HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Generic Environmental Impact Statement Proposed LL 1988
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REalVED
SEP 201988
FINAL
irown CIeIk SOuth!'IIl
GENERIC
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW OF 1988
AMENDING THE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING ORDINANCE
JULY, 1988
~IIA- ~
~t. 9.J 7.1'i'(jj)
..-..- .
L
: ,:,>/,,]
,'. -,.^
S41
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & PLANNERS
S41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FINAL
GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW OF 1988
AMENDING THE TOWN OF SOUTH OLD ZONING ORDINANCE
IO"!"'" ...". "') "'~ ^,,~.,.^n"
.\,......; ;..,- _.'" \..-t .1 I ir.:.t..:.i..~
,-,: .,
t:f :', _; - _. ::. ::'j
S...;....I..____.J, i.~.'i. _1J.:;;- J.
S41
I SZEPATOWSKf ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CQNSLHA!'.TS & PlANMRS
S41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
· S41
5ZEPATOWSKI AS50ClATE5 INC.
. S41
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION I:
PROGRAM DOCUMENTS
A.
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
(by reference)....................................
I-I
B.
Reprint of the Town
Report on Cultural,
Resources, Southold
Master Plan Background Studies
Historic, and Archeological
Planning Board, April 1983......1-2
C.
Reprint of the Town Draft Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program Section on Significant
Wildlife Habitats, April 1987.......................1-6
SECTION II:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A.
Stenographic Record of Public Hearing of
April 26, 1987.....................................11-1
B.
Written Comments Received on DEIS following
Public Hearing of April 26, 1988...................11-83
SECTION III:
COMMENTS
LEAD AGENCY'S RESPONSES TO SUBSTANTIVE
A.
Public Hearing....................................III-!
B.
Written Comments.................................. 111-8
C.
Proposed Text Revision............................III-9
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSL'l TANTS & PL"'NERS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I S41
I S4iWSK' ASSOCIATES INC.
FINAL
GENERIC
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
on
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW
AMENDING THE TOWN OF SOUTH OLD ZONING ORDINANCE
Prepared by:
David J. S. Emilita, AICP, Town Planner
Szepatowski Associates, Inc.
Prepared for:
Town Board
Town of Southold
531195 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
516/765-181111
For Further Information Contact:
David J. S. Emilita
Date of Acceptance by Town Board:
~~;(;~/C/?'/ ,-.1;/' 1'/frY
:)1;/;ibA/ !vZ;; /1'//
/ /
Last Date for Comments:
E!\OVIRONMENTAl CONSl'l TANTS 8. PLA"-"ifRS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I S41
I SZEPATOW5KI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAl CONSUTANTS &. PlA~""ERS
S41
SCOPE
Pursuant to the positive Declaration dated May 1, 1987, it
was determined that a generic environmental impact statement
should be prepared to assess the proposed zoning amendments
so that individual actions by the Town or by private agencies
carried out in conformance with the Master Plan, its Update,
and the Zoning Ordinance amendments adopted by this Local Law
will require only site specific environmental impact
statements.
The report entitled, "Master Plan Update Summary", from which
the proposed Local Law evolved was adopted as a part of the
draft GElS and will be found on file at the Town Clerk and
Planning Board offices at the Southold Town Hall, Southold
NY.
The full text of the Local Law was adopted as a part of this
GElS and will also be found at the Town Hall.
The draft GElS was the subject of a public hearing on April
26, 1988.
PURPOSE
This the final generic environmental impact statement (FGElS)
is composed of the draft GElS (by reference), certain other
program documents requested to be included (See Table of
Contents), the stenographic record and copies of written
comments, and the Lead Agency's responses to substantive
comments.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I S41
I S4iWSK' ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONM"TAl CONSellA"S & PlANNERS
SECTION I
PROGRAM DOCUMENTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION I.A.
DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FEBRUARY 1988
Incorporated By Reference
A Reference Copy is on File with the
Southold Town Board
S41
I SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIROf\iMENTAl COf\iSL'lTANTS & PLA!\,NfRS
S41
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SECTION I. B.
REPRINT OF SOUTHOLD MASTER PLAN
Section on Cultural, Historical and
Archeological Resources
.
.
S41
. SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVfRO"'iMENTAL CONSUTAqS & PLANNERS
SAI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RPPW
Raymond, Parish, Pine 8< Weiner, Inc. 555 White Plains Road. Tarrytown. NY 10591 914/631.9003 212/365.2666
Memorandum
April 26, 1983
TO: Southold Planning Board
FROM: RPPW, Inc.
RE: CULTURAL, HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The Town of Southold, officially established in 1640, is con-
sidered the first English settlement in the State of New York.
Although originally a part of the New Haven Colony, Southo1d
ceased its affiliation with Connecticut in 1676.
Many buildings of historic significance date from this early
period forward and much evidence remains from the earlier Indian
occupation of the area. The cataloguing of all the sites of
historic and archeologic interest in the Town has not yet been
done on a Townwide basis, although extensive research has been
undertaken by the Oysterpond Historical Society, the Southold
Historic Society, the Mattituck Historic Society and the
Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council. Some of these groups
were aided in their work in the 1970's by the Society for the
Preservation of Long Island Antiquities (SPLIA). In addition,
the Suffolk County Cultural Affairs Office has commissioned
cultural resource surveys and archeological reports on Coun-
ty-held park sites including those in the t~e Town of Southolc.
Reports of much of this research at the local level has been
forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Office (SEPO). SHPO
keeps a log of all properties submitted for its review. This
list of properties, indicates areas where there are properties of
historic and/or archeological interest. The State reviews
reports and where appropriate recommends inclusion of the site in
the National Register of Historic Places.
Revised rules and regulations for the National Historic Landmarks
Program were presented in the Federal Register of February 2,
1983, (36 CFR Part 65). The purpose of the program is to "focus
attention on properties of exceptional value to the nation as a
whole rather than to a particular state or locality." The
I-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
regulations state that districts, sites, buildings, structures,
and objects can possess national significance if they are valu-
able in "illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United
States in history, architecture, archeology, engineering and
culture", and if they are associated with: (1) events of signif-
icance; (2) lives of persons important in U.s. history; (3) an
idea or ideal of the American peoples; (4) distinguishing charac-
teristics of an architectural specimen; (5) cultures or periods
of occupation over large areas of the U.S.; and (6) components
that together composed a significance beyond the value of each
individual portion. Furthermore, sites considered for dis-
tinction generallY. must have achieved significance more than
fifty years ago.
In Southold, four properties/areas have received designation in
the National Register of Historic Places: (1) the Old House in
Cutchogue on Route 25 was built in 1649, moved to its current
location in 1659, and is listed as a good example of English
domestic architecture; (2) also in Cutchogue, the Fort Corchaug
site, location of a rectangular Indian log fort, shows evidence
of prehistoric occupation and European contact; (3) in Mattituck,
the Gildersleeve Octagonal Building at the corner of the Main
Road and Love Lane received designation of historic status and,
in Orient, a Historic District was declared after some 200 houses
were researched and ~ocumented to have historic value.
SHPO has forwarded to the Federal Park Service information on
four additional sites which have been approved as historic
locations and are now eligible for national designation and
eligible for federal funding. In this category are the Southold
Library on the Main Road in Southold, Little Gull Island Light
Station and Plum Island Light Station off Orient Point and Race
Rock Light Station south and west of Fishers Island.
SHPO is reviewing four additional sites in the Tow~ of Southold
for historic status. Those which are pending nomination to the
National Register include: The Terry Mulford house on the north
side of Route 25 in Orient which has also been known as peakens
Tavern or the Heath-Burden House; the Richard Cox house at the
northeast corner of Mill and Luthers Roads in Matti tuck; the
Tuthill-Wickham house on the east side of New Suffolk Lane near
Cases Lane in Cutchogue and the Universalist Church on the Main
Road in Southold.
In addition, as part of the nation's bicentennial celebration in
1976, George and Lynn Summers prepared a map of historic sites in
the Town of Southold erected prior to 1815. The Summers will be
updating this map in the spring and summer of 1983 in preparation
for the County's three hundredth birthday celebration.
A compilation of entries listed in the State log, those sites
indicated on the bicentennial map and some properties listed in
local historic society publications are recorded on a separate
r-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
*
map which will be available in Town Hall. It is clear that a
significant portion of the residential properties listed are
found along Route 25, the so-called Main Road of the Town, with
concentrations of historic properties in each of the hamlet areas
and particularly Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southold and Orient.
Indian locations/archeological sites tend to be closer to the Bay
and Sound. The pattern of historic sites and cultural-archeo-
logical resources will undoubtedly influence the Master Plan.
Further work needs to be done in the Town to catalogue all
properties of historic and archeological significance. It has
been estimated that OAe-half of the Town's properties have been
catalogued on the State's "blue forms." Since preservation of
the quality of life in Southold includes preservation of its
characteristic structures, a priority should be placed on identi-
fying*~nd protecting historic areas and cultural resources in the
Town. Each of the hamlets has a historic area that should be
documented, as has been done in Orient, and steps must be con-
tinually taken for the preservation and enhancement of these
areas. As one step in this direction, a local law to establish a
Landmark Preservation Commission was adopted on January 18, 1983,
and a commission of five members has recently been appointed.
.
~~ woulc like to thank Jean Tledke for her ~rac1c~s assistance in co~p111ng this map.
..
GUidelines an~ Standards for Archeolo~lcal and P.~storic Preservation from the National Park
Service, Depart=eot of the Interior were publlsh~ in the Federal Register of September 29,
1983. While these are not yet requlatlon~, they can provide valuable information to Town
residents and organizations.
1-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I S41
I SZEPATQWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CON5L'lTANTS & PLANNERS
S41
SECTION I.C.
REPRINT OF SOUTHOLD
DRAFT LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
Section on Significant Wildlife Habitats
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I S41
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTA'<l,
I S41
IX. SIGNIFICANT HABITATS
The State of New York has recognized 18 habitats within Southold
that are considered significant in accordance with the criteria
set forth in policy 7 of the 44 state coastal policies. This
policy states that certain habitats support fish and wildlife
populations which are particularly important and therefore merit
the special protection afforded under this policy. Discreet
areas which are considered to be most important to their habitat
value are designated by the state as "significant coastal fish
and wildlife habitats".
The state designation process involves the identification of
potentially significant habitats, a thorough evaluation of the
fish and wildlife values contributing to the habitat's
importance, and the preparation of documents supporting the
designation of the habitat. Additional information and
verification of the evaluation is then sought for each habitat
through public hearings. The final step in habitat designation
is completed with official mapping of the habitat on the Coastal
Area Map. The State Department of Environmental Conservation
assists Department of State (DOS) in identifying and evaluating
potentially significant habitats.
The documentation supporting a habitiat's designation is in the
form of a Habitat Narrative which includes: (1) the
quantitiative basis for designation (rating forms); (2) the
habitat location and description; (3) a summary of fish and
wildlife values; (4) an impact assessment identifying parameters
essential to the habitat's value, and generic activities likely
to impair the habitat's viability; (5) a list of sources of
information providing the basis for the evaluation; and (6) a map
delineating the habitat boundary.
In order to qualify as a Significant Coastal Habitat, one or more
of the following requirements must be met: (1) the habitat is
essential to the survival of a large portion of a fish or
wildlife population; (2) the habitat supports rare or endangered
species or species of a special concern; (3) the habitat supports
fish or wildlife having commercial, recreational, or educational
value to the residents of the state; and (4) the habitat is a
type which is not common in the state. Whether or not a habitat
is difficult or impossible to replace is also considered. in
evaluating the habitat's importance.
The habitats within Southold which meets these requirements
include: Cedar Beach Point, Conkling Point, Corey Creek,
Cutchoque Harbor and Wetlands, Downs Creek, Fishers Island
Beaches, Harshamomack Pond, Hungry Point ISlands, Jockey Creek
Spoil Area, Little Creek and Beach, Long Beach Bay, Mattituck
Inlet Wetlands, Orient Harbor Plumgut, Port of Egypt Island, the
Race, Richmond Beach and Creek and Robins Island.
1-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I S41
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTA:-.iT,
I S41
The information
the information
designate these
that follow this section represent
state is basing its decisions on to
significant habitat.
and maps
that the
areas as
The significant habitat program has gone through extensive public
review and with the generous cooperation and assistance provided
by the residents of Southold, it can move towards implementation,
providing these areas with the needed protection they deserve.
Analysis
Based on the information provided by the state the town should
implement policy 7 in the LWRP which states "In order to protect
and preserve these Significant Habitats, actions shall not be
undertaken which would destroy or significantly impair the
viability of an area as a habitat. It should further be stated
in policy 7A Locally Important Coastal Habitats (identified by
name) shall be protected, preserved, and where practicable,
restored so as to maintain its viability as a habitat.
policies and procedures should be developed to designate locally
significant habitats on a town level. These could include but
would not be limited to undeveloped and developed bluff areas,
areas too small to be recognized by the state and areas important
to recreation as well as habitat.
1-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Area: Mattituck Inlet Wetland
County(ies): Suffolk
Town(s): Southold
7.5' Quadrangle(s): Mattituck Hills, New York
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER):
Relatively small, undeveloped tidal
wetland with strong tidal flushing
into Long Island Sound; rare in
northern Suffolk County.
SPECIES VULNERABILITY (SV):
Osprey (T) nesting.
HUMAN USE (HU):
No significant fish or wildlife
related human uses of the area.
POPULATION LEVEL (PL):
No unusual concentrations of any fish
or wildlife species occur in the area.
REPLACEABILITY (R):
Irreplaceable
(IS)
Individual
Score
9
25
o
o
(R)
Replace-
ability
x
1.2
x
1.2
x
1.2
x
1.2
1.2
SIGNIFICANCE
=
[(ERleR) + (SVxR) + (HUxR) + (PLxR)]
1-0
(ISxR)
Final
Score
=
10.8
=
30.0
=
0.0
=
0.0
=
40.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
***SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT***
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
MATTITUCK INLET WETLAND
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
The Mattituck Inlet Wetland habitat area is located north of the
Village of Mattituck on Long Island Sound, in the Town of
Southold, Suffolk County (7.5' Quadrangle: Mattituck Hills, NY).
The fish and wildlife habitat consists of an approximately 60 acre
tidal wetland and creek. North of the wetland, Mattituck Inlet, a
deepwater inlet with strong tidal flushing, enters Long Islano
Sound. South of the inlet, Mattituck Creek extends approximately
for an additional mile with moderate residential and marina
development. The wetland habitat itself is undisturbed; the
majority of the wetland is owned by the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation.
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:
Small, undisturbed tidal wetlands with good flushing are unusual
in northern Suffolk County. The Mattituck Inlet Wetland has a
high primary productivity which supports a large variety of fish
and wildlife species both in the wetland itself and around the
mouth of the inlet in Long Island Sound. Osprey (T) nested on
the state property in the wetland in 1984 and 1985 and feed in the
wetland and on the creek. The wetland also serves as an important
habitat for a variety of other wildlife as well as marine finfish
and shellfish. Surf clams, hard clams and mussels have been
harvested in or adjacent to the habitat area but there has been
pollution problems due to marina development and consequent
shellfish closures.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Any activity that would substantially degrade the water quality in
Mattituck Creek and the tidal wetland would adversely affect the
biological productivity of this area. All species of fish ana
wildlife are affected by water pollution such as chemical
contamination (including food chain effects), oil spills,
excessive turbidity, and waste disposal. The existing pollution
from the marina development in the area should be minimized to
enhance this habitat area. Alteration of tidal patterns by
modification of the inlet could have major impacts on the
biological productivity and the fish and wildlife species present.
Elimination of salt marsh and intertidal areas, through dredging,
excavation or filling, would result in a direct loss of habitat
area. Nesting osprey inhabiting the area may be vulnerable to
disturbance by humans from April through mid August. Recreational
activities near active osprey nest sites should be minimized
1-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
during this period. Construction of shoreline structures such as
docks, piers, bulkheads or revetments in previously undisturbed
areas would have a significant impact on the fish and wildlife
resources of the Mattituck Inlet wetland.
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
N.Y.S. Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources &
Waterfront Revitalization
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518) 474-3642
Harry Knoch, Wildlife Manager
or Louise Harrison, Environmental Protection Biologist
NYS DEC Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516) 751-7900
NYS DEC - Significant Habitat Unit
Wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, NY 12054
Phone: (518) 439-7486
Paul stoutenburgh or Martin Garrell
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Phone: (516) 765-1801
1-10
I-
I
1'-:-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------.
I 2,'
I
11
~
-'-
.
. .
+
.
.
.
'.
-~
.
,
.'
.
~~.
T
,
-.r
c;
,~
~.' - . --
--~'y
. /'!,
Oo\A'(
...~~ ,..24-
"
\',:<
-~
~,y--'
,~. "," ,
~ ,
1D90
3000
~-
.000
=3"
Quad: Hattituck Hills. NY
Area Name: Hattituck Inlet
Habitat Boundary-
Pate 1 of 1
,
SCALE 1:24000
o
--~
.-
IC<IO
- -
o
2000
..
1 .5 0
-~._-_.
Pclyconic projection. 1927 North American
1-11
lOOQ.mE:ter ticks based on the New York Transverse Mercator arid.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Area: Downs Creek
County(ies): Suffolk
Town(s): Southold
"
7.5' Quadrangle(s): Southold. NY: Southampton. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(IS)
Individual
Score
(R)
Replace-
ability
(ISxR)
Final
Score
---------------------------------------
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER):
9
x
1.2
=
10.8
Relatively large. undeveloped salt
marsh and tidal creek which has
never been dredged: unusual in
Suffolk County.
SPECIES VULNERABILITY (SV):
25
x
1.2
=
30.0
Osprey (T) nesting. Diamondback
terrapin (SC) have been seen.
but importance of this area to the
species not adequately documented.
H1lMAN USE (HU):
o
x
1.2
=
0.0
Bank mussel harvesting of local
significance.
POPULATION LEVEL (PL):
o
x
1.2
=
0.0
No unusual concentrations of any
fish or wildlife occur in the area.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLACEABILITY (R):
1.2
Irreplaceable
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNIFICANCE
=
[(ERxR) + (SVxR) + (HUxR) + (PLxR)]
=
40.8
1-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
***SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT***
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DOWNS CREEK
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
Downs Creek is located approximately one mile southwest of the
hamlet of Cutchogue, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County (7.5'
Quadrangles: Southold, N.Y.; and Southampton, N.Y.). The fish
and wildlife habitat is an approximate 70 acre tidal estuary,
containing salt marsh, open water, and mudflats. The area
surrounding Downs Creek is almost entirely undeveloped, with
mature woodlands bordering the marsh.
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:
Downs Creek is a relatively small coastal wetland area, but is
unusual in Suffolk County because it exists in a nearly natural,
undisturbed condition and has never been dredged. This area is
utilized by variety of fish and wildlife species, including at
least one pair of osprey (T). These birds have nested on a
man-made platform located near the mouth of Downs Creek since at
least 1982. The estuary serves as a feeding area for the osprey,
along with herons, egrets, waterfowl, shorebirds, and other
wildlife. Diamondback terrapin (SC) have been seen here but the
importance of this area to the species has not been documented.
Downs Creek is also a highly productive area for marine finfish
and shellfish. This area serves as a nursery and feeding area
(from April - November, generally) for many estuarine fish
species, including scup and winter flounder. Ribbed mussels and
fiddler crabs are abundant in the tidal creek banks within the
marsh. Bank Mussels are commercially harvested for bait fish in
the creek.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Any activity that would substantially degrade the water quality in
Downs Creek would adversely affect the biological productivity of
this area. To preserve the pristine nature of this creek, no
dredging should occur unless neccessary to stabilize the inlet.
All species of fish and wildlife would be affected by water
pollution, such as chemical contamination (including food chain
effects), oil spills, excessive turbidity, and waste disposal.
Alteration of tidal patterns in Downs Creek (e.g., by modifying
the inlet) would have major impacts on the fish and wildlife
species present. Elimination of salt marsh and intertidal areas,
through dredging, excavation, or filling, would result in a direct
loss of valuable habitat area. Nesting osprey inhabiting the area
may be vulnerable to disturbance by humans from April through
mid-August. Recreational activities (e.g. boat landing,
I-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
picnicking) near active osprey nest sites should be minimized
during this period. Construction and maintenance of shoreline
structures, such as docks, piers, bulkheads, or revetments, or
other disturbance of adjacent woodland habitats may have a
significant impact on the fish and wildlife resources of Downs
Creek.
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
N.Y.S. Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources &
waterfront Revitalization
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518) 474-3642
Harry Knoch, wildlife Manager
or Louise Harrison, Environmental Protection Biologist
NYSDEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516)751-7900
John poole, Marine Resources Specialist IV
Bureau of Marine Finfish and Crustaceans
NYSDEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
phone: (516)751-7900
Pieter VanVolkenburgh, Chief
Bureau of Shellfisheries
NYSDEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516)751-7900
NYSDEC - Significant Habitat Unit
Wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, NY 12054
phone: (518)439-7486
Paul Stoutenburgh or Dr. Martin Garrell
Town of Southo1d
Town Hall, 53095 Main Read
P.O. Box 1179
Southo1d, NY 11971
1-14
.1. ~
.,.
....
-",
~
-,.,
-.,..
.".
<<
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
454 ()DOOnL N. ~
G
" ,..::,:it~ .
',".
