also address the potential for increased number of private vessels docking at the proposed private
marina, to necessitate channel enhancements (such as increases routine dredging, installation of
navigational beacons), and include information whether effects would extend to the existing
navigational and other uses of nearby waterways.
The DEIS should include discussion of the potential impact of the proposed artificial lake on vector
control on-site, and in immediate and nearby neighborhoods.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's comments on the proposed scope. Please
contact Shawn Kiernan at (518)473-3656 or skieman(a dos.state.ny.us with any further questions.
Sincerely,
%J1 �,at"
w
l Jffrrey g e� Shawn Kiernan
upervisor of Consistency Review Coastal Resources Specialist
Resources Management Bureau Local and Regional Programs Bureau
Town of Southold
Notice of Public Scoping Meeting
GAIA Holistic Circle/Oki-Do, Ltd.
Revised October 16,2006
MEETING DATE: Monday,October 16,2006 at 4:30 P.M.
LOCATION: Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold,NY 11971
The Town of Southold Planning Board, as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617 of the State regulations for
Article 8,the State Environmental Quality Review(SEAR) Act of the Environmental Conservation Law,
has scheduled a public meeting for the purpose of determining the scope of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) to be prepared for the proposed action described in this notice. The Town of
Southold Planning Board has determined that the project will have a significant effect on the environment
and has issued a SEQR Positive Declaration requiring the applicant to prepare a DEIS.
APPLICANT: GAIA Holistic Circle/Oki-Do,Ltd.
2835 Shipyard Lane,East Marion
SCTM N : 1000-38-7-7.1
STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS/APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT:
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NYS DEC)
401 Water Quality Certification (NYS DEC)
Excavation and Development Permit (Town of Southold)
Building Permits (Town of Southold)
Site Plan Approval(Town of Southold)
Site Soil Monitoring and Management Plan (SCDHS &DEC)
Copies of this Notice Sent to:
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Southold Town Building Department NYSDEC- Stony Brook
Southold Town Clerk for Southold Town Board New York State Department of Transportation
Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Suffolk County Water Authority
Southold Town Board of Trustees Suffolk County Planning Department
Southold Town Engineer Architectural Review Committee
Mark Terry,LWRP Coordinator Army Corps of Engineers
Commissioner,NYS DEC Suffolk County Department of Public Works
New York State Department of State File
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This proposed action requires a special exception and site plan to construct a holistic health center with a
total of 114 transient motel rooms consisting of 23 guest lodges totaling 87 accessory motel units (14 lodges
containing 3 unit motel rooms &9 guest lodges containing 5 unit motel rooms). The remaining 27 motel
units are to be located in the main spa building along with a 185 seat restaurant (103 private guest seats, 72
public guest seats), 10 public bar seats, office space, retail gift shop,27 personal service treatment suites and
accessory uses. The proposed action also involves a 3,864 sq. ft.private restaurant annex with 45-99 private
0 0
GAIA Holistic Circle/Oki-Do, Ltd. Page Two October 10, 2006
guest seats and a covered 758 sq. ft. deck, 1,987 sq. ft. manager's residence with a 687 sq. ft. deck,pool, a
7,205 sq. ft. maintenance and utility building,a sanitary waste treatment facility, 1,160 sq. ft.for three (3)
gazebos,man-made water features, replacement of the existing bulkhead,dredging of the 16 slip private
marina basin, and various outdoor amenities on a 18.7 acre parcel in the MII Zone located approximately
3,278 ft. south of New York State Road 25 at the south east end of Shipyard Lane known as 2835 Shipyard
Lane in East Marion. SCIM# 1000-38-7-7.1
PROJECT LOCATION:
The subject property lies in the hamlet of East Marion,Town of Southold, County of Suffolk,New York.
The subject property consists of an 18.7± acre parcel located on the east side of Shipyard Lane,immediately
west of the terminus of the Cleave Point Road right of way. The parcel contains approximately 927 feet of
frontage on Shipyard Lane, 50 feet of frontage on the Cleave Point Road right of way,and approximately
920 feet of frontage along Gardiners Bay. The site is currently zoned Marine II (M-2) District.
MEETING PURPOSE:
The purpose of"scoping" is to focus the DEIS on potentially significant adverse impacts and to eliminate
consideration of those impacts that are irrelevant or non-significant. Some environmental impacts to be
considered for evaluation in the DEIS are identified in the Department's Positive Declaration and in the
project Sponsor's (Patricia Moore, Esq.) Draft Scoping Document. Scoping will help to ensure that this
DEIS is a comprehensive, accurate and complete document,adequate for public review and which properly
evaluates the environmental impacts that may occur if the proposed build out was to occur.
PUBLIC MEETING:
The public scoping session will be held on Monday, October 16, 2006 at 4:30 P.M.,at the Town of
Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road, Southold,NY 11971. Statements from local government officials,
legislators,interested and involved agencies, and the public will be heard after a Planning Board Chair
Statement is read into the record and the applicant gives a brief presentation detailing the proposed project.
A stenographic recons of the meeting will be prepared. Written statements will also be accepted until
October 26,2006 at the Town of Southold Planning Board office address at the end of this notice.
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION:
The application file may be reviewed by appointment at the Town of Southold Planning Board Department.
In addition,the applicant has provided a Draft Scoping Document containing a summary of the SEAR
process, including scoping,the project proposal and some potential environmental impacts. The applicant's
Draft Scoping Document has not been approved bythe Town of Southold Planning Board. It is being
presented at this time for public review and comment. Copies of this Draft Scoping Document have been
mailed to involved and interested agencies.
In addition,the document may be reviewed at the Town of Southold Planning Board, 54375 State Route 25
Southold,New York 11971 and Town of Southold Town Hall,53095 Main Road, Southold,NY 11971.
Anyone who plans to participate in the scoping meeting by providing comment is urged to review a copy of
this document prior to the meeting. The scoping meeting location is reasonably accessible to persons with a
mobility impairment. Interpreter services will also be made available to deaf persons, at no charge,upon
written request to the Contact Person named at the end of this notice,within one week prior to the meeting,
GAIA Holistic Circle/Oki-Do,Ltd. Page Three October 10,2006
pursuant to Section 202(1) of the State Administrative Procedures Act. All persons having an interest in this
project are urged to attend or be represented either individually or collectively.