..~.;;. . .
. ;E
. .
S~ 0 U T 13 H 0 L D D
13
.u
7
NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
72"30'
41'00'
" I'
I f
..
280000
3
7
3D
NORTH
RACE
..
11
..
..
.
.
2
~
u
~
~
~
10
;
..,...,-::,,\,'
.c.1 _".
Cutr.".ogil' Hurb()r
. -~-:~--
.........~ .t
~.~ 'l_.:.
..
~~
10
12
"
.
.
'"
Quad: Southampton. NY
Area Name: Downs Creek
Habitat Boundarv
Pa.. 1 of 2
23
.
~
1-15
~A
n
:4 /
/
I.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I,"
,-
"
.
.
1
1
1
1
I'
1
1
1
1
',', ":',", \. J
~ :; l'.......s!
~ (.';.-......
J .' "\; . '0.. ~..Cutchugue:-
"." 1.- . ,. \ \.~. ,;. .
... ., " .. ~
",
t' .
"j.
\
.: ,', ..
.\.<\>10--
Cll~ngue S1.&
I": ;-', ".).
,-
Prepared and published in 198J by the New York Stlte Department
of Transportation. in cooperation with the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Feder.' Hi.hwIY Administration.
M.p blse from 1956 U.S. Ge"'olic.r Survey 7.S-minute Quadr.",'e.
Map revisions mlde vsin; J 980 .erial photogrlphy, construction
plans, offici,' records and other sources. Features revised
include: hiahwIYS and other transpnrtltion flcilities; civil
boundaries; recre.tion lites; hydrography; and buildinas.
G"ey tint i,ndicate,s intensely developed Ireas in which only
landmark buildin'5 .re shown.
Revisions may not comply with Nlti~nll Map Accuracy Standards.
Correspondence concern in a this and other maps of the Department
of Transportation should be directed to: Map Information Unit.
New York State Department of Transportation, State Campus.
Alb.ny. New York 12232.
1981 revisions by J, Simonsen
1-16
. 'b
. '.
v'.: 0 ".r .\
I '.' ~ ~ ,
\ :. ./
"\ "',\:;'Y
"\.1' /
\... ...
.~';
'oe=- ;
'.
. .
-
_.L
:,,~
<
l
=--=---
Pol;,
!:>:-"(\.m~ter
!-t:"H- -i" I~: 78" Yo
"'!';t::)" .,1:. .A,~ets U!
::,:':O:..::ot t::.il.s DC!:
~i!i'let;
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
:-:':-.1-:',
~.: :'; I~ ~
Quadl Southold. NY
Area Namel Downs Creek
Habitat Boundary
P..e 2 of 2
I
I
COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Name of Area: Robins Island
County(ies): Suffolk
Town(s): Southold
7.5' Quadrangle(s): Southampton. New York
(IS)
Individual
Score
(R)
Replace-
ability
(ISxR)
Final
Score
I
I
I
I
I
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER): 64 x 1.2 = 76.8
--------- --------- ------
Undeveloped marine
island is rare in
New York State.
SPECIES VULNERABILITY (SV) : 25 x 1.2 = 30.0
--------- --------- ------
Osprey (T) nesting. One pair
of piping plover (T) nested in
1985. but the importance of this
area to the species not documented.
HUMAN USE (HU) : 0 x 1.2 = 0.0
--------- --------- ------
This score is zero be-cause access to this
island is restricted and, therefol€. there
is no recreational or commercial fish and
wildlife related human use.
POPULATION LEVEL (PL) : 16 x 1.2 .- 19.2
--------- --------- ---- --
The concentrations of nesting
oapreys is unusual in the State
of New York.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLACEABILITY (R):
1.2
Irreplaceable
I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNIFICANCE
=
[(ERxR) + (SVxR) of (l!']xR) + (PLxR)]
=
126.0
I
I
1-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
***SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT***
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ROBINS ISLAND
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
Robins Island is situated between Great and Little peconic Bays,
Long Island. This island lies approximately one and one-quarter
miles southwest of Little Hog Neck, in the Town of Southold,
Suffolk County (7.5' Quadrangle: Southampton, N.Y.). Robins
Island is an undeveloped marine island, approximately 450 acres in
size. It includes approximately four miles of stony beach,
several freshwater and tidal saltwater marshes, an island pond and
bog, mature wooded areas, grassland and maritime shrublands. The
island is owned by Southold Development Corporation, a real estate
speculation firm.
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:
Undeveloped marine islands of this size are rare in New York
State. Robins Island provides a secluded habitat for a variety of
wildlife species, including several endangered and threatened
species. In 1983, 5 osprey (T) nests were observed on the shores
of the island. Least terns (E), roseate terns (E), and common
terns (T) were last reported nesting on the island's beaches in
1976. One pair of piping plover (T) nested in 1985. At the same
time, black-crowned night herons, snowy egrets, yellow-crowned
night herons, and green herons were nesting in an extensive
heronry which is no longer present. These species still feed in
and around the marshes located at the northwestern end of Robins
Island. Red-tail hawks and great-horned owls may also nest on the
island. Many species of shorebirds utilize the shores and marshes
as feeding grounds during migration, including black-bellied
plover, ruddy turnstone, lesser yellowlegs, greater yellowlegs,
sanderling, semipalmated plover, and semipalmated sandpiper. A
colony of bank swallows nest i~ the sandy bluffs located on the
western shoreline of the island. Approximately 400 acres of
upland oak-hickory woods provide habitat for a variety of
passerine birds and a population of white-tailed deer.
The waters in the vicinity of Robins Island provide recreational
fishing and commerical bay scallop fishing opportunities.
However, because access to the Island is restricted, there is
currently no recreational use of the island itself.
I-IS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Human disturbance of any part of Robins Island, including the
beaches, marshes or woodlands would adversely affect the wildlife
species which nest and feed on and around this uninhabited island.
Any activity affecting the water quality in this area would
adversely impact the bay scallop and other fisheries here.
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
N.Y.S. Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources &
Waterfront Revitalization
162 washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518) 474-3642
Mike Scheibel
Region 1
NYSDEC
Building 40, SUNY
Stony Brook, N.Y. 11790
phone: (516) 751-7900
Harry Knoch
Wildlife Manager
Region 1
NYSDEC
Building 40, SUNY
Stony Brook, N.Y. 11790
Phone: (516) 751-7900
I-19
1-.-
. -~ . ""
1'<:' ,:;-_..<'::;._.....:,';"00
:J-:;"'~~''';'-:'' ,~. < /. ",f
. .4 i ... c>~.--...-=----=-':<
~\1 ';. /\~_.: / I
1~~*I~~r.~_.> /i;~~'~ '.~,'::~ !
.(e' ,k,""",! ". '0 \00
. i~S~:.:t:'i('>, s"€''';'' <::\ ~-
... _ ~ uff~ ~~
I'~ -..= S;c.-=:--: ~=-' Old CO"
~i~L~ ~.'O;'_ ~ .;~ 'J'J]- . zch~ Club
:~ ...:.:r,,- ~ _ ~::: j;' 10
...C_,...('~,.. . ..,"",' ""'"
~._.~';',.VC :'-H+' , 'l \j;
1:IMo:tne.- . J J.C~"" -.;. : ~:&
. ...-.J ~ f'\S.r~-'
PI ._ ..... "'1' I. 1:
'. -~., :, ~ .
1 . .0
~
1 SO
16
..
......
1< .2
~
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
::...
1
~
1
1 ...
1
1 n
"
.
.
T nH 0 I.
L D
13
.3 Z3
ACE 7
JO
.
"
.
.
8,
o
u
JO
.\' 0
RTH
.
17
5
IJ
,.
I.
.0
12
,.
Z4
20
.
3'
~J
2
,....-..--..,
~...
I. ~',
"
, '
. ,.1 \ ).
,\-,' -,
.-,:.' .
'/:; ~,.\.
/(/1 p,.'::.' "
. ~ UU~ ...-J.. " '-.2 ;'!
, ' .
, .. r...., j
R' .\,' './ ,. .'
(>bins'-lsl :'~.
I \' and
I, ,'" ..', .
\' ......... ,."".\ ,'"
), )-......-../ "
,\ ~ ". " \
~~ ~ ' '
, _" ~'. I....!
\ '___"h
n
,.
50
Z.
Z,
"
20
/
I
I
II
I
III "
II
,/
\
\>
.
Quad' S
. outh
Area Name' ampton. N Y
Habltet B~ Robins Isia~d
Page 1 of ~ndary:
1-20
/
oJI
I
Co.. Ne,' r4'-=-~ -
Po,"," .- ~~_...:..'
-... ' ~ A~
" ~ "'~1.
',..,
'5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Area: Cutchogue Harbor and Wetlands
County(ies): Suffolk
Town(s): Southold
7.5' Quadrangle(s): Southold, New York; Southampton, New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(IS)
Individual
Score
(R)
Replace-
ability
(ISxR)
Final
Score
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER):
12
x
1.2
=
14.4
Bay-wet1and complex, unusual in northern
Long Island, but degraded in places by
marina/residential development.
Geometric mean: -J 9><16 = 12.
SPECIES VULNERABILITY (SV):
56.8
x
1.2
=
68.2
Least tern (E), piping plover (T),
osprey (T) and diamondback terrapin
(SC) nesting. Additive division:
36 + 25/2 + 25/4 + 16/8 = 56.75.
HUMAN USE (HU):
14
x
1.2
=
16.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Commercial and recreational scalloping significant
on a level between Long Island and Suffolk County.
Geometric mean: -J 9x1b = 12. Clamming significant
at the county-level. Additive division: 12 + 4/2 = 14.
POPULATION LEVEL (PL):
4
x
1.2
=
4.8
Concentrations of osprey is
significant at the county-level.
Concentration of scallop is significant
at the county-level.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLACEABILITY (R):
1.2
Irreplaceable
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNIFICANCE
=
[(ERxR) + (SVxR) + (HUxR) + (PLxR)]
=
144.2
1-21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
***SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT***
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CUTCHOGUE HARBOR AND WETLANDS
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
Cutchogue Harbor and its adjacent wetlands are located west of
Little Hog Neck , opening into Little peconic Bay in the Town of
Southold, Suffolk County (7.5' Quadrangles: Southold, N.Y. and
Southampton, N.Y.). This approximate 490 acre habitat includes
the shallow open water area of Cutchogue Harbor (205 acres) and
three adjacent, distinct tidal wetland/creek areas: Wickham
Creek, Haywater Cove, and Meadow Beach (Horseshoe Cove). The
Wickham Creek area contains approximately 70 acres of undisturbed
tidal creek and Salt Marsh located behind a low beach on Cutchogue
Harbor. The Haywater Cove area consists of approximately 190
acres of Salt Marsh islands, mudflats, open water and tidal Creek
including East Creek, Mud Creek and Broadwater Cove. All three of
these tidal creeks have been disturbed to some extent by adjacent
residential and recreational development. The Meadow Beach area
is an approximate 25 acre area, including a 15 acre wetland
preserve owned by the Nature Conservency, bordered by undeveloped
wooded shoreline. Much of the Cutchogue Harbor and Wetlands area
receives moderate summer recreational use.
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:
The Cutchogue Harbor and Wetlands complex represents a valuable
ecosystem area in northern Long Island. Although the three
wetland sites are relatively small, and subject to human
disturbances, they provide suitable habitat for a variety of
coastal wildlife species, including osprey (T), least tern (E),
piping plover (T) and diamondback terrapin (SC). Two pairs of
osprey nested in the area in 1982, 1983, and 1984, using man-made
nesting platforms placed at Wickham Creek and Meadow Beach. The
Meadow Beach pair has been especially productive during this
periOd (3 young per year), and have served as a source of young
birds for the NYSDEC's -haCking- program in western New York. A
nesting platform in Haywater Cove was active in 1983, and is an
important potential nesting site. Meadow Beach also contains a
relatively small nesting colony of least terns, with 20-60 pairs
present during 1982-1984. Up to 4 pairs of piping plovers have
also been confirmed nesting at Meadow Beach and Wickham Creek
during this period. One pair of piping plover nested during 1985.
Diamondback terrapin nest in the Haywater Cove area.
I-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Cutchogue Harbor Wetlands serve as valuable feeding areas for
the species noted above, as well as for herons, egrets, waterfowl,
shorebirds, and a variety of other wildlife species. Bird species
that are probable or confirmed inhabitants of the area include
green-backed heron, yellow-crowned night heron, Canada goose,
mallard, black duck, clapper rail, killdeer, belted kingfisher,
red-winged blackbird, and sharp-tailed sparrow.
Cutchugue Harbor and Wetlands are very productive areas for marine
finfish and shelfish. The marshes, mudflats and tidal creeks
contribute significantly to the biological productivity of
Cutchogue Harbor and adjoining portions of the peconic Bays.
These areas serve as important habitats for bay scallops, hard
clams and conch. The Cutchogue Harbor area is one of the top
three areas in Southold for the harvesting of both scallops and
clams. The level of scalloping is significant in Long Island and
the level of clamming is significant in the county. There is also
a conch fishery of local importance. Ribbed mussels and fiddler
crabs are abundant in the tidal creek banks within the area. The
wetlands and tidal creeks serve as nursery and feeding areas
(April-November, generally) for many estuarine fish species,
including scup and winter flounder.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Any activity that would substantially degrade the water quality in
Cutchogue Harbor or the adjacent wetlands and creeks, would
adversely affect the biological productivity of this area. All
species of fish and wildlife may be affected by water pollution,
such as chemical contamination (including food chain effects), oil
spills, excessive turbidity, and waste disposal. It is essential
that high water quality be maintained in the area, through control
of sewage discharges from recreational boats and upland sources.
Alteration of tidal patterns in the Cutchogue Harbor Wetlands
(e.g., by modifying the inlets) could have major impacts on the
fish and wildlife species present. Barriers to fish migration,
whether physical or chemical, into Wickham Creek or Haywater Cove
would have a major impact on the fishies. Elimination of salt
marsh and intertidal areas, through dredging, excavation, or
filling, would result in a direct loss of valuable habitat area.
Unregulated dredge spoil disposal in this area would be
detrimental, but such activities may be designed to maintain or
improve the habitat for certain species of wildlife. Nesting
osprey, terns, and plovers inhabiting the area are vulnerable to
disturbance by humans from April through mid-August. Recreational
activities (e.g., boat landing, picnicking) in areas near nesting
sites should be minimized during this period. Fencing and/or
annual posting of tern and plover nesting areas should be provided
to help protect these species. Construction of shoreline
structures, such as docks, piers, bulkheads, or revetments, in
areas not previously disturbed by development, may result in the
loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife
resources of the Cutchogue Harbor area.
1-23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
N.Y.S. Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources &
waterfront Revitalization
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518) 474-3642
Harry Knoch, Wildlife Manager
or Louise Harrison, Environmental Protection Biologist
NYSDEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516) 751-7900
John Poole, Marine Resources Specialist IV
Bureau of Marine Finfish and Crustaceans
NYSDEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516) 751-7900
Pieter VanVolkenburgh, Chief
Bureau of Shellfisheries
NYSDEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516) 751-7900
NYSDEC - Significant Habitat Unit
Wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, NY 12054
Phone: (518) 439-7486
Paul Stoutenburgh or Martin Garrell
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
(516) 734-6605
Chris Smith
NYS Sea Grant Riverhead-
Cornell University Laboratory
39 Sound Avenue
Riverhead, NY 11901
Phone: (516) 727-3910
1-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ralph Condit
46 A pine Tree Road
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Phone (516) 734-5547
1-25
,'I
,,,,,:, '1' \':....
.)\\/. .
..\\ '\ . !
. .Y.$,: '
,"~"';\,
, . .
,
J. .,..,/
/
<
I_.;.~
." "...r..
"
.....0.
',', ,
(.1,,_,
\
'0
,
"
l
'.\.
2<
I
I
....
<>
i'
10
.
u
L
I
T
2<
23
17
.
2/
LITTLE PECONIC BA Y
I
27' 30"
I
=----
t
0- ....-=::::1-
SCALE J:2t O::G
o
.-; OJ;,., York State Department
:._~~~:~j~~~' Department of
:: ~"'.eJ 7.5-minute quadrangle,
I ~-:::.~~grzphy, constructic,n
,; _"ce5. Features revised
':'s.::c.':atic:"l facilities; ci....il
,':-:irap"lY; and buildings.
'I;~d erea5 in which only
;..= 1.'.a;:> Accuracy Standards_
I::: 'T'i:pS of the Department
:- :c: M20 Information Unit.
0,"";.;0'1c:t;on, State. Campus,
....r_-
1000 0
r=I~
lqoo
'000
3X.J
o
.1.:(('
~~,..;.':~
I
~
,S
-
-
----..--
-_._---
~----
Polyconic projection. 1927 No.~;" A..,~r:can datum.
lOaD-meter ticks based on the NO:'N Y.:.:~ :ran~..erse ~ercator
Between 12- and 78- Wer.t Longitude, ttl;s, arid 1$ ':l~.~:~::;> Z::"'elS c' tOle Un'..
Mercator arid. Areas east of 72- and wes: of 7S- ar~::! ',-;t ~at~!,'Tlatical utera
10,000-foot ticks based on the Ne.... York Pla"'~ Coorcinate grid, Lo
Magnetic declination for 1981 is a:--;>..-oximately 14- We~
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
SPECIJ..L TCrO.:.;q.:..~:- : =:.:-IO~J
Contours. at lC'-!(1ot ,M~'di~. s.'~".- _~':-0.5-=1 ~"-,,, ~__
G~oJoeltil! SUr\€Y ;Tlap. Cas:".;,c ,..:.:; -~:"e:se"~ 5 _fO,',~ c:
Datum is r.lt'an sea It:-ve:.
I
I
Quad: Southold. NY
Area Name: Cutchogue Harbor
Wetlands
Habitat Boundary:
Page 1 of 2
I
I
I
1-26
I
I
'I:-:)N
'I' .
.
u
I
30
:'i':_ R TH
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;I'.SV'
!:
Ct..; i ,&.
"~-:""<\''''' " . iol
't ~~-Q~i!< ~
l,~~~;' ,:"
t~10~~~: .}
':"~~-A..N . ,'.:
~-i::i"...~.
'-!~iLff~---oI;Y
27'30"
m ____ ".__. n.,' -;,
Cutchogue ar or
14
5
10
10
12 16
I.
< . .
I. 24
T nH 0 L D 13 +20
23
13
7
R A CE 30
.
31
3:- .
..
16
2
"
/
/
/
/27
/ ~
/ "v
/
/ \>
/
30 / <\.
/ x
Quad: Southampton, NY
Area Name: Cutchogue Harbor
Wet' ands
Habitat Boundary:
Page 2 of 2
/
/
/
/
/
/
C FY 15
/
/
/
58
2<
21
47
.
5
2
10
.
SOUTr
1-27
32
2~
25
,.
· NassClu
Point
.
24
5
.
24
x
n
.
.
.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Area: Little Creek and Beach
County(ies): Suffolk
Town(s): Southold
7.5' Quadrangle(s): Southold. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(IS)
Individual
Score
(R)
Replace-
ability
(ISltR)
Final
Score
---------------------------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER):
9
It
1.0
=
9.0
Relatively small. undeveloped salt
marsh. creek and sand beach. unusual
on the north fork of Long Island.
SPECIES VULNERABILITY (SV):
16
It
1.0
=
16.0
Diamondback terrapin (SC) nesting.
Piping plover (T) present in 1983.
absent in 1984 and 1985. Importance
of this area to the species is not
adequately documented.
HUMAN USE (00):
o
It
1.0
=
0.0
Commercial and recreational crabbing
and clamming of local importance.
POPULATION LEVEL (PL):
o
It
1.0
=
0.0
No unusual concentrations of
any fish or wildlife species
occur in the area.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLACEABILITY (R):
1.0
Uncertain of ability of replace.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
I
I
SIGNIFICANCE
=
[(ERxR) + (SVltR) + (OOltR) + (PLltR)]
=
25.0
1-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'. u*SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATu*
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
LITTLE CREEK AND BEACH
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
The Little Creek and Beach habitat area is located just north of
Little Bog Neck facing Little peconic Bay in the Town of Southold,
Suffolk County (7.5' Quadrangle: Southold, NY). The fish and
wildlife habitat is approximately 45 acres in size, consisting of
sparsely vegetated sand beach, a tidal inlet, a small protected
bay and creek (Little Creek), mud flats and salt marsh. There is
low density residential development around the border of the area.
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:
Little Creek and Beach is a small coastal beach/creek/wetland
area, similar in nature to other creeks around the peconic Bays
shoreline, but unusual in that it is undeveloped. The area is
important as a habitat for various fish and wildlife species. The
habitat is a confirmed nesting area for diamondback terrapin (SC)
which are relatively uncommon on the north shore. This species
lays its eggs on the sand beaches bordering the marsh. The tidal
creek and salt marsh provide feeding area cover for the terrapin
during this period (April-July). Piping plover (T) nested on the
beach in 1983 but not in 1984 or 1985. The importance of the
beach as a habitat for piping plover is not well documented. The
tidal marsh serves an important feeding area for the terrapins,
shorebirds and other wildlife. The creek is also important for
various species of marine shellfish and finfish. Little Creek is
one of the best areas in the town for crabbing and is also locally
important for clamming.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Diamondback terrapin and piping plover inhabiting Little Creek
Beach are vulnerable to disturbance by humans from mid-April
through July. Significant pedestrian traffic or recreational
vehicle use of Little Creek Beach could easily eliminate the
terrapin and plover populations and should be minimized. Fencing
and/or annual posting of the area should be provided to help
protect the terrapin and nesting bird species. Unregulated dredge
spoil disposal in this area would be detrimental but such
activities may be designed to maintain or improve the habitat, by
setting back vegetative succession. Elimination of salt marsh
vegetation, through landfilling, dredge spoil disposal or
excavation would result in a direct loss of habitat area. Any
activity that would substantially degrade the water quality of
Little Creek would adversely affect the biological productivity of
this area. All species of fish and wildlife are affected by water
1-29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
pollution, such as chemical contamination (including food chain
effects), oil spills, excessive turbidity, and waste disposal.