NOTICE DATE: October 10,2006
CONTACT PERSON: Bruno Semon,Senior Site Plan Reviewer
Town of Southold Planning Board
P. O.Box 1179
54375 State Route 25
Southold,New York 11971
Telephone: 631-765-1938
10,12,00 12-42 Vil 0317271707 Tw'ONEY LATHAIL . ^— — 0001/001
Ss
M HEA,KELRE
LEY,DUBTN, ALE&QUARTARARO'LLL'
Twor,JEV,LATHA. ,-
S33 West Second Street, P.O. Box 9398
Riverhead,New Yo 11 01
Main, (631)727- 0
Fax: 631-727-1767
FAX COVER SHEET
FAXF: IFR
=Jerilyn
T O 765-313600dhouse, Chair
CLIENT CODE: 1640
FROM: Martha Bos
TRANSMISSION DATE. October 12.2006
SUBJECT: Proposed Site Plan for Gaia Holistic Circle,Oki-Do Ltd.
2835 Shipyard Lane,East Marion
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: 1
1F _A' Ny OF THESE PAGES ARE NOT LEGIBLE,PLEASE CALL (631)727-2180
?_ND NOTIFY: Martha Bos Ext, 317
Concerning the above referenced matter,it would be appreciated if our office can obtain
copies of the draft scope and all correspondence related thereto for the upcoming s°op8 meeting
sehedulad for October 16, 1-006. Should you have any questions,please do not hesitate to
contact our office. Thank you-
O This is the only copy you will receive
,J Original tc follow by regular mail OF TH�E 13SD AL OR ENTITY T
ENTITY
ED
THIS TRAN5Ni5SION IS INTENDEDMAY CONTAIN CON"WENTIAL INFORMATION OR
T
WHICH 1T IS ADDRESSED, LEGE OR OTHE
THE SENDER WHICH IS PROTECTED BY THE AT PRIVf
DOCTRINE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE Ih"TENDED RECIPIE vT,YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THA
ACTIOPR IT YON IN RELIANCE ON
ANY DISCLOSURE,COPYING,DISTRIBUTION OR THE TAKING OF ANY YOU VE RECEIVE
THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFOR DUTELY NOTIFY L'S nS STRICTLY HTssEm' To "mm coe s�
Awns
THIS TRAN51VI18SION IN ERROR,I
1.
OCT 1 2 2006 �
MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS �F soP.O. Box 1179
JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE ��V` Old Southold, NY 11971
Chair y
OFFICE LOCATION:
KENNETH L.EDWARDS Town Hall Annex
MARTIN H.SIDOR • 54375 State Route 25
GEORGE D. SOLOMON 0 p� (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
JOSEPH L.TOWNSEND �yMurm N� Southold,NY
fl Telephone: 631 765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 12, 2006
To: Town Trustee & Town Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer(la/If
Re: Gaia Holistic Circle OKI-DO
SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1
Status: This site plan is scheduled for a Planning Board scoping public hearing
on October 16, 2006.
In reference to the above, attached you will find a copy of site pictures taken on
October 10, 2006. This is for help in review of the site conditions.
Thank you in advance.
cc: file
Enc. Pictures
1J`i
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS � �F $AUT Mailing Address: �
Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman y>� h'Q Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road • P.O. Box 1179
Gerard P. Goehringer Southold,NY 11971-0959
James Dinizio, Jr. fn Office Location:
Michael A. Simon I Town Annex/First Floor,North Fork Bank
Leslie Kanes Weisman Qly�'DU 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Southold,NY 11971
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS K..
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Tel. (631) 765-1809 • Fax(631) 765-9064
MEMO CCT 1 i
TO: Planning Board
Attn: Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chair
FROM: Zoning Board of Appeals, Ruth D. Oliva, Chairworr an-/
DATE: October 11, 2006
SUBJECT: PB Pending Reviews— Oki-Do Ltd.
Location: Shipyard Lane, East Marion (CTM 39-7-7.1)
The Board of Appeals, as involved agency under SEQRA, recommends that written
information and supporting documentation be furnished to show the alternative locations
in the SEQRA process that would provide for conformity to the setback regulations and
other applicable regulations.
Also requested by the Board of Appeals is additional time for the following:
1) to review the above documentation, as well as additional time to receive and
comment on a written LWRP determination as required under Chapter 268.
2) to receive documentation submitted under SEQRA by the environmental
consultant and the application with regard to the October 10, 2006 Notice of Public
Scoping Session scheduled by the Planning Board for Monday, October 16, 2006.
3) to send written comments after the above has been submitted.
Thank you for your consideration.
#8068
STATE OF NEW YORK)
) SS:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
Dina Mac Donald of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn,
says that he/she is Principal clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly
newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk
and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for
1 week(s), successively, commencing on the 12th day of October, 2006.
Principal Clerk
Sworn to before me this 11'�day of
2006
(4 &bolt
CHRISTINA VOLINSKI LEGAL cwL Noncom
NOTARY pU661GSTATE OF NEW YORK No"of PebYe Scoping Hearleg
No. OT-V0610D060 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
OUGIIfled IB SUHtlIk COUIIIY that,pursuant to 6NYCRR Park 617.8,
C�MNfHIiOIPfi MilesPbP1U1drV 00; �A#tE8 a scoping session will be held by the
Southold Town Planning Board,at the
Town Hall,Main Road,Southold,New
York on the 16th day of October,2006
on the question of the following:
430 p.nt.Proposed site plan for Gain
Holistic Circle located approximately
3,278 ft.sto NYS Road 25 at the a/c end
of Shipyard Lane,East Marion,Town
of Southold, County of Suffolk, State
of New York..Suffolk County Tax Map
Number 1000-38-7-7.1.
The Town of Southold Planning
Board as.Lead Agency pursuant to.Part
617 of the State Regulations for Article
8,the State Environmental Quality.Re-
view(SEQR)Act of the Environmental
Conservation Law,has scheduled a pub-
Ge meeting for the purpose of determin-
ing the scope of the Draft Environmen-
tal Impact Statement(DEIS)to be pre-
pared for the proposed action described
in this notice. The Town of Southold
Planning Board has determined that
the project will have a significant ef-
fect on the environment and has issued
a SEQR Positive Declaration requiring
the applicant to prepare a DEIS.
Dated: 10/10/06
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD
TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Jerilyn B.Woodhouse
Chairperson
80684T 10112
TIMES /REVIEW NEWSPAPERS • ADVERTISING INVOICE•
7785 Main Road,P.O.Box 1500
MBttltuck,NY 11952 U.N.NISTD. x AUVENNEER I C.I.NAME
(631)298-3200 10/12/2006 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLAN BD-LGL
xI TO)AL AMOUNT DUE AIPUFO AMOVN} 5 TENMS OF M`TMEM
14.94 Net due u on recei t
Federal Tax 10 132921228 )' DORREM a BD DAYS wOATS woer5 lw DAVN °1RD Dere
BILLED ACCOUNT NAME AND ADONESS 9I NEMniANCE ADDRf55
43655 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLAN BD-LGL TIMES /REVIEW NEWSPAPERS
R°G BVOUCHER t AFFIDAVIT 7785 MAIN ROAD 51 a
e 1 BILMNGAICO/12/2006 P O BOX 1179 P.O. BOX 1500
135567 SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 Mattituck, NY 11952
AOYLRTBER I CLIENT HUMBER (631)298-3200
135567
-------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE DETACH AND RETURN UPPER PORTION WITH YOUR REMITTANCE
,O NATE NE WSPAPER RFFE RENCE OESCRIP jO'OTNER COMMENTF I CNARO11 TIMESRUN GROSS AMOUNT NFT AMOVNi
PUMICATION TRIBUIION RATE
10/12/2006 728010 118068-SCOPING 10/16p1X36L@.415 P,GE I
SUFF TIMES LEGAL AD 1.000 14.94 14.94
OCT 1 3 2006 �I
STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT AGING OF PAST DUE AMOUNTS Pay this amount➢ 14.94
x COPREN xl GO DA.S RG CA- SO DAIS IxG Oe.R >.,D OAIE1"1111110 A"'U'T III
TOTAL 14.94DGE
TIMES I REVIEW NEWSPAPERS The News Review The Suffolk Times
7765 Mein Reed,P.O.8DII 1500 The North Shore Sun Shelter Island Reporter
MSNhd,NY 1185E
(6311288 3200 Wine Press
OVEPTSER I CLIENT DUMBER UVERTISER I CUENT AAMC
INVOICE IO BIWrv[.PtrylOp 16 FCCDUNT NUMLDV p
43655 10/12/2006 w1135567 135567 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLAN BD-LGL
OKI - DO , LTD .
SITE PLAN FOR GAZA HOLISTIC CIRCLE
1000 =38 =7 -7 . 1 •
Proposal is for construction of a holistic health center on an 18.7-acre
parcel in the Mil Zone.
SCOPING SESSION :
MONDAY, OCT. 16 , 2006 - 4 : 30 P . M .
• • Page 1 of 1
Randolph, Linda
From: JOAN ANN paweber@timesreview.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 9:07 AM
To: Randolph, Linda
Subject: Re: legal ad for 10/12 edition
Linda
Legal received and being processed
Joan Ann
-----Original Message -----
From: Randolph Linda
To: ]aweber timesreview com
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:37 AM
Subject: legal ad for 10/12 edition
Joan Ann,
Please publish the attached legal notice of the October 16 Public Scoping Session, and send confirmation of
receipt.
Thanks,
Linda
10/10/2006
MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEM 3ERP P.O. Box 1179
JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE ��OF N
so Southold,Southold, Y 11971
Chair �0 l�
OFFICE LOCATION:
KENNETH L.EDWARDS # Town Hall Annex
MARTIN H.SIDOR G 54375 State Route 25
GEORGE D.SOLOMON �O (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND � Courm Southold, NY
(� Telephone: 631 765-1938
Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice of Public Scoping Hearing
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to 6NYCRR Park 617.8, a scoping session will be
held by the Southold Town Planning Board, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York
on the 16th day of October, 2006 on the question of the following:
4:30 p.m. Proposed site plan for Gaia Holistic Circle located approximately 3,278 ft. s/o NYS
Road 25 at the s/e end of Shipyard Lane, East Marion, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk,
State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-38-7-7.1.
The Town of Southold Planning Board as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617 of the State
Regulations for Article 8, the State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) Act of the
Environmental Conservation Law, has scheduled a public meeting for the purpose of
determining the scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to be prepared for
the proposed action described in this notice. The Town of Southold Planning Board has
determined that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and has issued a
SEQR Positive Declaration requiring the applicant to prepare a DEIS.
Dated: 10/10/06
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Jerilyn B. Woodhouse
Chairperson
PLEASE PRINT ONCE ON THURSDAY, October 12, 2006 AND FORWARD ONE (1)
AFFIDAVIT TO THIS OFFICE. THANK YOU.
COPY SENT TO: The Suffolk Times
STATE OF NEW YORK)
SS:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
LINDA RANDOLPH, Secretary to the Planning Board of the Town of Southold, New
York, being duly sworn, says that on the 10th day of October, 2006, she affixed a
notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial
manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to
wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold,
New York.
10/16/06 Special Meeting:
4:30 p.m. Public Scoping Hearing for the proposed site plan for Gaia Holistic Circle
- SCTM#'s 1000-38-7-7.1.
Linda Randolph
Secretary, Southold Town Planning Board
Sworn to before me this
10�- day ofO{A,t'- , 2006.
Notary P_ is
MELANIE DOROSKI
NOTARY PUBLIC,State of New York
No. 01D04634870
Qualified in Suffolk County O
Commission Expires September 30,a OL1
MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERP.O. Box 1179
JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE P, Southold, NY 11971
Chair v�
OFFICE LOCATION:
KENNETH L.EDWARDS Town Hall Annex
MARTIN H.SIDOR 54375 State Route 25
GEORGE D.SOLOMON �O (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
JOSEPH L. TOWNSENDCOUNTV,"�c� Southold, NY
j1 4` Telephone: 631 765-1935
Fax: 631 765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice of Public Scoping Hearing
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to 6NYCRR Park 617.8, a scoping session will be
held by the Southold Town Planning Board, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York
on the 16th day of October, 2006 on the question of the following:
4:30 p.m. Proposed site plan for Gaia Holistic Circle located approximately 3,278 ft. s/o NYS
Road 25 at the s/e end of Shipyard Lane, East Marion, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk,
State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-38-7-7.1.