Alteration of tidal patterns in the marsh (e.g. by modifying the
inlet) could have major impacts on the fish and wildlife species
present. Barriers to fish migration, whether physical or
chemical, would have a major impact on the fisheries in Little
Creek.
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
N.Y.S. Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources &
Waterfront Revitalization
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518) 474-3642
Harry Knoch, Wildlife Manager
or Louise Harrison, Environmental Protection Biologist
NYS DEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11780
Phone: (516) 751-7900
NYS DEC - Significant Habitat Unit
Wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, NY 12054
Phone: (518) 439-7486
Paul Stoutenburg, Martin Garrell, or Jim McMahon
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Phone: (516) 765-1801
Ralph Condit
46A Pine Tree Road
Cutchogue, NY 19935
Phone: (516) 734-5547
I-3D
l/"'-'
',,\.f I
. 'j""" "
- ::," \.
_I' ':'..";:' "b.~
,- . .,>;
.0 ~c.-..;::~~.
. '
- ,,,,O!
1.
.....:
.:-:.
.,1
; -
.IPECONIC BAY
-=~-_!-
27'30"
I
I
1
-
I
1
>-----
1000 0 1000
=.~.......... ~
2
If;
10
,.
"
2/
..
2.
/0 5 13 ,
/
L I T T L E 5;
22 IP
I '"
,
23 7 \
..
\
.3 B A. Y \
,
17 " \
30 ,. \
\
\
\
\
.5
35
21
SOUTHAMPTON ---+-
2430000
25'
SCALE 1:24000
o
>- .
1 MoLE
2000
3000
5000
6000
-
7~n:ET
4000
1 KllOME7E~
1 .5 0
............ .---=.. ........--..-. .....:=r----o..
;\i)~"; -)
:::--s:()~: '= ~X,'
!.'.!.~ C,),:=-.!..G:.
I
I_~ .
-- -.-
" ~-.J.
-{1 ,
- :=--1
_ -,---,
'",
Polyconic projection. 1927 North American datum.
loaD-meter ticks based on the New York Transverse Mercator grid.
Betw~en 72' and 78' West Lonsitude, this arid is identical to Zone-1S 01 the Uni...ersal Trlnsv~rse
Mercator grid. Areas east of 72' and west of 780 are direct mathematical utensions 01 Zon.! 18
S::l.--cL.:l
l=-t:l
10,OOO-foot ticks based on the New York Plane Coordinate grid. Long Island Z~ne,
..-x....oi:J...:l
--
Magnetic declination for 1981 is approximately 140 West
~.'.',:lE LOCATION
I
SPECIAL TOPQGRAPHIC ED1TI:J~
Contours. tll 10-foot inter~?ls, shOVlIn unre'Jised frC'''l 19S6 US
Geologiul Sur\'ey rnap. Di'::.hed I:nes repr~sent 5 -f-:;0t"CG"'tD:J(::'
DcJtllm is mean s..;:, l~:\"el.
I
I
I
I
Quad: Southold, NY
Area Name: Little Creek and Beach
Habitat Boundary:
Page 1 of 1
1-31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM
Name of Area: Richmond Creek and Beach
County(ies): Suffolk
Town(s): Southold
7.5' Quadrangle(s): Southold, New York
(IS)
Individual
Score
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER):
o
Tidal creek, undeveloped sand peninsula, and salt
marsh unusual in Suffolk County, but rarity
diminished by dredging and development along
the creek. Geometric mean: ~ = O.
SPECIES WLNERABILITY (SV):
14
Confirmed diamondback terrapin (SC) nesting. Least
tern (E) and piping plover (T) have nested in the
area, but colony was inactive in 1983 (one pair of
pp) and 1984/1985 (neither species present).
Importance of the area not adequately documented.
I
I
I
I
I
I
HUMAN USE (HU):
o
Crabbing and clamming
of local importance.
POPULATION LEVEL (PL):
o
No unusual concentrations of any
fish or wildlife species occur in
in the area.
REPLACEABILITY (R):
Uncertain of ability to replace.
(R)
Replace-
>ability
x
1.0
(ISxR)
Final
Score
=
0.0
x
1.0
=
16.0
x
1.0
=
0.0
x
1.0
=
0.0
1.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
I
SIGNIFICANCE
[(ERxR) + (SVxR) + (HUxR) + (PLxR)]
=
1-32
=
16.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
***SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT***
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
RICHMOND CREEK AND BEACH
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
Richmond Creek and Beach is located just west of Great Hog Neck
with an inlet into Little peconic Bay, Town of Southold, Suffolk
County (7.5' Quadrangle: Southold, N.Y.). The fish and wildlife
habitat is approximately 135 acres in size consisting of a sand
peninsula, salt marsh, and tidal creek. There is moderate
residential development along the borders of the creek, portions
of which have been dredged and bulkheaded. Much of the creek is
lined by Soartina alternifora. The creek itself tends to be
fairly muddy.
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:
The creek/beach/marsh ecosystem at Richmond Creek is similar to
other creeks in the area but serves as an important habitat to
several vulnerable wildlife species. Diamondback terrapin (Se)
nest on the beach. The tidal creek and salt marshes provide
feeding areas and cover for terrapins during this period (April -
July). The beach has also been a nesting area for least terns (E)
and piping plover (T) but the colony was inactive in 1983 except
for one pair of piping plover. The ~ite was inactive in 1984 and
1985. Further documentation is needed on the importance of this
beach to the nesting shorebirds. The creek supports populations
of overwintering black duck and mallard but the extent of use by
these species is not documented. Richmond Creek is also a
productive habitat for finfish, shellfish and crustaceans
including blue claw crabs, clams and scallops. The creek is one
of the top two creeks for crabbing in the town and is also
important for Clamming.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Diamondback terrapin inhabiting the barrier beaches of Long Island
are vulnerable to disturbance by humans from mid-April through
July. Significant pedestrian traffic or recreational vehicle use
of Richnond Creek Beach could easily eliminate the nesting
It"tlapin population and should be minimized. Nesting shore birc1f"
if present, would also be vulnerable to hUT-.an disturbance.
Fencing and/or annual posting of the area should be provided to
help protect the terrrapin and nesting bird species. Unregulated
dredge spoil disposal in this area would be delrin-,ental but such
activities may be designed to maintain or improve the habitat, by
~E'ttin5 back vegetative succession. Elimination of salt ~arEh
r-33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
vegetation, through landfilling, dredge spoil disposal or
excavation would result in a direct loss of habitat area. Any
activity that would substantially degrade the water quality of
Richmond Creek would adversely affect the biological productivity
of this area. All species of fish and wildlife are affected by
water pollution, such as chemical contamination (including food
chain effects), oil spills, excessive turbidity and waste
disposal. Alterations of tidal patterns in the marsh (e.g. by
modifying the inlet) could have major impacts on the fish and
wildlife species present. Barriers to fish migration, whether
physical or chemical would have a major impact on the fisheries in
Richmond Creek.
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
N.Y.S. Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources &
Waterfront Revitalization
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518) 474-3642
Harry Knoch, wildlife Manager
or Louise Harrison, Environmental Protection Biologist
NYSDEC - Region 1
Building 40, SUNY
Stony Brook, New York 11790
NYSDEC - Significant Habitat Unit
Wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, New York 12054
Phone: (518) 439-7486
Paul Stoutenburgh or Martin Garrell
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Phone: (516) 765-1801
Ralph Condit
46-A Pine tree Road
Cutchogue, New York 11935
Phone: (516) 734-5547
1-34
n
'. -
. ..
..
. g
. ..
. ,.
.
I 320 000
,
· T
;
. ;
Pipes
:I
Cove
-':5'
1
.
10
Conklin. PI .
'-'- --. :
/// 7' -.l---j CS5(lXOm.N,
/ / J.nni"I~"-;-
~ / 10., .. ...; "~"~"
/
/
/
I
I
I
I
\
\
\
"
,
"
- .............
"
'.
.,
10
.
.50
..
.
:I
_:
1
Southold
Ball n
.
.
Ie
'"
II
os
SHELTER
1:1
:IS
ISLAND
..
'"
I'
S
Quad: Southold. NY
Area Name: Conklint Point
Habitat Boundary
Pate 1 of 2
:I
.
. .'-,-.
r-35
II
\
\
I
;
u
ct_.("
I
,
I
,
I
/ flo( i
/ ~"fl /
1/ ~a. .lit
I /
~ '/1\ _......../..,
.. ~ / 0"
! {o\Io~ /-",;-
v"\ I
, . I
I \
, ,
jL"hIS~: I
~,.. : I
, : /
I .
, .
':nnln. ./r.,
PI "I
/..
/ I:
",/ ti
IS \
.
'I
1
I'
1
320000
1
I
Dering
Ha.rbor
Chequil
1
iek.m
onkling
PI
........
--
/
I
I
,
,
,
.. ,
I
.,/
/
/
_/
..:"
I
"
1
"
.~
1 --t-
i
-\"-,
~~
5'
1
J.::;;_
- ':.. -,.--
/
.
. . ~
....,:,..
.#" -~.~
'-:. 'fj
~.... "4..
-~~ ~.
~:- 't
",,-.:f..
~.:; "c
" . F
tz':'''r
-:~.~ :
.,..
:_." .1.
'1'
. e-:;
1 <55()OCllm.N.
1
1
1
0
1 cl
-~
::.
0
'"
1
1
1
1
IJ3
7J;
i,
o~_
',-"0 \- l ;
:.-'/- ~
.; ~- " \ --t' 't"'- f
~ . . V-~' 6"'--" ,
. t.- ,; \ --503- --
, ... '-..., ,'- -
--' Shelter, '--r-
r " ,Island .."1' _
, ~; - .
I ~ ,,,
,
\
.'
:;;L~; +' '.
:-J'. ~ - ........,.-
I 1 \!!ll!' '-~r, ~:-. t:'~-'"
''''~j .""r Rltlt,..-{l&..- ~ . l
o ow" _ :~._ ~;~__ ~~__~~/. :
.. .. '" --" - .
."- ~.
.; ...:. _.~~.:tZ:~~D:;:-'-
.E ...~_' -,<?':
:.:-~:.... - - ~
.-' - .; .,~. t~
. . ....: t~----
-.....;.:- -,
Quadl Gre.nport. NY
Area Name: Conklin. Point
Habitat Boundary.
Pa.e 2 04= 2
.:.
..
""
'0.
'.
.'
'/)~'
..,. I
. ..- W~.C:'1' '1tJIi:~1(
1-36
" .-__.1 lJl
""- - ~" \
-, ..1.
".9'"
.1-:
I."
.'/ .'
.cr;.
"
f
,
I
........,
I~
-,
',/,
/l(i
f
I~:-"
'.'
.'> .
.".It.
.,;:c~_
"
21
2'
22
10
.
L I "
22 T T L E
2' 23
7
lJ
17
B A Y
30 "
"
I.
.r~
/
"/
IP E
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
2.
~uad: Southold NY
rea Name' R' '
Habi tat B' , chmond Creek
Page 1 o/~ndar.Y:
-- -'-------j-"~
25'
,i
1-37
SCALE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
,
Name of Area: Corey Creek
County(ies): Suffolk
Town(s): Southold
7.5' Quadrangle(s): Southold, New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(IS)
Individual
Score
(R)
Replace-
ability
(ISxR)
Final
Score
---------------------------------------
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER):
o
x
1.2
=
0.0
Small, partially developed creek/
marsh/beach area: not rare in
Suffolk County.
SPECIES VULNERABILITY (SV):
25
x
1.2
=
30.0
Osprey (T) nesting in 1983 and 1984.
Small population of least terns (E)
and piping plover (T) present in 1984,
but importance of the area to these
species is not adequately documented.
HUMAN USE (HU):
9
x
1.2
=
10.8
Commercial scalloping in the creek is
important in the Long Island region.
Clamming is significant at the local
level.
POPULATION LEVEL (PL):
4
x
1.2
=
4.8
Concentrations of scallops significant
in Suffolk County.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLACEABILITY (R):
1.2
Osprey nesting platform easily replaced,
but creek/beach ecosystem irreplaceble.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNIFICANCE
=
[(ERxR) + (SVxR) + (HUxR) + (PLxR)]
=
45.6
1-38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
***SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT***
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
COREY CREEK
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
Corey Creek and Beach is located on the southwestern shoreline of
Great Hog Neck on Little peconic Bay, in the Town of Southold,
Suffolk County (7.5' Quadrangle: Southold, NY). The fish and
wildlife habitat consists of approximately 130 acres of tidal
creek, salt marsh, mudflats and beach. The area around the
western shoreline of Corey Creek and Moyle Cove is a developed
residential area and some portions of the creek have been dredged
and bulkheaded. The beach is a small sand beach and dredge spoil
area which is somewhat degraded by human disturbance.
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:
The small disturbed tidal creek and beach found at Corey Creek is
not a rare ecosystem type but the area functions as an important
habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife. One pair of osprey
(T) nested on a platform on the beach in 1983 and 1984. A small
population of least tern (E) and piping plover (T) were present on
the beach in 1984 but the extent of use by these species is not
adequately documented. Diamondback terrapin (SC) have also been
seen but the nesting sites and the importance of this area to
these species is not well documented. The creek serves as a
feeding area for the osprey along with waterfowl, shorebirds and
other wildlife. The creek is a productive area for marine finfish
and shellfish. The area serves as a important nursery area and
habitat for shellfish including bay scallops and hard clams. The
creek is one of the top three areas in Southold for scalloping and
is significant to the Long Island region. It is one of the top
five clamming areas in the town. The creek area is also locally
important for waterfowl hunting.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Any activity that would substantially degrade the water quality in
Corey Creek would adversely affect the biological productivity of
this area. All species-of fish and wildlife would be affected by
water pollution such as chemical contamination (including food
chain effects), oil spills, excessive turbidity, and waste
disposal. It is essential that water quality be maintained in the
area to protect the bay scallop fishery. Alterations of tidal
patterns in Corey Creek (e.g. by modifying the inlet) would have
major impacts on the fish and wildlife species present. Barriers
to fish migration, whether physical or chemical would have a major
impact on the fisheries of Corey Creek. Elimination of salt marsh
1-39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and intertidal areas, through dredging, excavation or filling,
would result in a direct loss of habitat area. Unregulated dredge
spoil disposal in the beach area would be detrimental but such
activities may be designed to maintain or improve the habitat for
the nesting shorebirds by setting back vegetative succession.
Nesting osprey inhabiting the area may be vulnerable to
disturbance by humans from April through mid-August. Recreational
activities (e.g. boat landing, picnicking) near active osprey
nest sites should be minimized during this period. Construction
of shoreline structures such as docks, piers, bulkheads or
revetments, in areas not previously disturbed by development (e.g.
natural beach or salt marsh) may result in a loss of productive
areas which support the fish and wildlife resources of Corey
Creek.
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
N.Y.S. Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources &
Waterfront Revitalization
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518) 474-3642
Harry Knoch, Wildlife Manager
or Louise Harrison, Environmental Protection Biologist
NYS DEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11780
Phone: (516) 751-7900
John Poole, Marine Resources Specialist IV
Bureau of Marine Finfish and Crusteaceans
NYS DEC - Region 1
Same address and phone as above
Pieter Van Volkenburgh, Chief
Bureau of Shellfisheries
NYS DEC - Region 1
Same address and phone as above
NYS DEC - Significant Habitat Unit
Wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, NY 12054
Phone: (518) 439-7486
Paul Stoutenburg, Martin Garrell, or Jim McMahon
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O.
Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Phone: (516) 765-1801
1-40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chris Smith
NYS Sea Grant Extension Service
Cornell University Laboratory
37 Sound Ave.
Riverhead, NY 11901
Phone: (516) 727-3910
Ralph Condit
46A Pine Tree Road
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Phone: (516) 734-5547
1-41
:. f.)\
--1-''" \
,- '-~\
.~';.'t:::.~
'- L
;~'"' -: ;.'~--
~ii:~~'f\'::,--\
~,.,l ~:'
-l~~
~~ '~_:\~f:'ri-~~
.~.. --.~.-.'~' ..
=',-:::- ;'J'.~.-'
. SOUTHAMPTON
-7J;.:r,e"..E. 2430000
t/
I
I ,.::j \-
.>)..~.." /'
I..' ..
'.
- ,~-
"
H
I~,- -/' ..
0.-
- ~-
. ,.......
-..... -;.. \ -..
I'~~.:
.\:'.'~~\ -
".
,~-/
'1'
'-
J
',;":"0..
--'"I'~.. .
',.,'
"
,
"
...
SOUND"
'.
.
28
-
-.....-
/
':. fr...'"'"
"t) - ~-
--:/-~
~'r() ,,-c:f,~.
"- f.". It.
... ~
'--'
o
...ro
\
\, '
/'
.
~BN~I>.
""'.: . Cr j
f~''..:~~ ",
~,.~
.l...~ ~\ -::
./.t :-ye.
." . . '.. ''''':C--. ~~
." ~...,,;;~i>(,.:-.~
..::....~.. -._.....-.~~......;.~.: .
.
,.
10
15
1/
21
/
/
/
/
/
/
./
./
. ---
--
---
---
/'
/
.; E CON I C
,P
f 28
I
\
A Y \
\
.. \
\
Quad: Southold. NY
Area Name: Corey Creek
Habitat Boundary:
Page 1 of 1
r
;..
10
22
.
L I T T L E
22
2.
20
B
..
1/
17 '0
H
"
1/
2>
r
57
..
..
s
o
u
T
..
..
21
I
25'
! 2440000
-----;-
1-42
I
I
I
I
COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Area: Cedar Beach Point
County (ies) : Suffolk
Town(s): Southold
7.5' Quadrangle(s): Southold, New York
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(IS)
Individual
Score
(R)
Replace-
ability
(IS"R)
Final
Score
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER):
9
"
1.2
=
10.8
Relatively small, undeveloped,
salt marsh, beach, and spoil
deposits on the north fork of
Long Island.
SPECIES VULNERABILITY (SV):
48.5
"
1.2
=
58.2
I
Least tern (E) and osprey (T) nesting.
Diamondback terrapin (SC) have been
seen, but importance of the area to this
species is not adequately documented.
Additive division: 36 + 25/2 = 48.5.
HUMAN USE (HU):
9
"
1.2
=
10.8
I
I
I
I
I
This area serves as an important natural area for
research and education by Suffolk County Community
College's Marine Sciences Technology Program; of
regional significance.
POPULATION LEVEL (PL):
4
"
1.2
=
4.8
One of the two largest concentrations
of nesting least terns on the north
fork in 1982 and 1983, of county-level
significance.
REPLACEABILITY (R):
1.2
I
I
I
Irreplaceable
SIGNIFICANCE
=
[(ERxR) + (SV"R) + (HU"R) + (PL"R)]
=
84.6
1-43
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
***SIGNIFlCANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT...
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CEDAR BEACH POINT
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
Cedar Beach Point is located at the tip of Great Hog Neck, north
of Little peconic Bay, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County
(7.5' Quadrangle: Southold, N.Y.). The fish and wildlife habitat
is approximately 85 acres in size, consisting of sparsely
vegetated sand beach and dredge spoil deposits, a small protected
bay (Cedar Beach Creek), mud flats, and salt marsh. The area is
owned by Suffolk County and includes Suffolk County Community
College's (SCCC) Southold Marine Science Center. The habitat is
generally bordered by low to medium density residential
development.
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:
Cedar Beach Point is a small coastal wetland area, similar in
nature to many other points around the peconic Bays shoreline, but
important as a habitat for various fish and wildlife species.
This area has served for many years as a nesting site for least
terns (E). In 1982 and 1983, approximately 80-90 pairs of least
terns nested in the area, making this colony one of the largest on
the north fork of Long Island, of county-level significance. In
recent years, however, human disturbance (pedestrian traffic and
recreational vehicle use) of the area has become a serious
problem, and only about 10 pairs of least terns nested here in
1984. One pair of piping plovers (T) was also present in 1984,
two nests were present in 1985, but the importance of Cedar Beach
Point as a nesting area for this species is uncertain. One pair
of osprey (T) nested in the area during 1982-1984, using a
man-made nesting platform located in the eastern portion of the
habitat. The tidal wetlands at Cedar Beach Point serve as feeding
areas for the least terns and osprey, as well as for many other
wildlife species. Diamondback terrapin (SC) also occur here;
more information is needed to determine importance.
In addition to its ecological values, Cedar Beach Point is an
important area for marine sciences education and research. The
Marine Sciences Technology Program of SCCC is based at the
Southold Marine Science Center, and the area is heavily used by
faculty and students as.a .living laboratory. for education and
research. The program is unique on Long Island in offering
technical training in marine biology, environmental chemistry, and
mariculture. The facilities are also used by scientists from the
Marine Sciences Research Center at SUNY-Stony Brook.
1-44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
It is essential that any potential impacts on Cedar Beach
Point be evaluated with respect to the established science program
here, and the need to maintain natural or controlled experimental
conditions. Any activity that would substantially degrade the
water quality in Cedar Beach Creek would adversely affect the
biological productivity of this area. All species of fish and
wildlife would be affected by water pollution, such as chemical
contamination (including food chain effects), oil spills,
excessive turbidity, and waste disposal. It is essential that
high water quality be maintained in the area, primarily by
controlling discharges of sewage and other pollutants from upland
sources. Alteration of tidal patterns at Cedar Beach Point would
have major impacts on the fish and wildlife communities present.
Elimination of salt marsh and intertidal areas, through excavation
or filling, would result in a direct loss of valuable habitat
area. Unregulated dredge spoil disposal in this area would be
detrimental, but such activities may be designed to maintain or
improve the habitat 'for certain species of wildlife. Nesting
birds inhabiting the barrier beach at Cedar Beach Point are highly
vulnerable to disturbance by humans from mid-April through August.
Recreational use (e.g., boat landing, hiking, picnicking) and
scientific activities in or near bird nesting areas should be
minimized during this period. Fencing and/or annual posting of
the area should be provided to help protect the nesting bird
species. Construction and maintenance of shoreline structures,
such as docks, piers, bulkheads, or revetments, in any part of
this area, may have a significant impact on the fish and wildlife
resources of Cedar Beach Point.
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
N.Y.S. Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources &
Waterfront Revitalization
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518) 474-3642
Harry Knoch, wildlife Manager
or Louise Harrison, Environmental Protection Biologist
NYSDEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516)751-7900
John Poole, Marine Resources Specialist IV
Bureau of Marine Finfish and Crustaceans
NYSDEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516)751-7900
1-45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
p1eter VanVo1kenburgh, Chief
Bureau of Shellfisheries
NYSDEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516)751-7900
Dr. Charles McCarthy, Jr., Associate Professor
Southo1d Marine Science Center
Suffolk County community College - Eastern Campus
Riverhead, NY 11901
Phone: (516)765-1101
NYSDEC - Significant Habitat Unit
Wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, NY 12054
Phone: (518)439-7486
Dr. Martin Garrell
Southo1d Town Conservation Advisory Council
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southo1d, NY 11971
Phone: (516) 765-1801
1-46
.
10
7
. ..
60
..
SHELTER
,.
6'0
Southald
Bay n
Quad: Southold. NY
Are. Name: Cedar Beach Point
Habitat Boundary
Palle 1 of 1
"
../ ...
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
\
" ...
" ISLAND
..........
.....
.. --
.....
.......
.....
.....
"-
,
\
\
\
\
Plr.dilt \
Point '
\
\
\ '
\
6'0\
!
..
..
,.
-
III
"'
III
..
..
.
.
SOU N D~
..
.
I
.
I
I
,.
"
r-47
II
"
..
It)
""
"
-2.~'''.
,.
..
~:r.>:(lO
..
'"
,
.
.
I
" I ..
",' I ....../.
to\; -" i
~ ",."--- !
" ,
./ n
./.
/
/
&!l5:u..:t.
.
.
..
I
COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM
I
I
I
Name of Area: Jockey Creek Spoil Area
County(ies): Suffolk
Town(s): Southold
7.5' Quadrangle(s): Southold, New York
I
I
I
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER):
I
I
I
Small dredge spoil island and a
aand peninsula in a heavily developed
tidal creek mouth; not a rare
ecosystem type.
SPECIES VULNERABILITY (SV):
(IS)
Individual
Score
o
48.5
Small number of least terns (E) and p1p1ng
plovers (T) nesting in 1983 and 1984.
Seven pair least terns and two pairs of piping
plovers nested in 1985. Additive division:
36 + 25/2 = 48.5.
I
HUMAN USE (HU):
I
I
I
I
I
No significant fish or wildlife
related human uses of the area.
POPULATION LEVEL (PL):
No unusual concentration of any fish
or wildlife species occur in the area.
REPLACEABILITY (R):
o
o
Habitat easily replaced by well understood means,
although few potential replacement sites exist in
the vicinity.
I
(R)
Replace-
ability
"
0.6
"
0.6
"
0.6
"
0.6
0.6
SIGNIFICANCE
=
[(ERxR) + (SV"R) + (HU"R) + (PL"R)]
I
I
1-48
(IS"R)
Final
Score
=
0.0
=
29.1
=
0.0
=
0.0
=
29.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
***SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT***
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
JOCKEY CREEK SPOIL AREA
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
The Jockey Creek Spoil Area is located at the mouth of Jockey
Creek just north of the Great Hog Neck on Shelter Island Sound in
the Town of Southold, Suffolk County (7.5' Quadrangle: Southold
NY). The fish and wildlife habitat is an approximately 10 acre
sand spit and dredge spoil island in the mouth of a tidal creek.
There is heavy residential and marina development in the creek and
consequent pollution, mostly from runoff.
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:
The sand spit and dredge spoil island is not a rare ecosystem type
but the area has served for the last three years as a nesting site
for least terns (E) and piping plover (T). Small numbers of these
birds nested here in 1983 and 1984. At least seven pairs of least
terns and two pairs of piping plover nested in 1985. There are
no significant human use activities associated with the fish and
wildlife resources at the Jockey Creek Spoil Area.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Nesting shorebird species are highly vulnerable to disturbance by
humans from mid-April through July. Significant recreational use
(e.g. boat landing, hiking, picnicking, four wheel drive vehicle
use) in or near bird nesting areas should be minimized during this
period. Fencing and/or annual posting of the area should be
provided to help protect the nesting bird species. Unregulated
dredge spoil disposal in this area would be detrimental, but such
activities may be designed to maintain or improve the habitat, by
setting back vegetative succession. Introduction or attraction of
mamalian predators to the area would also be detrimental to the
populations of nesting birds.
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
N.Y.S. Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources &
Waterfront Revitalization
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
phone: (518) 474-3642
1-49
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Harry Knoch, Wildlife Manager
or Louise Harrison, Environmental Protection Biologist
NYS DEC - Region 1
state University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516) 751-7900
NYS DEC - Significant Habitat Unit
Wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, NY 12054
Phone: (518) 439-7486
Paul Stoutenburgh Martin Garrell or Jim McMahon
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Phone: (516) 765-1801
I-50
.
10
/
/
/
I
I
I
\
\
\
"-
,
.
7
3
,.
20
J
SHE L;7 ERos
"4
Southold
Bay
17
34
SOU.
~
~
/:
3
4
.
'<if
'- .
......~<>.~...",:.
,_'-:~ ..i~. - <>
.,.\ -'7..,
I_ J "~.:,')
_..; ::..;'::\ "e. -e
....- /
..,/-;': ..
,1\-<,,, H .~.
'~...~
-:,t
-"
,,,. " - /
\~" : ;_~.: ,-"'0
\.::' 'l.:#/:
,..: 0;;. -.;-:' '.
\,~.
1 :~:.\
.\;\ ~
\:, ""
r:.. _~~,..JJ C>
-_L -. "j ~
.=", .--. ~
'12'.~~<A.-' ~.~~, .:'\~~~-;
. ,;.;,.-. _...._ '\ ~"""'f. ",',.:.'"
. _.iY:".,:.,-.." .' V,'" , .....
..5;<':> '~' ""', \' . r
'f..t\~~~~:\ ,,:..:....
~;.. ..\. ',. .,':: ~
< ..' \~..,,'
~\"\ :,,\ --;.,..- 2
1 ~'; .~>:~.:.;!.f
_\ ':~'f.
.\.~/
,'~--J
,~ I
1
II
/
o
1
"'0
jd\
-_.-~': n:
"
\.~
-,
3
.
Quad:
Area
ItI
10
15
I-51
..
I
I
I
COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Area: Hashamomuck Pond
County(ies): Suffolk
I
Town(s): Southold
7.5' Quadrangle(s): Southold, New York
I
I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(IS)
Individual
Score
(R)
Replace-
ability
(ISxR)
Final
Score
---------------------------------------
I
I
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER):
o
x
1.2
= 0.0
I
I
Relatively large brackish pond, with some
undeveloped shoreline and marsh: rare on the
north fork, but rarity diminished by human
disturbance. Geometric mean: ;/9iO'= O.
SPECIES VULNERABILITY (SV):
33
x
1.2
=
39.6
I
I
I
I
I
I
Osprey (T) nesting in 1983 and 1984.
Importance of the pond as a feeding
area is not well documented. Diamondback
terrapin (Se) nesting. Additive division:
25 + 16/2 = 33.
HUMAN USE (HU) : 6 x 1.2 = 7.2
--------- --------- ----
Commercial and recreational shel1fishing
of county-level significance. Additive
division: 4 + 4/2 = 6.
POPULATION LEVEL (PL) : 4 x 1.2 = 4.8
--------- --------- ----
No unusual concentrations of any fish or
wildlife species in the area. Concentrations
of shellfish, especially hard clams,
significant in the county.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLACEABILITY (R):
1.2
I
Irreplaceable
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
I
SIGNIFICANCE
=
[(ERxR) + (SVxR) + (HUxR) + (PLxR)]
=
51.6
I-52
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
***SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT***
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
HASHOMOMUCK POND
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
Hashomomuck Pond is located west of Conkling Point emptying
through Mill Creek into Shelter Island Sound in the Town of
Southold, Suffolk County (7.5' Quadrangle: Southold, NY). The
fish and wildlife habitat consists of an approximately 220 acre
area consisting of a large, shallow brackish pond with a hard
bottom, marsh and inlet creek (Mill Creek). There is moderate to
high density residential development on the north and northwest
sides of the pond and marina development at the mouth of Mill
Creek.
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:
Hashomomuck Pond is a valuable pond/wetland on the north fork of
Long Island but its value is reduced by human disturbance and
water pollution. The pond still provides a valuable habitat for a
variety of fish and wildlife. Osprey (T) nest on platforms at two
locations in the pond and utilize the pond and marshes for feeding
areas. A variety of duck species also utilize this area for
feeding. Diamondback terrapin (SC) nest at the head of Mill
Creek. The pond also serves as a habitat for finfish and
shellfish including bay scallops and hard clams. The pond is one
of the top five areas for the harvesting of clams in Southold and
are of the top six areas for scallops, of significance in Suffolk
County. Hashomomuck Pond was closed seasonally to shellfishing
in the fall of 1984 but was opened again in the winter. It
remains the most important clamming site in the Town during the
winter.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Any activity that would further degrade the water quality in
Hashomomuck Pond would adversely affect the biological
productivity of this area. All species of fish and wildlife are
affected by water pollution such as chemical contamination
(including food chain effects), oil spills, excessive turbidity,
and waste disposal. Hashomomuck Pond is presently polluted from
several point and non-pGint sources of sewage and nutrient laden
runoff. Both the point and non-point sources of pollution should
be reduced or eliminated to enhance this habitat for shellfish and
other fish and wildlife species. Alteration of tidal patterns in
Hashomomuck Pond (e.g. by modifying the Mill creek inlet) could
have major impacts in the fish and wildlife species present.
Barriers to fish migration whether physical or chemical would have
major impacts on the fisheries resources in Hashomomuck Pond.
Elimination of salt marsh and intertidal areas, through dredging,
I-53
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
excavation, or filling, would result in a direct loss of valuable
habitat area. Nesting osprey and terrapin inhabiting the area may
be vulnerable to disturbance by humans from April through
mid-August. Recreational activities near the nesting sites should
be minimized during this period. Construction of shoreline
structures, such as docks, piers, bulkheads, or revetments, in
areas not previously disturbed by development, may result in the
loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife
resources of the Hashomomuck Pond area.
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
N.Y.S. Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources &
Waterfront Revitalization
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518) 474-3642
Harry Knoch, Wildlife Manager
or Louise Harrison, Environmental Protection Biologist
NYS DEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11780
Phone: (516) 751-7900
John Poole, Marine Resources Specialist IV
Bureau of Marine Finfish and Crusteaceans
NYS DEC - Region 1
Same address and phone as above
Pieter Van Volkenburgh, Chief
Bureau of Shellfisheries
NYS DEC - Region 1
Same address and phone as above
NYS DEC - Significant Habitat Unit
wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, NY 12054
Phone: (518) 439-7486
Paul Stoutenburg, Martin Garrell, or Jim McMahon
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Phone: (516) 765-1801
Chris Smith
NYS Sea Grant Extension Service
Cornell University Laboratory
37 Sound Ave.
Riverhead, NY 11901
Phone: (516) 727-3910
I-54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ralph Condit
46A pine Tree Road
Cutchogue, NY 19935
Phone: (516) 734-5547
I-55
I .0
63
I
..
I
I
Z4
I Z1
. "
.
.
zz
ZB
Z4
IZ
6
Cove
"
'0
/---
/' 77
/'
/
/
5'/ 1lO
I
/
/
/
/
I
I
\
\
\
.'-
'-
'-
'-
.......
28 ....................
.......
"-
'-
"
Jennings p~
..
10
---_4.5...
<
51
:it,;~i:.;.~r,:
"~~ :,$ h e-r:e)';..-.: .
.~ ~Y't$~and_'. ,o.t
- ~ :.. ~
,E t,or.)~,R.l
. '~,.- ~;:-,'-~-~
..............;~::-~"'~. ~~;
S1 I S L _~,D-S:-
\.0'
,-.
0,',
"
S
7
61
.
3
14
Z<
ZO
'z
<.
SHELTER
Z3
3'
ISLAND
Z4
n
I"
Southold
Bay
Z'
3
Quad: Southold, NY
Area Name: Hashomomuck
Habitat Boundary:
Page 1 of 1
17
~F
<
.
1::'. ,~
. .-' '.-:\
- ,t
.
,
-,.
P~ril:: ::.~
PC.lr:~
\
. \
\
\
\ -
\
. '. .- r.< !;> .. '7 .r. oJ: 00:. . 0
~~', -, .~ v. ,..... .'. :",' :'1. ~d-O'hl. :::"tfJ ~,,- ... - '_~
. . . . _ ~. ;:Jl. _..' '0" .
-' . ;r. 0 .' . ,;:~ 0' -, .4"."" SHot 1, I; '~.: 't '" -....-- ,-" I
:---:? . -,-.0 cl;,'f> _'~.~:~' ,=-';;./l ; Z: . l~o1 _ :,-- I~ I. . '. 'j~ J Reoser.voir - -,..,~ :
-~~ _'0" __~. ,~..~.. v , 'l:i. I I I _/ \ :. . "\';".(01 -_ ~ ' . .
_'-::-:~L)c, ,:(;~i1, ;, .-=~: I:(!\ ,~,- ,~~.tL.s,}Y'l: ,~_
I-56
e,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM
Name of Area: Conkling Point
County(ies): Suffolk
Town(s): Southold
7.5' Quadrangle(s): Greenport, NY; Southold, NY
(IS)
Individual
Score
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER):
9
Relatively small, undeveloped,
sand spit and marsh, rare on
north fork of Long Island.
SPECIES VULNERABILITY (SV):
48.5
Least tern (E) and piping plover
(T) nesting. additive division:
36 + 25/2 = 48.5.
HUMAN USE (HU):
o
No significant fish or wildlife
related human uses of the area.
POPULATION LEVEL (PL):
4.0
One of the two largest concentrations
of nesting least terns on the north
fork in 1983 and 1984, of county-level
significance.
REPLACEABILITY (R):
Uncertain of ability to replace.
(R)
Replace-
ability
"
1.0
"
1.0
"
1.0
"
1.0
1.0
SIGNIFICANCE
=
[(ERzR) + (SV"R) + (HU"R) + (PL"R))
I-57
(ISxR)
Final
Score
=
9.0
=
48.5
=
0.0
=
4.0
=
61.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
***SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT***
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CONKLING POINT
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
Conkling Point is located approximately two miles southwest of the
Village of Greenport, on Shelter Island Sound, in the Town of
Southold, Suffolk County (7.5' Quadrangles: Greenport, N.Y., and
Southold, N.Y.). The fish and wildlife habitat is approximately
25 acres in size, consisting of a narrow, sparsely vegetated, sand
peninsula, a small protected bay, salt marsh, and tidal flats.
Conkling Point is generally undeveloped and privately owned.
However, the area is bordered by high density residential
development to the north, resulting in some recreational
disturbance of the habitat.
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:
Conkling Point is a relatively small coastal wetland area, similar
in nature to many other points around the peconic Bays shoreline,
but important as a habitat for wildlife. This area has served for
many years as a nesting site for least terns (E) and piping
plovers (T), with both species present in 1983 and 1984. In 1984,
approximately 100 pairs of least terns and 5 pairs of piping
plovers nested in the area. Approximately 45 pairs of least terns
and 6 pairs of piping plovers were present in 1983. The
concentrations of terns nesting at Conkling Point were the second
largest and largest on the north fork of Long Island in 1983 and
1984, respectively. OVerall, the population levels of least terns
and piping plovers were unusual in Suffolk County. The tidal
wetlands at Conkling Point serve as feeding areas for the least
terns and many other wildlife species. There are no significant
human use activities associated with the wildlife resources of
this area.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Nesting shorebird species inhabiting undeveloped sand beaches of
Long Island are highly vulnerable to disturbance by humans from
mid-April through July. Significant pedestrian traffic or
recreational vehicle use of the Conkling Point peninsula could
easily eliminate the tern and plover populations, and should be
minimized. Fencing and/or annual posting of the area should be
provided to help protect the nesting bird species. Unregulated
dredge spoil disposal in this area would be detrimental, but such
activities may be designed to maintain or improve the habitat, by
setting back vegetative succession. Loss of the salt marsh
habitat, through excavation or filling, would reduce its value as
a food producing area for many wildlife species. Introduction or
1-58
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
attraction of mammalian predators to the area would also be
detrimental to the populations of nesting birds.
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
N.Y.S. Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources &
waterfront Revitalization
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518) 474-3642
Harry Knoch, Wildlife Manager
or Louise Harrison, Environmental Protection Biologist
NYSDEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516)751-7900
NYSDEC - Significant Habitat Unit
Wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, NY 12054
Phone: (518) 439-7486
I-59
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Area: Port of Egypt Island
County(ies): Suffolk
Town(s): Southold
7.5' Quadrangle(s): Southold. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(IS)
Individual
Score
(R)
Replace-
ability
(ISxR)
Final
Score
---------------------------------------
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER):
o
x
1.0
=
0.0
Small. sparsely vegetated sand
island; not a rare ecosystem type.
SPECIES VULNERABILITY (SV):
25
x
1.0
=
25.0
I
I
Common tern (T) nesting; roseate
terns (E) and piping plover (T)
have nested here. but not adequately
documented.
HUMAN USE (HU):
o
x
1.0
=
0.0
I
I
I
I
I
No significant fish or wildlife
related human uses of the area.
POPULATION LEVEL (PL):
16
x
1.0
=
16.0
One of the largest common tern
concentrations in New York State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLACEABILITY (R):
1.0
Techniques for habitat replacement
allow reasonable likelihood for
success. but uncertain of ability
to replace the population level.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
SIGNIFICANCE
=
[(ERxR) + (SVxR) + (HCxR) + (PLxR)]
=
41.0
I
I
1-60
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
***SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT***
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PORT OF EGYPT ISLAND
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
Port of Egypt Island is located approximately two miles east of
the hamlet of Southold, on Shelter Island Sound, in the Town of
Southold, Suffolk County (7.5' Quadrangle: Southold, N.Y.). The
fish and wildlife habitat is a narrow, sparsely vegetated, sand
island, approximately 4 acres in size. This island is located at
the mouth of Mill Creek, just offshore from an area that is
heavily developed with marina and port facilities.
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:
Port of Egypt Island is a very small sand island, similar in
nature to many other areas around the peconic Bays shoreline, but
very important as a habitat for wildlife. The island has served
for many years as a major nesting site for common terns (T) and
black skimmers, and occasionally for roseate terns (E) and piping
plovers (T). In 1984, approximately 500 pairs of common terns and
20 pairs of black skimmers nested in the area. Similar numbers of
these species were reported nesting here in 1977, along with 2
pairs of roseate terns. There were two piping plover nests in
1985. Although population estimates are not available for the
intervening years, Port of Egypt Island was active as a nesting
area throughout the period. The concentration of common terns at
this site was among the 6 largest on Long Island in 1984, of
statewide significance. There are no significant human use
activities associated with the wildlife resources at Port of Egypt
Island.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Nesting shorebird species inhabiting undeveloped sand beaches of
Long Island are highly vulnerable to disturbance by humans from
mid-April through July. Significant recreational activity (e.g.,
boat landing) on the Port of Egypt Island could easily eliminate
the tern and skimmer populations. Fencing and/or annual posting
of the area should be provided to protect the nesting bird
species. Unregulated dredging and dredge spoil disposal in this
area would be detrimental, but such activities may be designed to
maintain or improve the habitat. Introduction or attraction of
mammalian predators to the area would also be highly detrimental
to the populations of nesting birds.
1-61
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
N.Y.S. Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources &
Waterfront Revitalization
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518) 474-3642
Harry Knoch, Wildlife Manager
or Louise Harrison, Environmental Protection Biologist
NYSDEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516)751-7900
NYSDEC - Significant Habitat Unit
Wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, NY 12054
Phone: (518) 439-7486
1-62
J
00
"
2tJ
I
H
I
..