The Town of Southold Planning Board as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617 of the State
Regulations for Article 8, the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Act of the
Environmental Conservation Law, has scheduled a public meeting for the purpose of
determining the scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to be prepared for
the proposed action described in this notice. The Town of Southold Planning Board has
determined that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and has issued a
SEQR Positive Declaration requiring the applicant to prepare a DEIS.
Dated: 10/10/06
BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Jerilyn B. Woodhouse
Chairperson
t
Town of Southold
Notice of Public Scoping Meeting
GAIA Holistic Circle/Oki-Do, Ltd.
Revised October 16,2006
MEETING DATE: Monday, October 16, 2006 at 4:30 P.M.
LOCATION: Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold,NY 11971
The Town of Southold Planning Board, as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617 of the State regulations for
Article 8,the State Environmental Quality Review(SEAR) Act of the Environmental Conservation Law,
has scheduled a public meeting for the purpose of determining the scope of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) to be prepared for the proposed action described in this notice. The Town of
Southold Planning Board has determined that the project will have a significant effect on the environment
and has issued a SEQR Positive Declaration requiring the applicant to prepare a DEIS.
APPLICANT: GAIA Holistic Circle/Oki-Do,Ltd.
2835 Shipyard Lane,East Marion
SCTM# : 1000-38-7-7.1
STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS/APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT:
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NYS DEC)
401 Water Quality Certification (NYS DEG)
Excavation and Development Permit (Town of Southold)
Building Permits (Town of Southold)
Site Plan Approval (Town of Southold)
Site Soil Monitoring and Management Plan (SCDHS &DEC)
Copies of this Notice Sent to:
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Southold Town Building Department NYSDEC- Stony Brook
Southold Town Clerk for Southold Town Board New York State Department of Transportation
Scott Russell,Southold Town Supervisor Suffolk County Water Authority
Southold Town Board of Trustees Suffolk County Planning Department
Southold Town Engineer Architectural Review Committee
Mark Terry,LWRP Coordinator Army Corps of Engineers
Commissioner,NYS DEC Suffolk County Department of Public Works
New York State Department of State File
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This proposed action requires a special exception and site plan to construct a holistic health center with a
total of 114 transient motel rooms consisting of 23 guest lodges totaling 87 accessory motel units (14 lodges
containing 3 unit motel rooms &9 guest lodges containing 5 unit motel rooms). The remaining 27 motel
units are to be located in the main spa building along with a 185 seat restaurant (103 private guest seats, 72
public guest seats), 10 public bar seats,office space, retail gift shop, 27 personal service treatment suites and
accessory uses. The proposed action also involves a 3,864 sq. ft. private restaurant annex with 45-99 private
GAIA Holistic Circle/Oki-Do,Ltd. Page Two October 10, 2006
guest seats and a covered 758 sq. ft. deck, 1,987 sq. ft. manager's residence with a 687 sq. ft. deck, pool, a
7,205 sq. ft. maintenance and utility-building, a sanitary waste treatment facility, 1,160 sq. ft. for three (3)
gazebos,man-made water features, replacement of the existing bulkhead,dredging of the 16 slip private
marina basin, and various outdoor amenities on a 18.7 acre parcel in the MII Zone located approximately
3,278 ft. south of New York State Road 25 at the south east end of Shipyard Lane known as 2835 Shipyard
Lane in East Marion. SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1
PROJECT LOCATION:
The subject property lies in the hamlet of East Marion, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk,New York.
The subject property consists of an 18.7± acre parcel located on the east side of Shipyard Lane, immediately
west of the terminus of the Cleave Point Road right of way. The parcel contains approximately 927 feet of
frontage on Shipyard Lane, 50 feet of frontage on the Cleave Point Road right of way, and approximately
920 feet of frontage along Gardiners Bay. The site is currently zoned Marine II (M-2) District.
MEETING PURPOSE:
The purpose of"scoping" is to focus the DEIS on potentially significant adverse impacts and to eliminate
consideration of those impacts that are irrelevant or non-significant. Some environmental impacts to be
considered for evaluation in the DEIS are identified in the Department's Positive Declaration and in the
project Sponsor's (Patricia Moore, Esq.) Draft Scoping Document. Scoping will help to ensure that this
DEIS is a comprehensive,accurate and complete document, adequate for public review and which properly
evaluates the environmental impacts that may occur if the proposed build out was to occur.
PUBLIC MEETING:
The public scoping session will be held on Monday, October 16,2006 at 4:30 P.M., at the Town of
Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road, Southold,NY 11971. Statements from local government officials,
legislators,interested and involved agencies, and the public will be heard after a Planning Board Chair
Statement is read into the record and the applicant gives a brief presentation detailing the proposed project.
A stenographic record of the meeting will be prepared.Written statements will also be accepted until
October 26,2006 at the Town of Southold Planning Board office address at the end of this notice.
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION:
The application file maybe reviewed by appointment at the Town of Southold Planning Board Department.
In addition,the applicant has provided a Draft Scoping Document containing a summary of the SEAR
process, including scoping,the project proposal and some potential environmental impacts. The applicant's
Draft Scoping Document has not been approved bythe Town of Southold Planning Board. It is being
presented at this time for public review and comment. Copies of this Draft Scoping Document have been
mailed to involved and interested agencies.
In addition,the document maybe reviewed at the Town of Southold Planning Board,54375 State Route 25
Southold,New York 11971 and Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road,Southold, NY 11971.
Anyone who plans to participate in the scoping meeting by providing comment is urged to review a copy of
this document prior to the meeting. The scoping meeting location is reasonably accessible to persons with a
mobilityimpairment. Interpreter services will also be made available to deaf persons, at no charge,upon
written request to the Contact Person named at the end of this notice,within one week prior to the meeting,
GAIA Holistic Circle/Oki-Do,Ltd. Page Three October 10, 2006
pursuant to Section 202(1) of the State Administrative Procedures Act. All persons having an interest in this
project are urged to attend or be represented either individually or collectively.