12
I
,.
I
27
IS
I
.
.
~;a~_
-.1 ~"
-.
;
I
---!5'
,
.
-.... .._,~.
;;:-}-71
~Jr' d2~
u
10
$1
10
,
.,
IU
..
..
.
N
zo
..
SHELTER
23
-'.
ISLAND
H
Southold
Bay
'"
,/
"
-'
Quadl Sovthold. NY
Ar.. Namel Port ~f ESypt
Habitat Boundary
Pa.. 1 of 1
.
.
" -
." - .."
1:5--
',,'
:..,- . "::. t.
~'.' .. 0"
5.~ c,a
=-:::-~.~~n_____
.
1-63 \ i
,
-JI _~.l"":"-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Area: Long Beach Bay
County (ies) : Suffolk
Town(s): Southold
7.5' Quadrangle(s): Orient, NY-CT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(IS)
Individual
Score
(R)
Replace-
ability
(IS:ltR)
Final
Score
---------------------------------------
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER):
64
:It
1.2
=
76.8
Large undisturbed coastal wetland
and beach ecosystem, rare in New
York State.
SPECIES VULNERABILITY (SV):
33
:It
1.2
=
39.6
Osprey (T) and diamondback
terrapin (SC): additive
division: 25 + 16/2 = 33.
HUMAN USE (HU):
27
:It
1.2
=
32.4
Commercial shellfishing area of significance in the northeast
region of the United States. Various fish and wildlife
recreational activities including clamming are important to
Suffolk County residents: additive division: 25 + 4/2 = 27.
POPULATION LEVEL (PL):
25
:It
1.2
=
30.0
Number of nesting osprey is unusual
in the State. Concentrations of
scallops unusual in northeastern
United States.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLACEABILITY (R):
1.2
I rreplace able
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SI GNIFl CANCE
=
[(ERxR) + (SVxR) + (HUxR) + (PLxR)]
=
178.8
1-64
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
***SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT***
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
LONG BEACH BAY
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
Long Beach Bay is located on the northeastern fork of Long Island,
one mile east of the hamlet of Orient, in the Town of Southold,
Suffolk County (7.5' Quadrangle: Orient, N.Y.-Conn.). This
approximately 1,300 acre habitat includes Long Beach Bay the
adjacent tidal salt marsh areas, and Orient Beach State Park,
which is comprised of a long, narrow, sand peninsula protecting
the bay area. Most. of the open water area of Long Beach Bay is
less than 6 feet deep at mean low water.
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:
Long Beach Bay and Orient Point Marshes comprise a large and
relatively undisturbed coastal estuarine ecosystem. Areas such as
this are rare in New York State, and provide habitat for a
diversity of fish and wildlife species.
In 1984, approximately 15 pair of osprey (T) were reported nesting
in the Long Beach Bay area. This is one of the largest nesting
concentrations of osprey in New York, and the potential exists for
additional nesting pairs at this site. Almost all of the nests
are located on man-made platforms placed around the perimeter of
the bay. A variety of seabirds, shorebirds, and wading birds use
this area for feeding or for stopovers during migration. This
area is especially significant as a feeding area for herons,
egrets, and ibis which nest on Plum Island. Long Beach Bay is
also an important waterfowl wintering area in Suffolk County.
Aerial surveys of waterfowl abundance in January for the ten year
period 1975-1984 indicate average concentrations of over 300 birds
in the bay each year, including approximately 240 scaup (900 in
peak year), and 70 black ducks (300 in peak year), along with
lesser numbers of mergansers, bufflehead, goldeneye, and mallard.
Diamondback terrapin (SC) are frequently observed in the marsh.
Fish and wildlife recreational activities in the area important to
the residents of Suffolk County include waterfowl hunting,
fishing, and birdwatching. Bay scallops are abundant in Long
Beach Bay, contributing to a commercial Shellfishery of
significance in the northeastern United States. Also, the bay is
one of the top three areas for clams in the Town of Southold, of
significance in Suffolk County.
1-65
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Any activity that would degrade water quality, disrupt tidal
patterns, increase sedimentation, or eliminate wetlands would
adversely affect the birds and shellfish found in this area. It
is essential that high water quality be maintained in the bay to
protect the bay scallop and hard clam fishery. Development of
harbor facilities and construction of breakwalls or bulkheads
would result in the loss of productive areas which support the
fish and wildlife resources of Long Beach Bay. Ospreys nesting in
the area may be affected by human disturbances, especially during
the nesting and fledging period from March through mid-August.
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
N.Y.S. Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources &
Waterfront Revitalization
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518) 474-3642
Harry Knoch, Wildlife Manager
or Michael Scheibel, Fish and Wildlife Technician
NYSDEC - Region 1
Building 40, SUNY
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516) 751-7900
Pieter VanVolkenburgh, Chief
Bureau of Shellfisheries
NYSDEC - Region 1
Building 40, SUNY
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516) 751-7900
NYS DEC - Significant Habitat unit
Wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, NY 12054
Phone: {5l8) 439-7486
Paul Stoutenburg, Martin Garrell, or Jim McMahon
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O.
Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Phone: (516) 765-1801
1-66
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chris Smith
NYS Sea Grant Extension Service
Cornell University Laboratory
37 Sound Ave.
Riverhead, NY 11901
Phone: (516) 727-3910
1-67
I
I
I
I
I
10
I
I
~
..
l
I
I'
,
I
.
I
I
-
Qll~~: C':~:;.:~::::..
l"..rer.. l:~..:e: LC
..J..,c
-;'"-C
li~~it.::lt ~oun~:--.ry
i)~~e 1 0::: ~
lO
..
+
..
..
.. ..
L D ..
- ..
-
~
If
~
III .. r
.,~
II
III 10'
.. 10'
..
~ - III
.. ..
.. ..
..
.. .. .. .. ..
SA ~ U60
", .. .
R . ..
.
"
.. <<I
i'00<
,
.
~
"t'
~
~
.
I
I
.
1:(;'" II
~4J
"
'" ~~
U,.
,
, ,
BAY
2<<70000
17'30"
41'07
72'15'
73()l1OOM.E.
H80000
c"
10lU
BOUNDARIES:
St.te............................................................. _ __ ___
Counly........................................................... _ _ _ __
'CllO REI'
!lOllO
(0.-
fCOO
1-68
l~
...
Plum Gut ,.-
Middle n HIlrl>or/
Ground,g ,
~./
,I
,to l,' +
~".
~,'
U
At/g,: ~l~
~"j // 17 ~
i ..- S4~"
'.. -.,
.' ;,'
l...'
./
............
f~!'!!:!.....--.
....~.
---'"
~__..... II
. ....~.--..I~...~
\
'~t?
.~
I/O ',c.
..0 ' '\..
."
< '.~
o ~
+ \\
o
oM>
"
..
I
o
~1De
'75
13.
III
'H
N 100
71
00
5.
100
I
10' :....
I
.~
-
6' 14
~ . .Orient"
lPLilhthOYM
-
14.
.'
..
!
17
o<>\~
7.
.
Ie
.
III
'"
,.
>>
+
.,
I
I
I
.1 FEET
I I
I
--
I
I I
I ",
I I
I
1
I .
..
I 10
I I
I
I
I
I !
.1.30" I>> I
72.15'
.
'.
..
-
..
I.
15
.,
G
4
e
LJ
10
..
I
.tV
I~
..
J.
..
II
.7
-
..
I~
~
.,
Qucd: PLUl.; ISLUl:>. I;Y
Are:;. I1aoe: LOIlG IlEACH L:.Y
Habitat Boundary
Page 2 of 3
I
....p.rod .nd publilhod in 1981 by lho N." York 51.1. Deparlmenl
of Transport.tion. in cooperation with the U.S. Department of
Tllft.port.tion: F,der." Hi.hwIY Adminiltr.lion.
M.p baR "Om 19S4 U.S. GOOlD,...., SulYlY 7.5-minul. Quadran
I
-
t
1000 0
~--
~f('
I
-
TV'_
Man .."visions mlde ~slnl' 1980 leri., photo.raptly. construe'
1-69
/ffi
Polycc'
-,;>-a:.. . ,.
, ~-...
~'.. ..
II
I H ARB O",R
I
.
I
I "
~"
,
I '-'....... " ,
,. --
-z3_
I ----~-------~
10
I
I
I
.1'
n
I
"
I
I
J
..
('>
I'~ .
~.s'
TATE .
,1!frrl.''''''''
II
r
10
.
10
"
It)
.
,.
"
G
A
..
II
1'1
.
,.
.
..
..
.
"
..
Q
II
II
"
II
.
.
+
.
..c"
.
.
r
.
Sh.'r
Bor
H A
d
..
,.
II
B
A Y
..
II
II
"
..
NEW 'rUI(K- ~UFFOL~ \..
7.5 MINUTE SERIES
13()O11O..[. .2480000 Fn
..
Ie
"
"
n
II
10
IS
"
Quad: GP.EEllPOP.T. IlY
Area llane: LOIlG !lEACH BAY
Habitat Boundary:
Page 3 of 3
JI;!?" .
1 ....
)
Ii 1-70
.
r
I
I
-tJ
I
I
COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM
I
I
Name of Area: Orient Harbor
County(ies): Suffolk
Town(s): Southold
I
I
7.5' Quadrangle(s): Orient. NY-Conn.: Greenport. NY
(IS)
Individual
Score
I
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER):
20
I
I
I
Moderately shallow open wster bay
area; common in Peconic Bays area.
but rare on Long Islsnd. Geometric
mean: ~16x25 = 20.
SPECIES WLNERABILITY (SV):
25
Osprey (T) nesting. Diamondback
terrapin (SC) may nest in the area.
but the importance of the area to
the species not documented.
I
I
HUMAN USE (HU):
25
Commercial bsy scallop shellfishery is
significant in the northesst region of
the United States.
I
I
I
I
POPULATION LEVEL (PL):
25
Concentrations of bay scallops significant
in the northesst region of the United
States; "''''aterfo~~l COflcentrat ions sigr:ifiC'snt
between county and regional level. especially
for scoters.
REPLACEABILITY (R):
I
Irreplaceable
I
=
[(ERxR) + (SVxR) + (HUxR) + (PLxR)]
SIGNIFICANCE
I
1-71
(R)
Replace-
ability
x
1.2
x
1.2
x
1.2
x
1.2
1.2
(ISxR)
Final
Score
=
24.0
=
30.0
=
30.0
=
30.0
=
114.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
***SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT***
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ORIENT HARBOR
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
Orient Harbor is located near the eastern end of the north fork of
Long Island, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County (7.5'
Quadrangles: Orient, N.Y. - Conn.; and Greenport, N.Y.). This
area is approximately 1800 acres in size, consisting primarily of
open water area in the harbor, along with an undeveloped tidal
wetland area on its north shore. Water depths in most of the
harbor are generally less than 20 feet below mean low water. The
harbor is bordered by much undeveloped land, including Orient
Beach State Park to the east and south, and low density
residential development on the west.
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:
Orient Harbor is generally representative of the peconic Bays
ecosystem, in being a broad expanse of moderately shallow water.
This habitat type is unlike the very shallow bays on the south
shore of Long Island or the relatively narrow bays on the north
shore. The tidal wetlands area adjoining Orient Harbor are an
important component of this ecosystem, contributing to the
biological productivity of the area.
Orient Harbor is an important habitat for a variety of fish and
wildlife species. From November through March, Orient Harbor
supports wintering waterfowl concentrations of regional
significance. Mid-winter aerial surveys of waterfowl abundance
for the ten year period 1975-1984 indicate average concentrations
of over 500 birds in the area each year (1,825 in peak year),
including approximately 360 scoters (1,695 in peak year), along
with lesser numbers of scaup, black duck, common goldeneye,
bufflehead, red-breasted merganser, oldsquaw, canvasback, mallard,
and Canada goose. In 1983 and 1984, Orient Harbor was also
inhabited by at least one nesting pair of osprey (T), which
utilized man-made nesting platforms located in the salt marsh
north of the harbor. The potential exists for additional nesting
pairs at this site. Diamondback terrapin (SC) have been seen here
but the location of their nesting sites and the importance of thiF
area to the species is not well documented.
Orient Harbor is a productive habitat for marine finfish and
shellfish. This area is one of the top scallop producing areas on
Long Island, supporting a commercial shellfishery significant in
the northeast region of the United States. The harbor also serves
as a nursery and feeding area (from April-November, generally) for
many estuarine fish species, and is an important spawning area for
weakfish, winter flounder, and scup.
1-72
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Any activity that would substantially degrade water quality in
Orient Harbor would affect the biological productivity of this
area. All species of fish and wildlife would be adversely
affected by water pollution, such as chemical contamination
(including food chain effects), oil spills, excessive turbidity or
sedimentation, and waste disposal. It is essential that high
water quality be maintained in the area to protect the bay scallop
fishery. Thermal discharges, depending on time of year, may have
variable effects on use of the area by marine species and
wintering waterfowl. Installation and operation of water intakes
could have a significant impact on juvenile (and adult, in some
cases) fish concentrations, through impingement or entrainment.
Construction of shoreline structures, such as docks, piers,
bulkheads, or revetments, in areas not previously disturbed by
development (e.g., natural beach or salt marsh), may result in the
loss of productive areas which support the fish and wildlife
resources of Orient Harbor. Ospreys in the area may be adversely
affected by human disturbances (e.g., boat-landings or pedestrian
traffic close to the nest site), especially during the nesting and
fledging period (March - mid-August).
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
N.Y.S. Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources &
Waterfront Revitalization
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518) 474-3642
Harry Knoch, Wildlife Manager
or Louise Harrison, Environmental Protection BiOlogist
NYSDEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516)751-7900
John Poole, Marine Resources Specialist IV
Bureau of Marine Finfish and Crustaceans
NYSDEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516) 751-7900
Pieter VanVolkenburgh, Chief
Bureau of Shellfisheries
NYSDEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516) 751-7900
1-73
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NYSDEC - Significant Habitat Unit
Wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, NY 12054
Phone: (518) 439-7486
Paul Stoutenburg, Martin Garrell, or Jim McMahon
Town of Southo1d
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O.
Box 1179
Southo1d, NY 11971
Phone: (516) 765-1801
Chris Smith
NYS Sea Grant Extension Service
Cornell University Laboratory
37 Sound Ave.
Riverhead, NY 11901
Phone: (516) 727-3910
1-74
I
.,.""
I
I"
I
'"
I
I"
I
I ~
..
t
I ,.
.
'"
7
I Z'
a
I
.
I .
I
I
-,-
"
#00
Quad: Or-'
Ar-ea N l~rlt, NY
H a"'~: Or'
abitat B 'ler,t
P.II~ 1 our,d.r-v
of 2
Har'bc,r'
..
s
'14
i
-
I
I .. ..
U T .. ..
11 H ..
0 .. ..
'J L ..
D ..
.. .. IJ J'
...
41 " ...
..
..
41 ,.
J_ . "
,"
.. JI ~ "\ "
... ... ,
iN
...
I. t
,
N ,.
JI ,. .
"i? .;..
o
..
50
..
n
..,
>7
,.
...
J.
n
,.
n
" "
,
.
IS
17
,. ORiENT
IS
,. HARBOR
II
"
,.
. ,.
,.
...
...., f'
,.
- .
,.
. LO.
"
. .
IS I .
.
, .
.
,
115 BAY
"
..
:.u:~ [:.::1
'.
GARDINERS
725000m.[.
-
.'
II
,
.'10
.
. .
GRCE.NPORT
SCALE 1 :24 000
_ _ _~ 100> --- 0
I -- ~-.;;:-~
~!l __....ClCX)
o sooo
-- --
i
I M:U
EO,
~
(
I=":'
6000
_ 7c:o:::l f[
_ _~ 'l.llOM~Ut
1-75
I, ""IO~~~
..' ; L-,r.:::: . .' .'
I".\-L.-.:':
. .:.,,:.:;~~,)?"
...... ...... ~'-,
'. .:;: ~":..~lll
.....\~i1.
~.i~'0;y{
.;-: Sp,""-. '<mil
',,{~7 'T
I "::'/
" I
.', /- ...
.~',
I".. Pt
, ,. ,.
10
0 " J E N T
"
"
10
10
.
-n- "
0 L ..
I
H A
I.
R B
O,oR
,
-------j---
"
"
17
IS
----
.......
.......
.......
........
.......
,
,
"
~
"
"
"
" "
"
"
,
'.......---
--- -z.3
--
'"
.
35
00
"
3<
13
.
i'....
10
r,"
.~:
3.
n
l:"
. ..::~
I
13
G
I
,.
I
w
I>
n
.
..
.
.
I
--__....k'_______
.
10
. .
.
15
.
.
~
,
3
11
..
.
,
10
'"
-
,.
13
II
.
10
/I
".",.',.-."
II
I
.
.
I
~ \
~ + \
I (.
."- 'r"
o. .
'" .
.. .
.
I
7
,
,
7
3
-
eact'l
3 .
~~
0,
o
7 ~
3 ~,~i~,:
cl.~n'd,
-r "_
"., '~,
I
,
.-
I:. .
f~
'.~. \
7
\~" .
~.: .'f~ ~ ~.
------
,
"-
~
--
I
~
:8 '..~ ~.
. .
. i -
....i-
~_t
I I-
.--... - . ~
I .... .
. \ :=~. I
.--;.:: --.." ,
,.....
::
....\anding
!,'Strip .
:/
'.
.,
" "
'.
'.
Quad: Greenport. NY
Area Name: Or'ier,t Har'bor.
Habitat Boundar~
Pa.. 2 of 2
1-76
'.
'ft'
. C.d.,
. 11J81'"\d
7
'0
~ .-;
;.:
8M
'8
~
.
~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Area: Plum Gut
County(ies): Suffolk
Town(s): Southold
7.5' Quadrangle(s): Plum Island, NY; See also NOAA National Ocean Survey
Chart 112354
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(IS)
Individual
Score
(R)
Replace-
ability
(ISxR)
Final
Score
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER):
64
x
1.2
=
76.8
A primary area of tidal exchange between
Long Island Sound and Gardiners Bay; contains
a deepwater channel with very turbulent currents
passing through it. Rare in New York State.
I
SPECIES VULNERABILITY (SV):
o
x
1.2
=
0.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
No endangered, threatened. or
special concern species reside
in the area.
HUMAN USE (HU):
29.5
x
1.2
=
35.4
This area supports one of the most valuable
sportfisheries in the northeastern U.S., and is a
regionally significant area for commercial fishing
for finfish and lobster. Additive division: 25 + 9/2 = 29.5.
POPULATION LEVEL (PL):
16
x
1.2
=
19.2
Concentrations of finfish foraging in and
migrating through the area are unusual in
New York State.
REPLACEABILITY (R):
1.2
I
Irreplaceable
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
I
SIGNIFICANCE
=
[(ERxR) + (SVxR) + (HUxR) + (PLxR)]
=
131.4
1-77
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
***SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT***
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLUM GUT
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
Plum Gut is an area of open water located between Orient Point and
Plum Island, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County (7.5'
Quadrangle: Plum Island, N.Y.). The fish and wildlife habitat is
a deep channel (over 60 feet in depth), approximately one-half
mile across, and bordered by steep underwater slopes rising up to
the relatively shallow Midway Shoal (less than 20 feet deep).
This approximate 500 acre area is the primary opening in the
underwater ridge separating Long Island Sound and Gardiners Bay,
and is an area of very turbulent tidal exchange. Plum Gut is on
the ferry boat route from Orient Point to Plum Island and New
London, Connecticut.
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:
Plum Gut represents a very unusual physical environment in New
York State. The deep, turbulent, waters and shoals combine to
produce a productive and diverse habitat for marine fishes.
Significant concentrations of many species forage in this area,
including striped bass, bluefish, tautog, summer flounder, and
scup. Plum Gut is one of two major migration corridors for
striped bass, which move into Long Island Sound in spring en route
to their breeding grounds, and return to southern overwintering
areas during fall. Plum Gut is also thought to be the major
corridor for Atlantic Salmon returning to the Connecticut (CT.)
and Pawtucket (R.I.) Rivers in the early spring. As a result of
the abundant fisheries resources in the area, Plum Gut is one of
the most popular areas in the northeastern United States for
recreational fishing, with heavy fishing pressure occurring
throughout spring, summer, and fall. Much of this pressure is
brought in by charter boats from Greenport and Montauk Harbor. In
addition to sportfishing, the commercial trap net fishery and
lobster fishery in Plum Gut are of regional significance.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
The fisheries resources of Plum Gut would be most affected by any
activities that would substantially alter water currents in the
area. Also, installation and operation of water intakes would
have a significant impact on juvenile (and adult, in some cases)
fish concentrations, through impingement or entrainment. The
significant human use which this area supports is dependent upon
maintaining or enhancing opportunities for compatible recreational
1-78
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and commercial fishing, within the productivity limits of the
fisheries resources.
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
N.Y.S. Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources &
Waterfront Revitalization
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518) 474-3642
John Poole, Marine Resources Specialist IV
Bureau of Marine Finfish and Crustaceans and
Gordon Colvin
Division or Marine Resources
NYSDEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516) 751-7900
NYS DEC - Significant Habitat Unit
wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, NY 12054
Phone: (518) 439-7486
Christopher percy
The Sounds Conservancy, Inc.