NOTICE DATE: October 10,2006
CONTACT PERSON: Bruno Semon, Senior Site Plan Reviewer
Town of Southold Planning Board
P. O. Box 1179
54375 State Route 25
Southold, New York 11971
Telephone: 631-765-1938
Town of Southold
Notice of Public Scoping Meeting
GMA Holistic Circle/Oki-Do, Ltd.
MEETING DATE: Monday, October 16,2006 at 4:30 P.M.
LOCATION: Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road,Southold,NY 11971
The Town of Southold Planning Board,as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617 of the State regulations for
Article 8,the State Environmental Quality Review(SEAR) Act of the Environmental Conservation Law,
has scheduled a public meeting for the purpose of determining the scope of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) to be prepared for the proposed action described in this notice. The Town of
Southold Planning Board has determined that the project will have a significant effect on the environment
and has issued a SEQR Positive Declaration requiring the applicant to prepare a DEIS.
APPLICANT: GAIA Holistic Circle/Oki-Do,Ltd.
2835 Shipyard Lane,East Marion
SCTM# : 1000-38-7-7.1
STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS/APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT:
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NYS DEC)
401 Water Quality Certification (NYS DEC)
Excavation and Development Permit (Town of Southold)
Building Permits (Town of Southold)
Site Plan Approval (Town of Southold)
Site Soil Monitoring and Management Plan (SCDHS &DEC)
Copies of this Notice Sent to:
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Southold Town Building Department NYSDEC- Stony Brook
Southold Town Clerk for Southold Town Board New York State Department of Transportation
Scott Russell,Southold Town Supervisor Suffolk County Water Authority
Southold Town Board of Trustees Suffolk County Planning Department
Southold Town Engineer Architectural Review Committee
Mark Terry,LWRP Coordinator Army Corps of Engineers
Commissioner,NYS DEC Suffolk County Department of Public Works
New York State Department of State File
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This proposed action requires a special exception and site plan to construct a holistic health center with a
total of 114 transient motel rooms consisting of 23 guest lodges totaling 87 accessory motel units (14 lodges
containing 3 unit motel rooms &9 guest lodges containing 5 unit motel rooms). The remaining 27 motel
units are to be located in the main spa building along with a 185 seat restaurant (103 private guest seats, 72
public guest seats), 10 public bar seats, office space, retail gift shop,27 personal service treatment suites and
accessory uses. The proposed action also involves a 3,864 sq. ft. private restaurant annex with 45-99 private
0 0
GAIA Holistic Circle/Oki-Do,Ltd. Page Two October 10,2006
guest seats and a covered 758 sq. ft. deck, 1,987 sq. ft. manager's residence with a 687 sq. ft. deck, pool, a
7,205 sq. ft. maintenance and utility building,a sanitary waste treatment facility, 1,160 sq. ft. for three (3)
gazebos,man-made water features, replacement of the existing bulkhead,dredging of the 16 slip private
marina basin, and various outdoor amenities on a 18.7 acre parcel in the MII Zone located approximately
3,278 ft. south of New York State Road 25 at the south east end of Shipyard Lane known as 2835 Shipyard
Lane in East Marion. SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1
PROJECT LOCATION:
The subject propertylies in the hamlet of East Marion, Town of Southold, Countyof Suffolk,New York
The subject property consists of an 18.7± acre parcel located on the east side of Shipyard Lane,immediately
west of the terminus of the Cleave Point Road right of way. The parcel contains approximately 927 feet of
frontage on Shipyard Lane, 50 feet of frontage on the Cleave Point Road right of way,and approximately
920 feet of frontage along Gardiners Bay. The site is currently zoned Marine II (M-2) District.
MEETING PURPOSE:
The purpose of"scoping"is to focus the DEIS on potentially significant adverse impacts and to eliminate
consideration of those impacts that are irrelevant or non-significant. Some environmental impacts to be
considered for evaluation in the DEIS are identified in the Department's Positive Declaration and in the
project Sponsor's (Patricia Moore, Esq.) Draft Scoping Document. Scoping will help to ensure that this
DEIS is a comprehensive,accurate and complete document, adequate for public review and which properly
evaluates the environmental impacts that may occur if the proposed landfill expansion is approved.
PUBLIC MEETING:
The public scoping session will be held on Monday, October 16,2006 at 4:30 P.M., at the Town of
Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road, Southold,NY 11971. Statements from local government officials,
legislators, interested and involved agencies,and the public will be heard after a Planning Board Chair
Statement is read into the record and the applicant gives a brief presentation detailing the proposed project.
A stenographic record of the meeting will be prepared.Written statements will also be accepted until
October 26,2006 at the Town of Southold Planning Board office address at the end of this notice.
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION:
The application file may be reviewed by appointment at the Town of Southold Planning Board Department.
In addition,the applicant has provided a Draft Scoping Document containing a summary of the SEAR
process,including scoping,the project proposal and some potential environmental impacts. The applicant's
Draft Scoping Document has not been approved by the Town of Southold Planning Board. It is being
presented at this time for public review and comment. Copies of this Draft Scoping Document have been
mailed to involved and interested agencies.
In addition,the document may be reviewed at the Town of Southold Planning Board,54375 State Route 25
Southold,New York 11971 and Town of Southold Town Hall,53095 Main Road,Southold,NY 11971.
Anyone who plans to participate in the scoping meeting by providing comment is urged to review a copy of
this document prior to the meeting. The scoping meeting location is reasonably accessible to persons with a
mobility impairment. Interpreter services will also be made available to deaf persons,at no charge,upon
written request to the Contact Person named at the end of this notice,within one week prior to the meeting,
0
GAIA Holistic Circle/Oki-Do,Ltd. Page Three October 10, 2006
pursuant to Section 202(1) of the State Administrative Procedures Act. All persons having an interest in this
project are urged to attend or be represented either individually or collectively.
NOTICE DATE: October 10,2006
CONTACI' PERSON: Bruno Semon,Senior Site Plan Reviewer
Town of Southold Planning Board
P. O.Box 1179
54375 State Route 25
Southold,New York 11971
Telephone: 631-765-1938
0
DRAFT SCOPE
FOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
"GAIA HOLISTIC CIRCLE"
PROPOSED SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT FOR TRANSIENT MOTEL
SHIPYARD LANE, EAST MARION, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
Overview
This document is a Draft Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") for a
proposed transient motel on a 17.325-acre parcel located at the southerly end of Shipyard Lane
on Gardener's Bay, in the hamlet of East Marion, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk.
The proposed action includes the construction of a 114-room motel in 24 buildings, with a
related restaurant, a pool, personal services facilities, a private marina with 16 boat slips,
maintenance and utility building, and a manager's residence. The proposed motel property
would be aesthetically improved with a man-made lake, Japanese gardens and native
landscaping.
To ensure that the DEIS will address all significant issues, the Planning Board of the Town of
Southold, as lead agency, has elected to conduct formal scoping pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617.8.
As such, the applicant is required to prepare and submit this Draft Scope to the lead agency
which provides a description of the proposed action and the applicants' proposed content for the
DEIS. Thus, this Draft Scope has been prepared in accordance with 6 NYCRR §617.8 and sets
forth the following:
• Brief description of the proposed action;
• Potentially significant adverse impacts;
• Extent and quality of information needed to adequately address potentially
significant adverse impacts;
• Initial identification of mitigation measures; and
• Reasonable alternatives to be considered.
I
Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action includes the construction of a 114-unit motel. The location of units will
vary by building type, including a transient motel building with 27 units, nine buildings
containing five units each, and 13 buildings containing three units each. The total building area
dedicated to motel units is 85,874± square feet. The proposed development also includes a
3,834±-square-foot restaurant, a 1,987±-square-foot manager's residence, and a 1,373±-square-
foot pool house with a swimming pool. On-site parking consisting of 189 spaces, including 27
landbanked spaces, will be constructed to accommodate guests and employees. A private marina
with 16 boat slips is also proposed.
In order to facilitate development the action will require the demolition and disposal of
approximately 35,165 square feet of existing structures (the old oyster processing plant); material
will be recycled as appropriate. Debris and old bulkhead (approximately 456 linear feet) will be
removed along Gardener's Bay. A stone revetment, matching the shore protection structure of
the condominiums to the west, will be in stalled where the old bulkhead was located. The
refurbishment of the existing boat basin, to create the private marina, will include replacement
in-place of approximately 515 linear feet of existing bulkhead. The existing fixed pier will be
removed and replaced with approximately 540 feet of floating docks (including eight (8)4-foot
by 30-foot floating finger piers) within boat basin. In addition, approximately 2,500 cubic yards
of material will be dredged from the inlet of boat basin. Dredge spoil to be used as beach
nourishment, fill behind stone revetment and/or disposed of at an approved upland location.
The aesthetics of the property will be diverse with natural features, including a man-made lake
that traverses the unit areas, Japanese gardens and native plantings as landscaping. Primary
access to the subject property would be from Shipyard Lane, at its southern extent. The project
shall seek LEED green building status. This includes, but not limited to energy usage and
efficiency,restoration of land and shoreline, recycling, water savings, transportation, etc.
The subject property is situated within a Marina II Zoning District and the use is permitted by
special exception from the Town of Southold Board of Appeals.
2
The proposed drainage plan would include drywells and a man-made lake, designed to
accommodate 100 percent of stormwater on the site. Sanitary discharge would be
accommodated on-site with a CromaglassTm treatment system, which would be subject to review
and approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services ("SCDHS"). Potable water
for domestic use and fire protection is available along Shipyard Lane from water mains owned
by the Suffolk County Water Authority("SCWA"). The proposed plan would include the
establishment of a new connection to the SCWA mains.
Site History
The subject property was improved with an oyster-processing facility circa 1964, together with
three smaller detached wooden and metal buildings. One or more of these detached buildings
was used for maintenance and/or repair activities, since equipped with waste oil and other oil
USTs, and as a machine shop. In addition, an existing metal storage and maintenance building,
likely used for boat maintenance, was completed in 1983 and East End Diesel, Inc., a diesel
engine repair and remanufacturing company,occupied the southernmost building from the late
1980s to circa 1996. The oyster-processing facility ceased operations circa 1988 and the subject
property is currently vacant. Single-family homes and crop fields historically surrounded the
subject property.
hi order to develop the site as proposed, the following approvals are required:
Agency Approval
Town of Southold Board of A eals Special Exception Use
Town of Southold Planning Board Site Plan
Town of Southold Highway Road Work Permit
Department
Town of Southold Town Trustees Wetlands Permit
Suffolk County Department of Sewage Treatment Plant
Health Services
Suffolk County Water Authority Water Supply Connection
New York State Department of 1. Notice of Intent— SPDES General Permit for Stormwater
Environmental Conservation Discharges During Construction Activities
2. SPDES Discharge Permit
3. Tidal Wetlands Permit
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Individual Permit
3
The section of the DEIS entitled Description of the Proposed Action will provide a thorough
description of the existing site conditions and the proposed action (which has been briefly
described above). The Description of the Proposed Action section of the DEIS will specifically
include information relating to:
• Site and project history (including prior public involvement and input) and
objectives of the project sponsor;
• Project purpose, need and benefits;
• Physical characteristics of the site and existing site conditions;
• Utilities;
• A summary of subsurface features, suspected contamination on the area proposed
for development and remediation initiatives;
• Detailed information on the proposed development including zoning and build-
out data(e.g., buildings,pavement, landscaping, buffers, etc.) and site operations;
• Site access and circulation;
• Infrastructure demands including water supply,wastewater treatment and storm
water management; and
• Required approvals.
Potentially Si¢nificant Adverse Impacts
The DEIS will be prepared in accordance with 6 NYCRR §617.9(b). The Environmental
Assessment Form identified the following potential adverse environmental impacts that may
result from implementation of the proposed action that, as such, must be evaluated in the DEIS:
soils and topography; water resources; ecology; land use and zoning; transportation; community
facilities and services; aesthetics and cultural resources; and Consistency Analysis with the New
York State Coastal Zone Management Program. These potential adverse impacts will be fully
addressed in various DEIS sections, as briefly outlined below.
4
Soils and Tonoaranhv
The Soil Survey of Suffolk County will be reviewed to determine soil classifications on the site
and in the project area. This section of the DEIS will assess the soil type(s) on the site and the
associated engineering limitations using the Soil Survey of Suffolk County and available soil
boring logs.