Marine Sciences Institute - UCONN
Groton, CT 06340
Phone: (203) 445-1868
1-79
I:
I
...
I
1'0
,..
1-
tY.J
"!.
I
r-
,.,
i;C
1-
1--
..
....
!
;7
P!.8
175
..
'0
..
'9~
1'07
,..
"
m
~:,
In
.,
I
37 .
00
13
..,
..
,~ ..
,~
" 125
"
,~
,~
'P
~
'",
"
80 -
Middle n
Gfound'9
,..
'"
eel
.II
fiQfoO ..
. .OPi
""loo
Oo('>,e'
.
I
I~'...~-;..,.\,
~~:~.... '~\..J
If''T"~'''.;. ... \,.\0". /)
I ~:;~;f ..1-",.. J"~
.,:'. ..t--"..~ e?
~"'~'-'L' Ii .'
. Crr'.\;~ _ ~-;;-' ,
....lt~...=-'" . ..'
l~t.:;3;.1f .~-- r\.... ot ,#~#""'n~"
~ - .i .. ~.-- . _ ~..-; .....I II' II........
. ,_. \ '''~ \ ' " ......
6':-,-i.. ~\. .
',.". \ '", r .rlna
'.- ....
... "'\ / fJ]
~'. ,'. '$
-. ~-JJ
I i.f-i/lf m
~ /iAft i~~~H
1'-/
10
I
I.
p:Fl~/
rJ./
....
15
..
-
..-
100
IPI
hC..J,e
.,
o
,
,
:'
~:+
t<<) t;~' t
',80 ~f
z;,
, (;!,l ,..
At,o-~ ... 0
:'.; , ,..
I ;,,,' '7
i ./'
o .-
,/ .,/
..
.J
so
G
4.
Point
M'
'"
JI
..
J'
..
./(
..,
.D
l'
N
e
.. y
.7
1-80
Quad: Plum Island. NY
A~ea Name: Plum Gut
Habitat Boundary
PUle 1 of 1
I
I
I
I
COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Area: The Race
County(ies): Suffolk
Town(s): Southold
I
I
I
I
7.5' Quadrangle(s): N/A; See NOAA National Ocean Survey Chart 113205
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(IS)
Individual
Score
(R)
Replace-
ability
(ISxR)
Final
Score
---------------------------------------
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER):
64
x
1.2
=
76.8
I
I
I
A priaary area of tidal exchange between Long Island Sound
and Block Island Sound; contains a deepwater channel with
very turbulent currents passing through it. Rare in New
York State.
SPBCIES VULNERABILITY (SV):
o
x
1.2
=
0.0
No endangered, threatened, or
special concern species reside
in the area.
HUMAN USE (HU):
40.5
x
1.2
=
48.6
I
I
I
I
I
This area is nationally renowned for its
sport fishery and is a commercial lobster
fishery of regional significance. Additive
division: 36 + 9/2 = 40.5.
POPULATION LEVEL (PL):
16
x
1.2
=
19.2
Concentrations of finfish foraging in and
migrating through the area are unusual in
New York State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLACEABILITY (R):
1.2
Irreplaceable
I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
SIGNIFICANCE
=
[(ERxR) + (SVxR) + (HUxR) + (PLxR)]
= 144.6
I
1-81
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
***SIGNIFlCANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT***
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THE RACE
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
The Race is an area of open water located between Race Point, at
the western end of Fishers Island, and Valiant Rock, located
approximately one and one-half miles southwest of Fishers Island,
in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County (NOAA Nautical Chart No.
13205). The fish and wildlife habitat is a very deep channel
(over 150 feet in depth), approximately one mile wide, and
bordered by steep underwater slopes rising up to relatively
shallow water (less than 30 feet deep) on each side. This
approximate 2500 acre area is the primary opening in the
underwater ridge separating Long Island Sound and Block Island
Sound, and is an area of very turbulent tidal exchange.
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:
The Race represents a very unusual physical environment in New
York State. The deep, turbulent, waters and shoals combine to
produce a productive and diverse habitat for marine fishes.
Significant concentrations of many species forage in this area,
including striped bass, bluefish, tautog, summer flounder, and
scup. The Race is also one of two primary migration corridors for
striped bass, which move into Long Island Sound in spring en route
to their breeding grounds, and return to southern wintering areas
during fall. As a result of the abundant fisheries resources in
the area, The Race has become a nationally renowned sportfishing
area with heavy fishing pressure occurring throughout spring,
summer, and fall. Much of this pressure is brought in by charter
boats from Greenport, Montauk Harbor, and Connecticut. In
addition to sportfishing, The Race supports a commercial lobster
fishery of regional significance.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
The fisheries resources of The Race may be most affected by any
activities that would substantially alter water currents in the
area. Also, installation and operation of water intakes would
likely have a significant impact on juvenile (and adult, in some
cases) fish concentrations, through impingement or entrainment.
The significant human use which this area supports is dependent
upon maintaining or enhancing opportunities for compatible
recreational and commercial fishing, within the productivity
limits of the fisheries resources.
1-82
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
N.Y.S. Department of State -
Division of Coastal Resources &
Waterfront Revitalization
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone I (518) 474-3642
John Poole, Marine Resources Specialist IV
Bureau of Marine Finfish and Crustaceans
NYSDEC - Region 1
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Phone: (516) 751-7900
NYSDEC - Significant Habitat Unit
Wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, NY 12054
Phone: (518) 439-7486
1-83
1:-
...
..
. r-":---
, '. .......,
s \....
if' \'
16 of: \
f \.:
V \
co '.
It
W
'-' 'c
."
'~
'.. . 64 >
:&s'..... ~
'. ... I' <::; '-'
: . ........\-
'_~'"",,,:, . .!~!:t
- u,'....___....
~ - .
~ .-~-
"
5.
.....
<, :
'-I'
,. '
/ -
. .#. ..' .1
-:;"-,\''.
"'-
&:l
~
..
.~
~
Quad: NOAA: Chart . 13205
Area Name: The Race
Habitat Boundary
Pa.e 1 of 1
.---j -
----- .. .0
l
..
. ~
. .;.1-.a.;'i
.- ~
. 11 ",'f- iJ
_ _______ __..lI.._..__..
1-84 ., ., '> .;;.
....- ~
\ ,. I'~,;/ '"
"- ..,~
\
I
I
COASTAL FISH & WIlDLIFE HABITAT RATING FO~l
Name of Area:
Hungry Point Islands
----------------------------------.----------------------------------------------
I
I
County(ies): Suffolk
Town(s): Southold
7.5' Quadrangle(s): Mystic, Conn.-NY-RI
I
I
(IS)
Individual
Score
I
I
I
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER):
9
Small, undisturbed, rock
and salt marsh islands;
unusual in Suffolk County.
SPECIES VULNERABILITY (SV):
o
I
No endangered, threatened, or
special concern species reside
in the area.
I
HUMAN USE (HU):
o
No significant fish or wildlife
related human uses of the area.
I
I
I
I
I
POPULATION LEVEL (PL):
16
One of the largest nesting concentrations
of double-crested cormorants in New York
State, and one of 5 major concentration
areas for wintering harbor seals in New
York.
REPLACEABILITY (R):
Irrep laceab Ie
I
I
I
(R)
Replace-
ability
x
1.0
x
1.0
x
1.0
x
1.0
1.0
SIGNIFICANCE
=
[(ERxR) + (SVxR) + (HUxR) + (PLxR)]
r-85
( ISxR)
Final
Score
=
9.0
=
0.0
=
0.0
=
16.0
=
25.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
***SIGNIFICANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT***
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
HUNGRY POINT ISLANDS
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
Hungry Point Islands are located along the north shore of Fishers
Island, approximately one and one-half miles from the eastern end
of the island, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County (7.5'
Quadrangle: Mystic, Conn.- N.Y.- R.I.). The fish and wildlife
habitat is a group of small islands, each less than 3 acres in
size, consisting almost entirely of exposed rock with small clumps
of trees, and salt marsh. These islands are totally undeveloped
and privately owned.
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:
Hungry Point Islands comprise a relatively small, but valuable,
coastal habitat type that provides suitable conditions for several
unusual species of wildlife. Isolation from predators and human
disturbance may be the most important component of the Hungry
Point Islands habitat, distinguishing this area from many other
rock and marsh islands in Suffolk County. The largest island in
the group is Pine Island, which has been the site of a nesting
colony of double-crested cormorants since the early 1970's.
During the 1984 breeding season, approximately 1400 adult
cormorants were observed on the island, and there were an
estimated 300 - 400 nests in use. In 1985, 750 cormorants were
observed. This represents one of the largest nesting
concentrations of double-crested cormorants in New York State.
Nesting colonies of great black-backed gulls and herring gulls
also occur on the islands in this area. In addition to these
birds, a concentration of harbor seals is known to occur regularly
at Hungry Point Islands during the winter months (December - early
May). The exposed rocks in this area provide an important
whauloutW area, which seals use for resting and sunning. This
location is one of five major haulouts around Long Island, serving
as an activity center for seals feeding in the Fishers Island
area. There are no significant human use activities associated
with the wildlife resources at Hungry Point Islands.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Any human disturbance or other disruptive activity during the
cormorant nesting season (March - early August), or when harbor
seals are in the area, would have a significant adverse impact on
1-06
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the populations of these species in the Long Island region. Loss
of vegetation on Pine Island could reduce the suitability of the
island as a nesting site for cormorants. Introduction of
mammalian predators to Hungry Point Islands would have significant
effects on the bird colonies in this area. Any permanent
alteration of the harbor seal haulout areas or obstruction of seal
migrations may adversely affect this species. Significant
underwater noise, from dredging or other activities, could
preclude access to potential seal habitat in this area.
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
N.Y,S. Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources &
waterfront Revitalization
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518) 474-3642
Harry Knoch, wildlife Manager
or Louise Harrison, Environmental Protection Biologist
NYSDEC - Region 1
Building 40, SUNY
Stony Brook, New York 11790
Phone: (516) 751-7900
Samuel S. Sadove, Research Director
OKEANOS Ocean Research Foundation
216 E. Montauk Highway
P.O. Box 776
Hampton Bays, N.Y. 11946
Phone: (516) 728-4522
Edwin H. Horning
The Henry L. Ferguson Museum
Fishers Island, N.Y. 06390
Phone: (516) 788-7293
NYSDEC - Significant Habitat Unit
Wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, New York 12054
Phone: (518) 439-7486
1-87
I' .,.\1_~~
....:..t~. ,~
........~'f'..
r....~-;.""."
......... .
" .
.'
17
70
..
. [,,~:
C,l.....p
:~
. : ~:
I
..
,.
.- =
. J
1
:a 'i: :~~
00
....1-
I
..
1
"
'0
.'
. .
.7
7.
..
"""
...
3'
1
1
.,
'0
\;.
"
c
1
..
o
\J
1
p
",
1
..
.--
2560 Door-
I
57'30"
~t11
A,.. ~it..--
ea Namel H ~vnll-NY-RI
Habitat un.,..y P .
Pale 18 founda,..y olnt Islands
o 1
1
f<
1-
15SOOO"
--
-
I
F--'2l - ~
-==<=~..~--
ODD ~-~---
~~-c::9-__1~' 1(<<'
1-
L~-.=- ...:._ D
..,--"'~
~ - .:;;-=~
S::,o,L[ 1.240JO
o
---=--
I""... :)
_ . S.:.I !~rtment
1'~'" . &,..ot;:e!'\~ent of
3"'"
.;r--- ~:l:
~):(
~ y.
1-8C
-~
..a'l:'~.~;"C'1_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COASTAL FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT RATING FORM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Area: Fishers Island Beaches
County(ies): Suffolk
Town(s): Southo1d
7.5' Quadrang1e(s): Mystic, Conn. - NY - RI
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(IS)
Individual
Score
(R)
Rep1ace-
ability
(ISxR)
Final
Score
---------------------------------------
ECOSYSTEM RARITY (ER):
o
x
1.0
=
0.0
A network of small segments of
undeveloped sand and pebble beach;
not a rare ecosystem type.
SPECIES WLNERABILITY (SV):
48.5
x
1.0
=
48.5
Least terns (E) nested at both beaches in 1984 and at Mud Pond Beach in
1985 (13 pairs). Small numbers of common terns (T) nested at Stone beach
in 1983 and 1984. Roseate terns (E) and piping plover (T) also have
nested here in the past decade, but not in 1983, 1984 or 1985. Ospreys (T)
nest nearby and feed in these areas. Additive division: 36 + 25/2 = 48.5.
HUMAN USE (HU):
o
x
1.0
=
0.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
No significant fish or wildlife
related human uses of the area.
POPULATION LEVEL (PL):
o
x
1.0
=
0.0
No unusual concentrations of any
fish or wildlife species occur in
the area.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLACEABILITY (R):
1.0
Uncertain of ability to
replace the habiatat.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNIFICANCE
=
[(ERxR) + (SVxR) + (HUxR) + (PLxR)]
=
48.5
1-89
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
***SIGNIFlCANT COASTAL FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT***
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FISHERS ISLAND BEACHES
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT:
The Fishers Island Beaches habitat consists of three areas on
Fishers Island, N.Y.: the Mud Pond Beach area on Fishers Island
Sound at the far eastern end of the island, the Middle Farms Beach
area on Block Island Sound on the south central shoreline, and the
Stone Beach Area on the far western end of the island between Hay
Harbor and Fishers Island Sound, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk
County (7.5' Quadrangle: Mystic, Conn.- N.Y.- R.I.l. The Mud
Pond Beach area is approximately 8 acres in size, consisting of
beach and rocky strand with a protective border barrier of dense
shrubs between the beach area and Mud Pond and further on, between
the beach and golf course. The western part of this area has been
posted. The area is mostly under private ownership and is partly
abutted by the golf course of the Fishers Island Club. There is
some recreational disturbance of the habitat from boaters,
picnickers, golfers and occassionally from four-wheel drive
vehicles. The Middle Farms Beach area is an approximately 17 acre
sand, gravel and cobble beach interspersed with shrubs adjoining
Island Pond and Beach Pond. A very shallow cut bisects the beach
and acts as an inlet to the ponds during storms. There is some
human disturbance at the western end of the beach. This area has
been posted at the western end. Island Pond is presently being
leased for oyster aquaculture. The third area, Stone Beach, is an
approximately ten-acre spit of sand, gravel, and pebbles dividing
Hay Harbor from Fishers Island Sound at the far western end of the
island. There is very little human disturbance here, due to
inaccessibility.
FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES:
The Fishers Island Beaches are small segments of undeveloped sand
and pebble beaches, not uncommon in the area, but important as a
network of suitable bird nesting sites. Least terns (El nested at
Mud Pond Beach and Middle Farms Beach in 1984 and at Mud Pond
Beach in 1985. Twelve nests were counted at each site in 1984.
Thirteen pairs nested at Mud Pond in 1985. Small numbers of
common terns (Tl have nested at Stone Beach in the past decade
including 1983 and 1984 but they were absent in 1985. The nests
were located in the middle of the Hay Harbor side of the beach.
Piping plover (Tl last nested in 1980 along the banks of the inlet
at Middle Farms Beach7 they were seen in 1984 but did not appear
to nest. Roseate terns (El were also seen at Mud Pond Beach in
1984 but did not appear to nest. There are also three active
1-90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
osprey (T) nests on poles adjacent to Middle Farms Beach and one
active osprey nest adjacent to Mud Pond Beach. There are gull
rookeries on the rocks offshore of all three of these beach areas1
most predominantly near Hay Harbor. The gulls are thought to be
the major deterrent to nesting of terns and plovers on these
beaches. Other bird species which use these beach areas include:
double-crested cormorant, great blue heron, little blue heron,
green heron, black-crowned night heron, American egret, snowy
egret, mute swan, mallard, black duck, gadwall, green-winged teal,
wood duck, American goldeneye, red-breasted merganser,
oystercatcher, spotted sandpiper, solitary sandpiper, greater
yellowlegs, lesser yellowlegs, belted kingfisher, eastern
kingbird, tree swallow, barn swallow, and brown thrasher. No
significant human activities were associated with the fish and
wildlife resources on the beaches.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
Nesting shorebird species inhabiting the Fishers Island Beaches
are highly vulnerable to disturbance by humans from mid-April
through July. Significant pedestrian or recreational vehicle use
of the beach areas could easily eliminate the tern and potential
plover populations. Fencing and/or annual posting of the area
should be provided to help protect the nesting bird species.
Unregulated dredge spoil disposal in these areas would be
detrimental, but such activities may be designed to maintain or
improve the habitat by setting back vegatative succession. Any
activities which could adversely impact the water quality of the
ponds would likely have detrimental effects on the suitability of
the area for feeding and nesting. Management activities to reduce
the gull population would enhance the suitability of these beaches
as nesting sites.
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONTACTS:
Tom Hart or Andrew Milliken
N.Y.S. Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources &
Waterfront Revitalization
162 washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518) 474-3642
Henry Knoch, Wildlife Manager
or Louise Harrison, Environmental Protection Biologist
NYSDEC - Region 1
Building 40, SUNY
stony Brook, New York 11790
Phone: (516) 751-7900
1-91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NYSDEC - Significant Habitat Unit
Wildlife Resources Center
Delmar, New York 12054
Phone: (518) 439-7486
Edwin H. Horning
The Henry L. Ferguson Museum
Fishers Island, New York 06390
Phone: (516) 788-7293
John H. Thatcher, Jr.
Fishers Island Conservancy
Fishers Island, New York 06390
Phone: (516) 788-7437 (summer)
P.o. Box 132
Green Village, New Jersey 07935
(201) 635-5470 (winter)
Charles
Fishers
Phone:
Ferguson
Island, New York
(516) 788-7479
06390
1-92
1\c'"1----
~".r~it
$, -- l'i-~
--
--
/-- _L
" $7 I
52
/'" .
,,'" Li..,thOU5"'~ North
./ ~ O",mpllna
, ..
,
,
/'"
,
,
/'"
" 45
/'"
,
$1 /'
,
/",'
,
I /",//""
,
.~/'
;1-
...~
"'.
I
I
~
I
I
..
I
I
~.
I
I
I
I
I
I.,
J
~
:.e
I
,-
25
",'"
"
..
Race PI
2'30"
1 "'IL[
~_._---
:a?-=-=;;:~ '';~~_.~
:;.~-- _, Ki~tI:~
"I
_tor arid.
u".....u!":"t.f\""'.M
!!~liO....1 0' Zor.a- ..a-
d, Le-:,. Is:ane! Z,,,:!.
!
..
1..:,
w
::J
_. ~ ,'.::;'
f. 1\
\\
..
f
\ S
, 45j5:':<- "
.0
.5
.5
1'1 1)
16
79
o \J
S
.ASouth
.J./ OlJm~lin.
(l~'.t
~H.mmock
B'
'5
'0
3~: .;;:
13
z.
..
"
10
16.
.,
..
z.
Hawks Nest
Point' I
11
"
. \I
/I
/I
"
/// ~ ~
, , 0
"
, "
Wee!
-~
.' \-L
, ,
13
~o
o
f/ .i
s
..
......,
BLOCK
I
75()OOCm.E.
ISLAND
..
Wilderness
Point
SOli 16
N/)
I
,
I
i.;ec(f):j
r
I ., c 1<'
-. .
72'00'
~DARlCS:
State................ ................................ .... ______
County.. ............. ..... ........................_____
~wnorCitv........ _____
Ir
Quadl New London. Conn-NY
RO. Area Namel Fi5her5 I51and Bea~h.~
~ Habitat Boundary
Pa.e 1 of 3
1-93
~t~". ...~......, ..u.....,...
"
1 ..,..,..,.......-.-
...,''\ _...~...."
- ~~~~-
72 .. -~,,,,,, 'iO~
-- ",.-~
1 -.-----
-,-
------
--
1
1
.'
."
.,
. . t:;..:~
..
..
1
t:-
."Middle
Chln".p
~
~.
:;'::l" -
ir..~
.'
.'
.
.
10
---'--
1
PI,l'tlit.
. Hoc/..
/4
~
; '/
\
.,
1
1
20
'.--
. -~,
.J
1
..
..
~
~to
I'
....... ..
, 'to
'.'-: .
i~ :..-
.
~.
.
..
1
1
.,
72
..
1
\..
D
1
5'
..
1
:-!~
'8
Quadl Mvsti
Area Namel ~~ Conn-NY-RI
Habitat BouFndlsher,s Island B
ar~ eache~
Pale 2 of 3 '
:1-1
.;:-=:,:,255>0000 FEET
----I
1
. Pre.,.red and publish .
of Transportation i:d In 1981 by the New Yor
T"nsportation. F;d cooperation with the Uk State Departm.
ent Hlahwlv Adminl$tr.tio~~' Department cu
1-94
::=....:.:.--- .
~~:..;.~.:....:~=-=.,--
J;:':';
.,"
I-
J<
"
"
1
70
,
.,
1
J7
Seil:
: Ro:~.::
;~,
1
-9.
~,
'~(-J.
tl'
';-
Wic.Ofle~set
__~<:;!~nd
..:..' '-- ')-",
"
.
,.
.
.
..... ~O. ,"-,-'~)):~r"
.,,', .4_ '- ~a'''-', -. .Point
--, /\ _ _ /" ,~\..s.' ..... ' -~~. . ",
o ,)f l>>;'l":t;..~~,_. ";o.:-r).l r\l'~ (rJ~"-1 r
( /0... '" lc. I ~ ~ ).' I~;J~U .
.:. ,/',,//' 11 .-}~-." "
.. '/ t.i.. 1".'. 1 0.,,,,"". .. -: - /
- -;...~ ~ '-1-,-, '........ ......- ~#-, nf:ud .'
2: .' ~f;"'f,S.;./~:.q~\!:r:y:. ~ .
. 1,.(,.~/,_.,,,p_.3 .
E!1St :,:>"'.E\;Y" '?-,~'~..f..-l,... \','/
I ~""'I.r\'-":.:>\t._il_"tr_;'l'
; o~:;:;I. 0 r_.:/i;~_~~;i~~:~~-;~F/
-. ";.. I..:S: ,~>::,,,,:,'-;;"f!J?!":,:-' :',' --" ,kW,pck
I - /.., 1" .-/ --, ~.; , .. 'V1sliHld
_ -'~~~9~c~~,'~'\' <~;:~~.;.':c:">;'.: :. 4~ ..
.:~~....-; ~~.,.
.,/ - "
j
1
I
-~.
..0
<:,.
0'
..
q.
'0
I,,'
1
n
..-0
<45v,-,\
~~
<>
'0
r.~
~7
.,
.,
47
1 f2
.0
.7 S 1
1 0 r
s
7e D
1 'N
A f:i.~
1" Ie:.
1 S m
1
/14
1 ., 1(
n.
C
12.
l, 0
Quad: Mystic. Conn - NY - RI
Area Name: Fishers Island ..:::
1 Beaches
1/3 195 Habitat Boundary:
Page 3 of 3
1
230
208
~---
---- --- -- -I-
--1 - ----- ,_
257uuuo -----r
__L__
55'
--- -- - -/----- --- - ---- - -- "--
"i'5
'::,.~'. .:""':. E.
1
1-95
SCALE 124000
o
] ~IL(
BOUND.:..R.: ::-
S:cdf'. .
C'--'-._..
--------.------- ---- -,,-
- ----- -. --- -..
._ - u_. __ .._____ ._.._ _____
; ((':"
2t,:-,)
~oo:'
-~,...~^
~.r~.ro
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I S41 Ltd.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & PLANNERS
I S41
SECTION II
PUBLIC COMMENTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I S41
I SS4iWSK1 ASSOCIATES INC. ""RO"""" CO'''LT'''' & PI"'ER\
SECTION ILA.
STENOGRAPHIC RECORD OF THE PUBLIC HEARING
APRIL 26, 1988
--_._--
I
I .,
r.:
I
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I (
I
I .
:
.
I .
.
.
I "
.
.
.
,
I ~
.
.
.
.
I
I
Il
I
10
11 I
12 II
il
13 Ii
I;
14 Ii
II
15
i;
16 'I
Ii
I:
17 "
"
Ii
18
II
19 "
:'
20
21
'i
I,
I
22 ,
'I
il
ii
23 II
2
SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
3
------------------------------------------------------X
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD HEARING,
4
5
In the Matter of the Generic Environmental
Impact Statement with respect to a proposed
"Local Law to amend the Southold Town Zoning
Code and Zoning Maps incorporated therein,
to implement in whole or in part, the
recommendations of the Master Plan Update
prepared by the Planning Board."
6
7
B
9
------------------------------------------------------X
Southold Town Hall
Hain Road
Southold, New York
April 26, 1988
2:00 P.M.
B E FOR E :
FRANCIS J. MURPHY,
Southold TOvm Supervisor.
A P PEA RAN C E S :
HON. RAYMOND W. EDWARDS,
Southold Town Justice
JEAN W. COCHRAN,
Councilwoman
GEORGE L. PElnrY, IV,
Councilman
RUTH OLIVA,
Councilwoman
ELLEU M. LARSEN,
Councilwoman
'.,..
24 'I
II
25 ,I
il
Ii II-I
I
I
I (
I
I
I !
I
I
I
I (
I
I :
I ~
I
I ;
o
I
I
II
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 :1
13
14
15
16
17
o
o
o
18
19
I,
'I
20
21
22
23 I
24 II
Ii
25 .I
'I
~
'-.-'
2
t
MR. MURPHY: Good afternoon. I would f
like to officially open this public hearing
that has been scheduled. I will read the
notice of the hearing.
"Notice is hereby given that the Town
Board of the Town of Southold will hold a
public hearing from 2:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.
and 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M., Tuesday, April 26,
1988, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road,
Southold, New York, on the Generic Environ-
mental Impact Statement with respect to a
proposed "Local Law to amend the Southold
To~m Zoning Code and Zoning Maps incorporated
therein, to implement, in whole or in part,
the recommendations of the Master Plan Update
prepared by the Planning Board."
SEQR lead agency is the Southold Town
Board. Copies of the Generic Environmental
Impact Statement are on file and available
at the Office of the Southold Town Clerk,
TOvm Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York,
during regular business hours.
A copy of this Generic Environmental
ImF-act Statement, which contains the proposed
II-2
I
I .
( 2
I 3
4
I 5
I 6
! 7
I
8
I 9
i
10 ,
I il
I'
11 II
il
I 1I
12
( 13
I
14
I 15
I 16 :1
0 I,
: 17
0
I 0 18
0
.
I 19
.
.
0 20
.
I ~ 21
: ,
0
.
I 22
23 il
I 24 Ii
I'
I I
I '-- 25 II
II
II
I II
3
local law and proposed map, has been placed
in the Floyd Memorial Library, Greenport, the
Southold Free Library, Southold, the Cutchogue
Free Library, Cutchogue, the Mattituck Free
Library, Mattituck, and the Fishers Island
Free Library, Fishers Island."
t
This notice was dated March 8, 1988,
signed by Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk.
We have proof of publication that it was pub-
lished in the Long Island Traveler and Watch-
man, and also from the Suffolk Times, that it
was published there. Also,that it was posted
by tr.e Tmm Clerk, certification by her, and
it was posted on the 21st day of Harch at the
TOlm Clerk's bulletin board in the Southold
Town Hall.
At this tiwe I would like to ask the
man who is responsible for the drafting of this
environmental impact statement to make a few
comments and, then, we will open it up. It is
going to be very informal. We will be here.
You are Imlcome to complain as you I.;ant, make
,-,
as many statements as you want. The only thing
I ask is that everybody who is going to make a
I
j
I
II-3
I \
I 1
I( 2
3
I 4
5
I 6
I~ 7
8
I 9
I 10
l' !
I 12
I r 13
\.
'4 :i
,
I ii
I:
15 ,I
I 'i
16 Ii
,
0 "
17
I 18
0
0
I 19
,
I 20
"
0 21
I ,
22
i\
I 23 1:
Ii
[:
24 I.
I ( ii
,
25 "
I;
I
I II
II
4
statement, to use the mike. Come up, identif~
yourself, name and address, so we have a perma-
nent part of the record.
I would like David J. S. Emilita to
address some points.
MR. EMILITA: Thank you, Frank.
I
Can you all hear me? I would just like
to quickly bring up today why I am here, what
has happened, and what may happen in the future.
I guess it was back in 1983, '82 or '83,
",hen the Planning Board of the Town began to
open up a broad range of environmental studies
with un eye towards updating the Southold Town
Maater Pl~n. In late 1985, the Planning Board
adopted a document of which was the summary of
the Haster Plan of the TOv.TIl of Southold and
has since been amended by the Planning Board.
One of the n:J.jor tools used .to implement the
major pla~ is the zoning ordi~ance.
The .:urrent zoning ordin,:;nce of the Tov.'T'.
of Southold, Chapter 100, dues not in many
respect~,rcflect the policy, program, and
language recommendations of the Master Plan. ,
So the Planning Board prepared an initial draft I
II-4
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
2
3
4
5
~
6
7
8
9
10 II
~ I
I,
,[
11
12
Ii
,
(
13
14
15
16 I~
II
"
:
o
17
18
.
.
19
o
20
.
,
,
.
21
22
I:
23 i:
II
24 ):
it
II
(
'-
25
il
I'
"
"
II
5
i
of the zoning ordinance recommended for the
adoption by the Town Board. The adopting
agency for the Town Board took the study for
many, many months, probably some of the most
grueling examinations of zoning I have ever
sat through, and went into the refining of the
proposed amendment to Chapter 100 of the Town
code.
NO\l, in accordance with State environ-
mental regulations and following a set of
public hearings back in January of '87, I
believe, ue had a few snowstorns, so I am not
quite sure of the date, it was determined that
the proposed local law, the implementation of
the local law at that time was that proposal
may have significant impact on the environment
and should be addressed as by what is knc-wn
as the Generic Environmental Impact Statement
according to the State environmental regulations.
We were asked to prepare the draft GElS,
as it is knov.'I1, for the Town. Let me quickly
read to you a section of the State regulatjons
to show you how this kind of impact statement
differs from the specific impact statement that
,-,
II-5
I
I
I (
I
I
I !
I
I
I
I r
.
'-
I
I
0
I ,
0
I 0
.
.
I ,
0
.
I ,
I
I
I
6
would be prepared by an individual who was
to come in for a site plan subdivision appro-
val, or perhaps even a special exemption.
Under the zoning we are talking about, two
different classes of environmental impact
state~ent, let me read for you the regulations.
\
A Generic EIS may be used to assess
the environnental effect of an entire program,
or plan, having Hide application or restricting
the r~nge of future alternative policies of the
project. Couched in a language, we find the
propooeci ,~.endment to the zoning ordinance.
F~rth~r GElS may be broader, more general,
than :he site or project, specif~~ GElS's, and
should d~scuss the language of the original or
the close advancements. They laay also include
sections of specific impacts, if such details
are available.
F~~ther, they may be based on conceptual
informaI:i.m. In some cases, tl,ey may identify
the i:1pcrtant elel:1ents of thE: nutritionally
based source. As WEll, the project may be baseQ
on future environmental patterns and characters.
They may discuss, in general, the terms of
II-6
,
I
I
(
I
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I (
I
I.
I :
I,
,
I
I
I
(
I "-
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I
:~ II
II
'I
12 :'
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 II
"
Ii
25 II
I
I,
Ii
II
.._.__.~------ -.----.-. - ... - ----.~.. -~ . -...... ... ....- _. .__........n__
7
constraints and consequences of any future
options. They may present, in analyzing genera
terms, a few hypothetical scenarios that could
and very likely do occur.
He believe this draft GElS has satisfied
l
these general requirements of the State regula-
tions, and it is to this end that this is put
forward for comments and review in accordance
with regulations. ~ihat will happen next is
that following the public comments, the To~~
Board will review your comments, prepare
responses to your comments, issue a final GElS
and, again, there will be a short comment
period follo\~ing that. The TOIm Board will
then take its last look and make a finding and
i
i
determination of what to do about the amendments
of the zoning ordinance.
So t~at is probably too quick a sketch of
where we are now, how we got here, and what we
are about to do. Now, I turn it back to Frank.
1ill. ~ruF.Fhr: Thank you, Dave.
l.})eard, end I am sure you are all
confused a little bit. Dave will be here,
and we are not here to debate anything that
II-7
I
I
I(
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I(
I
I;
.
I
I
I.
I
I
(
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I'
10 1
I
I
11 II
I,
1
'I
12 I!
II
13
14
15
16
17 '
"
i:
"
18
19 "
i:
20 Ii
21
ii
22 ::
23 ii
II
24 II
I,
25 Ii
Ii
II
'I
I'
-Ii
8
you would have, but if anyone does need clarifi-
.
cation on any point Dave will be here to clari-
fy it.
As I say, this is not a debate. It is
a public hearing. We want to hear from the
public, what you think.
l
At this time, I ask again, anyone on
the left-hand side starting with the front row;
who would like to address the Town Board?
HR. WACKER: Ronnie Hacker, representing
North Fork Environmental Council. I have some
renarks prepared here. As I say, I may have
other ~uestions to esk Dave later based on some
misunderstandings.
,
It was back in 1982, six years ago, that
the North Fork Environmental Council asked the
Town Board to place a moratorium on building
aubdivisions until a Haster Plan could be
completed.
NFEC brought in nearly 5,000 signatures
on a petition, c.:lllinz for a ~oratorium. He
could ha'le gotten r.1o::e, but we figured that
..-.'" -
5,000 names would be enough to convince the
Board that the people of Southold were sick of
rr-8
I
I
I
I
1
1 .
1
1
1
1 (
1
1 .
:
,
I.
o
I:
I"
1
1
1 ,-
1
(
2
3
4
5
6
7 I
8
9
I
I'
10 II
I'
I
I!
"
11 I,
II
,
Ii
12 ,I
13
14 I
"
15
16
17
18 I
19
20
21.
d
22
23
24
,
25 ;1
/
9
\
unreasonable development.
The Board did not agree. Now, we are
here, six years and many, many subdivisions
later, still without a Master Plan. But we
seem to be getting there, finally, and today
we are considering the Generic Eilvironmental
Impact Statement on that plan.
The North Fork Environmental Council
believes that the GElS under discussion does
a good job as far as it goes. But, it doesn't
go nearly far enough.
It warns us of "major irreversible
impnct" f:::-c:n converting more than half our
farmland into houses, shopping centers and
light industry. It says our creeks are
threatened with pollution from overcrowded
marine conditions, and our groundwater is in
danger of contamination from industrial zoning
in Cutchogue and from hamlet-density housinb
on the Norris property in Mattituck. It says
we ought to increase the size of buffer zones
for the To,.rn I s ,~etlands.
It warns us that the latest zoning map.
as ~t has been revised over recent years, has
i
I
I
I
I
II-9
I
I
t
I
I
I!
I
I
I
I (
I
I
I ~
c
I C
.
.
I:
,
I:
I
1 l
1
2
3
4
5
I
67 II
II
8
9 II
10 ,I
II
II
11 II
I
'1
i:
I
12 I
ii
"
13 Ii
"
i!
14 :i
15
16
17
18 I
19
20
21.
22 !I
I
'I
23
I:
24 Ii
"
I,
25 ..
.1
ji
'I
il
II
-....-.- .<.-_...- ---.-
10
serious environmental flaws.
All well and good. But there is a lot
more it doesn't say.
The State Environmental Quality Law
defines the environment as including, and I
quote:
l
"the land, air, water, minerals, flora,
fauna, noise, resources of agricultural, archeo-
logical, historic or esthetic significance,
existing patterns of populatio~ concentration,
distribution of growth, existi~g co~unity or
neighborhood character and hu:nan htlalth."
A nu:nber of these areas ~re ignored in
the GElS before us. It has no\: con:;idered:
The impact on our schools, roads and
traffic.
The increased need for public water
supply, "here we're going to get it, how much
is it going to cost?
The need for expanded ~ovcrnment servictls,
adQinistrative offices as well as the more
obvious police and highway departments and
fire fighting forces to serve the expanded
pop'ulation.
II-IO
I
I
I(
I
I
I~
I
I
I
Ie
I
I .
.
I-
I
I ;
:
I:
I
I(~
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,
,I
23 II
II
Ii
'I
24 I,
I'
,I
25 II
ii
Ii
I'
I
I
o
.
\
11
All of these will affect our taxes as
well as the environment, which for many of us
may decide whether we can continue to live here_
We hope that the mistakes of the marine
business zoning will be corrected with the
State's Local Water Revitalization Program,
and at no cash cost to us, but there still
remains zoning decisions on our latest zoning
map that, if left unchanged, will alter the
character of this town forever.
These should certainly be reassessed.
We should like to propose that the GEIS
be e:-:pnnded to address these concerns and that
the zoning map be adjusted, perhaps reverted
to the original map by RPPW in 1983. The
tinkering "lith it over the last five years has
left it seriously weakened, to the point where
it n~ longer accurately refl~cts the goals of
the Haster Plar:.
To do this, the North Fork Environmental
Council once again would like to propose a
mora tor i'..::l of perhaps six months or a year on
building of subdivisions. The need is more
pressing now than it was six years ago. We
I
. I
II-ll
I
I
I (
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I (
I
. .
.
o
..
.
..
.
I ~
.
.
. -
.
1 I
2
3
4
5
6
7
e I
9 I
I
10 I,
'I
I,
11 :1
12
13
I'
"
I,
14 I
15
'i
16 ,:
II
I
17
18 I,
"
I!
19 "
I:
20
21
22 j~
,I
23 I'
]:
24 'i
I,
I
,I
25 II
Ii
"
II
'I
I'
II
12
need to halt the rush of applications, there
are now more than 200, and give the overworked
Planning Board some breathing space while the
GElS and Zoning Map are reworked.
We hope that the present Town Board will
listen to us.
.
MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Ronnie.
Anyone else on the left?
HR. KELLEY, Christopher Kelley, of
the law firm Twomey, Latham, Shea and Kelley.
I am here on behalf of Frank Flynn and Henry
Heisr:lann. I have a set of written comments
I would like to submit to you, at this point.
I have appeared before this Board on behalf
of Mr. Heismann and Mr. Flynn on previous
occasions, both for a zoning change, or opposi-
tion to the zoning change, proposed at Young's
Hariria site on Sage CO'le, 1987, January, when I
presented the critique of the proposed zoning
amendment, at that time, and argued a GElS
should be prepared.
r-~hank the Court for considering our
argument and agreeing with us. I had the
. i
opportunity to review the Generic EnvLronmental i
i
I
i
II-12
I
I
I(
I
I
I~
I
I
I
Ie
I
I:
I:
.
I;
.
,
I~
:
:
I:
I
Il
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 i
11 II
II
12 :1
Ii
'i
13 Ii
14 Ii
'I
II
,
15 Ii
'I
I'
16 I'
,I
Ii
17 :!
I'
18 ;i
"
I
19 I,
,I
"
I'
20 II
Ii
21 i!
I,
'I
22 II
II
23 II
24 I
I
25 ,I
II
I
I
",.
13
Impact Statement and, then, a few brief comments
on it.
However, there are a few overall comments
that I would like to make.
One of the problems, I think, with the
l
GElS is set out to accomplish two goals. In
the process, it doesn't accomplish either of
them.
GElS, as Dave correctly advised us
earlier, is designed or intended to give the
decision makers,in this case the Town Board,
the opporcunity to review the proposed impli-
cations of u plan th3t rr.ay encompass ~any
pieces of property and many policy decisions.
I believe the GElS has failed to give us that.
By its own terms, the GElS tries to accomplish
another objective, that is looking at the six
aspects, particular aspects whereby the proposed
I
zoning was proposed for specific sites.
I think, or guess, being a practical
Board, you looked at the pieces 0= the plan
that go~_~he most criticism last time around.
In essence, the GElS orients itself to certain
sites, specific situations.
II-13
'.
.--.--.---------.
14
I would submit, however, the informatiop
gathered and the analysis, with respect to
the six aspects, is faulty and insufficient.
To save the GElS as a legally acceptable docu-
ment under SEQRA
in essence, I think what
I
the GElS is is a rationalization for a plan
that already has been written in stone in
some instances, and that vhat a GElS should be
is a dynamic instrument that tells the Board
the problQms or benefits of certain plans so
that the Board can make decisions on how to
fine-tune the actions it is about to take.
I -lOuld lil:e to make a few specific
criticisms of the GElS vith respect to parti-
cularly a n;arine zoning and how that marine
zoning applies to the Young's Marina site.
I "ould like to read to you a quote from:
Page.7 and 8 of the GElS which describes the
definition of "here an H- II site should be
located. It says M-Il site to provide a
waterfront location [or a wide range of watcr-
dependen!: and ,later-related uses.
,- /
I -' 'b"
n ,-,escr:L :Ln~
i
,
I
the location of M-lI it says:
". . . "hich in general are located on
II-14
i
I
I
( 2
I
3
I 4
5
I 6
I . 7
~
8
I 9
I 10
11
I [
12 I,
'!
I 13
C
14 ii
I "
15
Ii
II
I 16 ij
"
. I!
: 17 i ~
"
,
I . ,I
! ~
18
.
I 19
.
. "
, 20 'I
I . ii
e j:
21. ,:
. "
; [:
I 22 ii
23 I
:1
I Ii
I'
24 Ii
! II
I 25
"
Ii
i'
Ii
I II - -.- ~
II
.. "--'.'~ ...-. _.~,-_.__. - --- _. ----.--.-- ---- -_.- - --.---~-----.._ '..__ ..__. ~..__o
15
major waterways and open bayfronts and on
the Long Island Sound."
As we all know, and as I have been told
on numerous occasions, more occasions than you
want to remember, I am sure the Sage Cove
k
estuary which Young's Marina is located on
is not such an open bayfront. It is a shallow,
poorly flushed cove. Currently, for the good
of all the Town, the waters are still certified
for shellfishing. I think this would change,
with the special permit review of hotels and
motels Hi.th a density of ten units per acre,
with th~ restaurants Hhich are~r~itted on the
site.
Later on the same section of GElS, and
right now I am addressing the section of GElS
entitled "DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION",
later on that section states:
"Restaurant:; and transit hotels and
~otell would require a denitrification treat-
ment of their waste ',aters. Public water as
defined in the zoning ordinance should be .
required due to the potential problems of
salt water upcoming near the fresh/salt interfa e.
II-IS
I
I
I { 2
3
I 4
5
I 6
I ~ 7
8
I 9
I 10
11
I 12
I 13
,
\. "
14
I 15
,
I 16 :1
"
'!