Topographic information will be included as obtained through review of relevant USGS Maps
and available site-specific topographic surveys. A thorough narrative description of potential
adverse impacts to soils and topography and strategies to minimize impacts will be included in
this analysis. Changes in topography that would occur, including a quantitative characterization
of the cut and fill required, will also be provided.
Water Resources
To adequately assess the potential impacts associated with the proposed development, the
recommendations of the Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208
Study) will be reviewed for applicability and consistency of the proposed action therewith. The
DEIS will also discuss the relevancy of the Special Groundwater Protection Area(SGPA) Plan.
Furthermore, the consistency of the proposed action with the findings of the Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program (NURP) and Nonpoint Source Management Handbook will be evaluated.
Applicable Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) regulations and
requirements will be identified, and the compliance of the action with same will be evaluated.
Regional and local hydrogeology conditions and regional water quality will be discussed. Depth
to groundwater and direction of flow will be determined.
The DEIS will provide calculations of projected water consumption for each use proposed and,
in consultation with the Suffolk County Water Authority, will evaluate the ability to meet this
projected water demand.
5
The existing stormwater management system on the site will be described. This will include, but
not be limited to: stormwater generated, available information relative to collection and
management systems, and system capacity. In addition,post-development stormwater
management conditions will be evaluated. This evaluation will include: calculations of
stormwater to be generated, details of the proposed collection and management systems, system
capacity, future maintenance practices for stormwater collection and leaching structures and
analysis of how the proposed stormwater management system will comply with applicable
regulatory requirements, including the Phase 2 stormwater regulations.
Means of sanitary disposal will also be discussed in this section of the DEIS. Calculations of
projected sanitary flow and consistency with the Suffolk County Sanitary Code will also be
provided. The proposed project's impact on groundwater quality will be evaluated.
As the proposed action includes the installation of an irrigation well, the yield of the well must
be provided to determine the need for a Long Island Well Permit and to evaluate the potential
impacts associated therewith.
As the site is situated in Zone AE, base elevations as promulgated by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency(FEMA) would be identified, and a consistency analysis with same would
be included.
Federal and State wetland maps indicate that the proposed action would be under the jurisdiction
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("ACOE") and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation("NYSDEC"). As such, all required wetland permit applications to
the ACOE and the NYSDEC would be made. Copies of all existing wetland permits would also
be provided (e.g., the existing maintenance dredge permit) and a discussion of each permit will
be included.
Ecoloey
All natural resources existing on the site will be evaluated in the DEIS through an inspection of
6
the site by a qualified biologist/ecologist to determine the vegetation, wildlife, and general
habitat character. An inventory of flora and fauna observed and expected will be provided in this
section of the DEIS. In addition, protected native plants, plant and animal species listed as
endangered, threatened, special concern (or with other protective status) and significant habitat
areas on or in the vicinity of the project site will be identified. As part of this assessment, the
NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program will be contacted to obtain available information on
significant natural resources on the site or in the surrounding area.
Once the existing conditions data are obtained, future changes expected to any natural resources
on the site and/or in the surrounding area will be assessed. Specifically,this section of the DEIS
will evaluate the impacts of the proposed plan on the terrestrial ecology of the area.
Land Use and Zoning
This section of the DEIS will describe existing land use and zoning on the subject site and in the
surrounding area. A physical description of the property(size, boundaries, etc.)will be
provided. This section of the DEIS will also provide information on the development history of
the site and surrounding area; a land use study of surrounding areas; description of zoning
regulations for the project site and surrounding area zoning. As part of this effort, relevant land
use plans and policies, including the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, will be
reviewed. Specifically, this effort will evaluate applicable comprehensive plans and master
planning efforts.
This section of the DEIS will also describe the proposed action in detail including each of the
proposed uses and their proposed location on the subject property. The DEIS will present a site
plan that will clearly identify all areas to be developed with buildings,parking areas, walkways,
etc. as well as all impervious areas and their use.
Once the above information is compiled, the DEIS will assess the impacts of the proposed action
on land use and zoning. The impact assessment will concentrate on evaluating the consistency of
the proposed action with prevailing land use and zoning. The compatibility of the proposed
action with area land use will be assessed.
7
Transportation
The DEIS will include a thorough analysis of the traffic impacts of the proposed development on
the area's roadway system. The work performed will include analyses of the proposed plan and
internal roadway system and a full traffic impact study assessing the proposed development's
impact on the surrounding roadways. Tasks to be performed as part of the traffic impact study
will include collection of data regarding planned roadway improvements and other
developments, field surveys and counts of existing traffic volumes, estimates of future traffic
volumes, analyses of existing and future traffic volumes and identification and timing of required
roadway improvements and the entity responsible for initiating those improvements. The
following specific tasks will be undertaken and documented in the traffic and transportation
section of the DEIS:
1. Several personal, on-site field observations to observe the traffic movements under
various conditions.
2. A physical inventory of the adjacent street network.
3. An analysis of the traffic volume data obtained from the New York State Department
of Transportation and the files of Dunn Engineering Associates.
4. Supplementary manual traffic counts and Automatic Traffic Recorder(ATR) counts
to be collected as necessary to update the available volume counts.
5. An examination of the traffic flow on Main Road(NYS Route 25) and Shipyard Lane
in the vicinity of the site.
6. An evaluation of the safety factors by reviewing recent accident records obtained
from the New York State Department of Transportation.
7. The availability of police and fire protection services to the site.
8. A trip generation analysis to determine the additional traffic attributable to the
proposed Gaia Holistic Center development.
9. A directional distribution analysis to distribute the site-generated traffic onto the
surrounding street network.
8
10. A trip assignment analysis to examine the composite traffic volumes that would result
due to the addition of the site-generated traffic to the existing traffic volumes in order
to determine the traffic impacts on the surrounding roadways.
11. Capacity analyses at key signalized and unsignalized intersections in order to
examine their ability to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed
Gaia Holistic Center.
12. A review of the access arrangements.
13. An evaluation of the adequacy of the proposed parking to meet the demands of the
proposed use.
14. Conclusions of the traffic impact of the development as a result of the data and facts
gathered in this study.
Community Facilities and Services
The existing community services and the ability of these services to accommodate the proposed
project will be described. The services include:
• Police;
• Fire and Ambulance Services;
• Water supply;
• Sanitary; and
• Solid Waste.
The impact analysis contained in the DEIS will include consultations with service providers
regarding existing demand for services and capacity such that the DEIS will objectively analyze
the impact of the proposed action on community facilities and services. The DEIS will include
detailed projections of service demand with supporting documentation.
9
Aesthetics and Cultural Resources
This section of the DEIS will discuss and depict (through representative photographs) the current
aesthetic character of the site and surrounding area. Architectural renderings of the proposed
development and/or line-of-sight drawings from Gardiners Bay will be prepared to determine the
visual impact of the proposed project.
With regard to cultural resources, consultations will be undertaken with the New York State
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation ("OPRHP"). If additional testing is
requested by OPRHP, a qualified archaeologist will be retained to perform same. If any cultural
such resources exist, the impacts of the proposed development on same will be assessed by a
qualified archaeologist and the results of that study will be provided in the DEIS.
Extent and Quality of Information Needed to Adequately Address Potentially Si¢nificant
Adverse Impacts
In order to conduct the analyses of potential adverse impacts, available information will be
collected and reviewed and empirical information will be developed. While it is not possible to
determine all information sources to be used, the following represents sources/research that have
been preliminarily identified as necessary to perform the required analyses in the DEIS.
Soils, Subsurface Conditions and Topography
• Soil Survey of Suffolk County
• Available soil boring logs
• Existing studies, analyses,reports, regulatory documentation regarding subsurface
conditions
• USGS Maps and available site specific topographic surveys
10
Water Resources
• United States Geological Survey. 2002. Water Table of the Upper Glacial Aquifer on
Eastern Long Island.
• Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan
• Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan
• Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
• Nonpoint Source Management Handbook
• Flood Insurance Rate Maps
• NYSDEC Freshwater and Tidal Wetland Maps
• National Wetlands Inventory Map
• Consultations with the Suffolk County Water Authority
• Suffolk County Sanitary Code and other applicable regulations
• Consultations with NYSDEC and ACOE
Ecology
• Site inspections by a qualified biologist/ecologist
• Consultations with the NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program
Land Use and Zonin¢
• Available and relevant comprehensive plans (zoning maps, codes, Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program, etc.)of the Town of Southold and Suffolk County
• Site and area inspections
Transportation
• Traffic counts
• Accident data review
• Projections of site generated traffic using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
publication entitled Trip Generation, Seventh Edition or any subsequent edition
• Highway Capacity Manual
11
Community Facilities and Services
• Consultations with community services providers (police, fire, ambulance, water
purveyor, sanitary, solid waste)
Aesthetics and Cultural Resources
• Site and area inspections and photographs
• Consultations with the OPRHP
Initial Identification of Mitigation Measures
As the DEIS analyses have not yet been conducted, no specific mitigation measures have yet
been developed. Nonetheless, where the impact analyses conducted in the DEIS indicate the
potential for significant adverse impacts, this section of the DEIS will set forth measures to
mitigate those impacts. Actions required and parties responsible to implement the mitigation
will be identified.
Reasonable Alternatives to Be Considered
Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, the DEIS must contain a description and evaluation of
reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. Thus, the DEIS will analyze the impacts of the
following alternatives and quantitatively and qualitatively compare these impacts to those
associated with implementation of the proposed action:
• No-Action (i.e., site physically remains as it currently exists and is fully
occupied); and
• Development in accordance with prevailing zoning(i.e., Country-Residence 40).
Organization of DEIS
Although not required as part of a Draft Scope pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617.8, so that involved
12
agencies and interested parties can comment on the proposed sections of the DEIS, below is a
proposed table of contents:
1.0 Executive Summary
2.0 Description of the Proposed Action
3.0 Existing Environmental Conditions
3.1 Soils and Topography
3.2 Water Resources
3.3 Ecology
3.4 Land Use and Zoning
3.5 Transportation
3.6 Community Facilities and Services
3.7 Aesthetics and Cultural Resources
4.0 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action
4.1 Soils and Topography
4.2 Water Resources
4.3 Ecology
4.4 Land Use and Zoning
4.5 Transportation
4.6 Community Facilities and Services
4.7 Aesthetics and Cultural Resources
5.0 Mitigation Measures
6.0 Alternatives and their Impacts
6.1 No-Action
6.2 Development in accordance with prevailing zoning
7.0 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
8.0 Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources
9.0 Growth Inducing Aspects
10.0 Use and Conservation of Energy
13
�s
s
SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
40 Timothy J. Hopkins Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway,Oakdale, NY 11769-0901
General Counsel (631)563-0236
Fax (631) 563-0370
October 5, 2006
Ms. Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson
Planning Board Office
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: SEQRA - Oki-Do Ltd, 238 Shipyard Lane, East Marion
Dear Ms. Woodhouse:
Our agency is in receipt of your correspondence dated Septemberl2, 2006 along with the
Town's Notice of Determination of Significance for the above captioned matter.
I would like to reiterate my request for information pertaining to projected year round water
demands as additional demands on our water supply system may require upgrading ofexisting water
mains supplying the site.
Additionally,it would appear that the EAF as submitted is incomplete,as Part 3 ofthe application
was not completed, a provision required in evaluating potentially large impacts.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further,please contact my office at 631-563-0219.
VYeecutive
Sf
COfficer ,.
2006
SMJ:kk __ J
PATRICIA C. MOORE (�
IS
Attorney at Law \' �
51020 Main Road
Southold,New York 11971
Tel: (631)765-4330
Fax: (631)765-4643
October 3, 2006,_,
Attn: Bruno
Planning Board OCT
Town of Southold
Main Road, PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
RE: OKI-DO. LTD.
Dear Bruno:
With re ence to the above, enclosed please find my clients check in the amount
of $5,000.00 maa payable to Nelson Pope & Voorhis to be held in escrow by them.
t Kindl turn my clients original check in that amount which had been made
payab e o the Town of Southold.
Thank you and please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions.
yours,
JO. 00re
PC /bp
encls.
•
161316-4
KI DO LTD �'°343 1661
• n
DATE l/
Ila ORDEROOF�Iy �v
DOLLARS LJ
HCHC A5E
IDMorgan Chase Bank,ICA ,p�/ A,
ew Y."New Vmk 1001, Q tq /
www.chas
MEMO .com \ //'�,+(\►/��J
Q
L
1:0 210000 2 11: 3435000 1606/ Sus 166