0
. 17
I ,
18
0 i
0 j!
I 19
.
0 20
I " 21
0
I .
,
22
I 23
24
I 25
I
16
The problem is that the GElS makes this.
recommendation of a denitrification of public
water but no where in the amendments are these
requirements implemented. I will discuss that
later on. He are talking about a significant
impact on other mitigation measures which, as
1
outlined, the problem is classified measures
but you are not incorporating them in the plan.
'{hat is the point of incorporating them if they
are not made part of the plan?
Later on i~ that section, the definition
of 11-1 district and professional locations that
is i~tendcd to cc~?ly is set forth. There it
says M-I ',;as intended for "marine or tidal
waters but which are located within the con-
fines of the Town's tidal creeks or natural
coves".
I would submit to you this definition
more closely conforms to the site attributes
of the Yot::":g' S l1arina property. It ,....ould
mitigo.te again the same as be:.ng c!esignated
M-II, but in favor of being an M-I type of site.:
Th, n'x' ""ion ,p,ak, of Signifi,an' !
Environmental Impacts on the site. The propose,
II-16
. __ d_.._
I
I-
I( 2
3
I 4
5
I 6
I~ 7
8
I 9 ,
I
,
I ,
10 ,
11
I 12
Ie 13
14
I
15 i
I'
I I'
"
16 II
0
: 17
I Ii
0 I'
!i
0 18
0 !i
I 0 Ii
19 I
~ I
0 I'
I 20 "
"
d
~ i
0 21 I
"
0 "
I . i'
. 22
,I
II
I 23
I
:I
24 II
I ( \1
~ 25
i'
,I
'. i
I "
il
II
17
zoning would be relieving any impacts under the
current zoning and make development more palat-
able. That is what it exactly says. That, in
general, development proposed under these two
new districts, meaning M-I and M-II, would
t
prevent few adverse impacts on the marine en-
vironment than would be expected from such
proposals under current zoning.
I take exception with that, with regards
to Young's Marina site. Young's Marina site
is curr~ntly zoned "e-Light Industrial". It
has no motel or hotel use even with the
excepticr. set forth for limited agricultural
uses which the site really is not appropriate
for. All commercial/industrial use under the
current zoning, there would be special exception
uses which means an applicant would have to go
before the Zoning Board of Appeals and satisfy
that Board.
Appropriate criteria would be proposeu
on the permit to prevent environmental degrada-
tion. IJ, such ..:onditions would be developed
by the Zoning Board, they would not be at
liberty to grant special exception uses then
II-17
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I(
\,
I
I
I:
I'
I-
I:
I
I \
I'
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 "
"
"
I'
"
:1
14
[I
,
15 !I
"
1
II
16 I:
II
17 I:
l'
II
18 II
I'
,I
19 "
:!
I
20 II
II
:!
21 \1
I
22 Ii
,I
23 il
I
24 I
25 II
.
.
"- ---- - _.~~_.- - - -.-- . --
18
t
under M-II zoning. Boat yards and marinas are
permitted without a special exception, at all.
The waterfront revitalization study done by
the Town shows the dangers of these types of
uses as described with oil and byproducts, gaso-
line, toxic paints, chemicals, and all types of
things that should not be located near surface
water. if we want to protect these surface
waters.
Again, with the special permit, such a
site could be eight acres with 80 units of
motel or hotel use, togeth~r with restaurants
and boatvard marinas.
.
I \70uld submit to you that the Young's
Marina site be changed frem the M-II zoning
or not approve anything at all. In fact, it
opens that site up to a lot of uses, a lot of
industrial dangerous uses th3t the site is not
opened up to at this point.
On Page 42 or the GElS a reference is
made to what scems to be a problem mitigati0~
situatiQ~ where an M-II district was approved
to an unna1med creek in New Suffolk, and the
document describes the difficulty in applying
II-I8
.
.'
.(
.
.
.
.
.
.
.e
.
.,
.
.:
.~
.
. ;
;
I ;
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Ii
10 1\
11 ii
II
12 1:
13
14
15
,
16:!
"
Ii
17 ;1
Ii
18 I'
'I
I,
"
19 Ii
[:
20 I'
'I
I,
"
21,
:i
Ii
'I
22 "
II
23 il
il
24 II
25 il
ii
19
the M-II district to that site, saying that the
site has a small volume of water, the narrow
and confined nature of this creek and the
closeness of existing dwellings could create
adverse impact if major expansions of existing
activity were to take place in either the
1
Marine One or Marine Two districts.
We have similar situations at Sage Cove.
For the reasons that site in New Suffolk should
be H-I. I would submit M-I is the most appro-
priate location and most appropriate district
to be sited at the Young's Marina site.
To Significant Environmental Impacts,
unfortunately even with the six identified
aspects which GElS purports to analyze, no
serious data has been given to the effect of
the available uses on the quality and quantity
of surface and ground water supplies, traffic
on Route 25, ,'iildlife habitat, or wetlands.
Special permit use ~nd uses that don't reauire
special permics in the nc" zoning, I submit,
that is the fault of GElS. TIlat should be
remedied by advising GElS or substantially
resolving the regulations in the M-II district
II-19
I
I (
I
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I (
I
I .
:
.
I:
.
I ~
,
I :
,
I'
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
,
,
6 I
7 I
8
9 ,I
II
10 :I
I,
II
II
11 Ii
"
"
,I
12 '
I
"
13
14
15
16 'I
:i
17 :,
Ii
18 ,I
jl
19
,
I
20
21,
22 "
I;
i:
23
:i
24 I!
Ii
25 "
I'
.,
il
Ii
Ii
l
20
to alleviate some of those problems. The
document talks about the fact that the
1
surrounding area around the Young's Marina
commercial site has been rezoned to R-80.
I submit, all of the Zehner property
not utilized by the marine is still within
the M-II zone and available for motel/hotel
boatyard cor.struction. The GElS makes no
reference to the fact that this is clearly
a spot zoning sticking out like a sore thumb
in a law-density residential area.
We have the potential of SO units in
an area zoned for two-acre residences.
T113 s<!ctiun on Alternatives, \Je are
left with just three alternatives. We can
adopt part of the plan and hold it for further
study or we can do nothing. I would submit,
that with a littl~ irr,agination the Board can
come up with several ~ore alternatives to help
the process rnove:ilong and get what everybody
believes is needcd for this l'O\ill.
I would subnit, in terms of the Young's
Marina site, there are several alternatives.
Zoning it to M-I would seem to satisfy the
II-20
I
I
(
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I (
I
I.
I:
I
I ;
I
I
Il
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.
.
10 '
I,
11 II
Ii
12 I:
,I
"
13 I'
,I
II
14 Ii
15 ii
16 Ii
'I
II
17 I,
11
!I
"
18 "
'I
I,
19 "
.
.
~
.'
"
"
20 :1
,
II
21 :i
i:
:1
:
.
.
22 "
II
I.
23 II
"
i
"
24 II
25 \1
"
I
21
criteria. I would say revise M-II regulations.
Eliminate hotel and motel as special permit
uses, for instance, then beef up special permit
criteria. Make marinas and boat yards special
permit uses and put specific criteria as codes
so we are protecting the Zoning Board o~ Appeals
k
insofar as conditions of surface water, ground
water drainage, et cetera.
In the MITIGATION MEASURES sectimn, as
I alluded to earlier, Dave came up with SOffie
great mitigation measures which I think are
standard types of things you want to think
about with a marina zoning. He talked about
pump-out facilities requiring proper drainage
so we are not allowing inordinate amounts of
contaminated runoff to run into estuaries and
coves. There is talk about toxic paints. and
adequatedispoGal of marine solid and hazardous
wastes. He would also talk about bulkh~ad and
pier limitG. requir<=ments for com!ilunity water
and rcqui:::enents for advance waste t:::eai:mcnt.
These ar~_};;;celll.!nt mitigation proposals.
However, they are not required f~r any
of these uses. They are not a part of the code.
II-21
I
I
I (
I
I
I !
I
I
I
I (
I
I .
.
I ~
.
I:
.
I~
~
.
I'
I
1(--
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 I
I
9 I,
I;
10 "
Ii
I
11 Ii
"
12
13
14
,
15 I'
16 Ii
17 II
I
Ii
18
19
..
.,
"
,
20 "
I
P
.
I,
21 Ii
II
!I
22
II
23 ii
:1
I
24 II
25 II
I
I
II
22
Anyway, I would think that with some revisioni
to the code, this type of mitigation measure
could be incorporated to the plan.
As to GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS, it seems
to me there is a clear oversight that this site,
\
which currently has no dwelling units on it,
could have 80 dwelling units in thenew code,
and that refers to a quote from the GElS:
"Gro'wth inducing impaccs of the proposed
locel law appear to be limited to Hamlet
sectings".
I
I
I
i
,
,
I
I
I
i
Th~s site, the 80 units over no units,
speaks fo~ itself over what the n~w zoning
will do in terms of indu::ing grm.;th of the
site.
In concluding, I ~ould suggest the GElS
is trying to acco:;)plish t1:0 purposes and has
accomplished nei~her. You could either take
the time to revie1v and revise th.. GElS. which
I think ",ould be [iD important step for sicpli-
fying the ~attcr, ~nd demanci~d tte proposal
for the T;:}IV zonin;;. I think that, as I mentioned
earlier, there are things my clients would
submit you look into.
II-22
I
I-
I(
I
I
I~
I
I
I
Ie
I
I:
I:
I;
<
I ;
I
I
I (---
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ii
11 II
12 II
I'
"
13 !:
'I
!i
14 I:
,
"
I:
15 ,
I
'I
I
16 II
II
,I
17
18
!I
, 9 :~
1:
'I
"
20 I!
21. '!
"
!,
22
ii
"
23 II
:i
II
24 Ii
II
25 II
II
II
II
23
One is the changing of the Young's
Marina site to an M-I site. The second is
to revise the M-II regulations to give the
Town agency more control over what uses will
go in there. We will eliminate special permit
i
uses,including hotels, motels and restaurants.
In addition, the special permit criteria
should be revised an more specifically domina-
ted so that the code determines exactly how
many units will be permitted and under what
circumstc.nces.
T~3re are nany of them in the code, but
they arC' v,~ry general and ver? vague.
As to the density of the units, density
of boats, Dave talked about pier and bulkhead
,
limits as mitigation measures. Nowhere is there:
I
a rule of ~hurnb in the code as to how to cal-
culate hOl,;' m.1ny boats a particular facility can
accornodate, that are on land or water. As that
is a significant issue whenever you face marina
expansion, upgrading the special permit criteria'
must be tougher nnd more specific.
We would recommend that the marine and
boatyard be special exception uses in both the
II-23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
2
3
4
5
6
!
7 I
8 I
9 il
I:
i:
10 Ii
,
"
i;
11
12
~
~
13
14
15
,
16 II
,.
.
.
,
17 !,
Ii
Ii
i:
18 :;
'I
Ii
19 :;
ii
!I
20 II
j:
;
.
.
~
21.
'-
I
22 ;i
Ii
I,
23 Ii
II
24 Ii
il
25 il
II
il
if-
24
M-I and M-II districts because they present
.
unique problems with the Zoning Board of
Appeals or plan body.
HO~vever, in going to comply with the
special exception section, they can incorporate
I
certain conditions to protect surface waters,
groundwater, all things that have sensitive
surroundings at the marina.
Hitn these recommendations incorporated
in the plan, I think the plan would better
serve the ~ses of the TOvffi and my clients
would De ~ore satisfied with the ~ay the
cornrr.t:n:~y ~.:ould be rezoned.
em. ~l':ILITA: Thank you.
~IR. MURPHY: On the left, anyone else?
}~. SEIG}~N: Ed Seigmann to speak for
an organizut:on by the narre of Can-Do. That is
an organizat~on that exists because of the
Norris property. It is an organization that
was fOrEed b:: the people who li-..e in that arQOJ..
He are cpr-os:.r:g the portion of t;,e :'laster Pl",n
that perEit3 an lID zone in that area where
everything else is zoned two acres.
We feel that it is spot zoning. Also,
II-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 0
o
I :
,
.
I ;
o
,
I
I
I
I
(
2
3
4
5
6
.
!
7
8
9
10 'I
!I
11 Ii
Ii
12 Ii
;i
13 q
(
I
14 !:
.!
15
:
o
16 II
Ii
II
17 1:
,
18 il
"
!i
19
20
21.
I'
22 .1
)1
II
23 II
'i
24
(
'-
25
Ii
II
25
to have one zone in there that permits somebody
to build 95 condominiums on 27 acres of property
we don I t feel that it is proper that the people I
in the area have to spend the money to prove
that area does not warrant 95 condominiums on
I
27 acres of property. We believe that should
be done by the Board, to find out whether there
can be 95 condominiums permitted to be built
there or net.
We feel that it is the responsibility
of the Board, that before they pass the Master
Plan they change that zoni~g to two acre the
way it first appeared on the first Master Plan
maps th~t c~rne out after you ?eople or whoever
that was that worked on the H3.ster Plan. We
are sure that when sorr.ebody recommended that
i
should be two acre zoning there, that it wasn't!
done out of thin air. It was done because
there Dust have been some kind of study made
in that area indicating that it should be
t"o acre zening.
SO~ffi"here along the line, we are not
able to find out where or when, that map was
changed to H-D area, permitting 95 condomini~s
, ".
II-25
I
I 2
I(
3
I 4
5 i
I
6 I
I
I 7 I
i
8 I'
I 9 ,\
II
10 Ii
I ;1
!!
11 "
I'
I "
!:
12
Ie 13 i
14
I 15
I: 16 i:
I~ 17
18
I~ 19
,
, 20
Ii 21.
~
I' 22
23
I 24
i
1- 25 I
I
26
on 27 acres of property. We feel that you
people should make that study before you okay
the Master Plan and to change that map to two
acre zoning the way you had it in the first
maps that carn~ out.
Th3nk you.
l
MR. l-nJRPHY: Thank you, Ed.
Anyone on the left that would like to
address the TO'Jn Board?
;'1R. FLy:m: F. M. Flynn, 835 Falcon
Drive. I ~ould like to address the certain
aspect of the GElS covered by Mr. Kelley, and
perha?s I can pay the Board a courtesy of being
more direct ~nd quicker in n~ remarks. I
intend to read my remarks, so that I can present
a copy to the Board subsequently and have it
a verbatit:: part of the record.
It is ;:;1 opinion that the subject GElS
represents an effurt by the To.m Board to ren-
ocr lip service to th2 requirements of SEQP~
by presenci~g a GElS ~upportivc of the Board's
proposed Ifaster Plan and prepar.:!d on the check.
There can be no doubt that the original, :
I
I
inpdrtial, professionally prepared plan present~d
I
I
1.-.
II-26
1
1
1 {
1
1
1 ~
1
1
1
1 (
1
10
.
1 0
1
1 :
1
1
1('
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 II
I'
12 il
I,
13 :1
'I'
14'
II
15 I:
16 Ii
17
18
o
o
19
.
o
20
o
.
;
21
22
23
24
25
27
k
by RPPW has been completely eviscerated and
what remained represents the cobbled-up,
piecemeal efforts of the Town Board.
As for being done on the cheap, residents
might well be informed that the total cost for
the To\vn-wide GElS was contracted at a fee not
to exceed $7,200.00 or fifteen man days. This,
in my opinion, is more within the range of
fees paid to do a thorough EIS on a one family
house plot. It certainly doesn't evidence any
serious effort on the part of the Board to
obtain a corr.prehensive GElS for the entire
Tmvn of Southold.
The GElS before us can be described as
consisting in large part of a warmed-over
pastiche of previously submitted statements.
Hhile understandable in view of the niggardly
fee, .the result cannot be taken seriously as
a comprehensive GElS, conforming to all the
requirements of SEQRA. It does not attempt
to address the long range, c~ulative impacts
of this ~9-called Master Plan, nor does it
offer mitigation measures or alternatives.
The cumulative economic impact of the plan
II-27
1
1
1 (
1
1
1 ~
1
1
1
1 (
1
1 =
:
1 ~
o
I,
,
o
I;
1
1
1 (,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 I
8
9
10 I,
II
11 ii
I'
,I
12
,!
I:
13
14 ;1
I'
"
Ii
15 :i
I,
Ii
16 I
I
17 !
1
18 I
II
19 ,;
'I
"
;
'i
20 i'
I'
II
21 Ii
I!
22 Ii
H
II
23 i!
24
i,1
25
,i
,
II
I
~..~
28
is nowhere adequately considered. What we
really have, in my opinion, is a few site
specific references which will not stand up
to close analysis and a rehash of supporting
data prepared by RPPW some five years ago
in connection with a plan that has since been
l
so drastically changed as to no longer exist.
With respect to economic impacts, may
I be so bold as to inquire if the Board has
informed the public, through the GElS or
otherNise, that the changing of the zoning
and, thus, relutive values of so many parcels
of real estute will dictate a TO'Nn-wide
reassessment? Hay I add that, based on my
40 years of experience, historically such
reassessment3 have had their greatest impact
on older residences and vacant land?
l..,..... ";>ennv
.:. .I........ ~.I ,
in a partial defense of the
proposed Ila3ter Plan ha3 been quoted as saying
that he was reluctant to "trash" the entire
plan. I look upon the use of the word trash
from a Q:~ferent perspective and in a different
context. I see the proposed plan as contrived
to destroy the co~nity of Arshamomaque-West
II-28
I
I
.( 2
I
3
I 4
5
I 6 I
,
I
I ~ 7 I
8
I 9
I 10
11
I 12
I ( 13
14
I 15
I 16 i'
"
. il
: 17
I .
18
. i!
I 19
<
<
~ 20
I .
u 2'
.
I <
22 ,
I:
Ii
"
23 'I
I II
24 Ii
I - 25 I
[,
,
i
I i
I
29
Greenport, along with the Incorporate Village
of Greenport.
This relatively small area already has
the greatest density of uses considered too
intensive, or otherwise objectionable, of any
other area in the Town. We have the highest
1
concentration of motels and marinas of any
such area along with a nursing home, a camp
ground, industrial and business uses, senior
citizen housing, affordable housing, et cetera.
He have been victimized by spot zoning and
such other abominations as the Melrose parcel
on Albertson Lane. All of this ob~iously
violates the Plan's basic concept of hamlet
self-sufficiency.
This outrageous concentration of uses is
justified by the specious, sophistic claim of
the availability of water. Tell that to the
Village of Greenport where the water supply is
~arginal in quantity and barely potable in
quality. If the .lvailability of ,;ater is to
be the touchstone for such intensity of use,
it is obvious that such uses should be in the
we~cerly areas of the town where recent studies
',-+,
II-29
I
I (
I
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I (
I
I:
:
o
I~
I~
.
o
.
I;
I"
I
I'
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
7 I
I
8
9
I,
10 II
il
11 II
,
"
12 I'
13
14
,i
15
16 II
I,
!'
I,
17 I
"
I'
18 I;
"
!I
19
Ii
II
20 i
21.
22
23
24
25
30
i
indicate that water is available in greater
quantities.
I have prepared a map which I will submi
to the Board. It demonstrates clearly how far
the proposed }faster Plan for the Arshamomaque-
Greenport area deviates from the original plan
prepared by the impartial, professional planners,
RPPH.
"here RPPW planned 101. and medium densit
residential use and open space, the Board has
substituted industrial and commercial use.
Hhat RPPH had designated as medium density
resid~ntial areas have been transformed by the
Board to hm~let density. This in areas having
none of the requisite characteristics of a
hamlet.
rhe Board, despite its pious protesta-
tions that strip zoning was anathema, has
proceeded to strip zone virtually the entire
frontage .:do;;g l!ain Road and Budd's Pond to the
Village cf Cr~enport.
Unbelievably, the GEIS remains sil~nt on
this outrcgeous portion of the Board's plan
anti its cumulative effects on traffic, pollutio
II- 30
I
I
{
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
Ie
I
I.
I ~
.
.
I ~
,
I,
I
I
I
I'
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 I
8
9 \
10 I
"
II
11 I;
'I
II
12 'I
I,
iI
II
13 !j!
:1
14 ii
II
15 i!
i ~
16 II
"
17 1\
II
Ii
18 1\
I:
I:
19
i:
"
20 !!
,I
I:
21 r
II
22 II
I,
23 il
II
II
24 II
25 II
II
I,
I
II
1\
~
;
31
future demand for utilities and services, and
the general quality of life for residents of
the area.
The time available does not permit me to
discuss, in this forum, all the myriad other
faults of the GElS. I would, however, like
~
to close on another point.
It appears that there are those on the
Board who advocate passing the proposed plan,
admitted faults and all, with the intention of
correcting it later. This would mean that the
Board would be in the untenable position of
having approved of a plan that each member has
disapproved of, in whole or in part. Their
quoted comments range from "illegal as hell"
through ",'lOrthless" to "it has good parts and
bad parts", I submit that the Board simply
cannot approve a plan that it acknowledges has
bad parts. This would constitute not only a
"cop out" but would compromise any claim the
Board has to ~oral principles. Passage would
create ~~;.urmountable practical difficulties.
Passage would result in vested rights which
could only be revoked by means of expensive
II-31
I
I( 2
I 3
I 4
5
I 6
I~ 7
k
8
I I
9 I
I.
10 !i
I I'
Ii
!,
11 I'
,
I Ii
,
,
12 "
i'
Ie 13 'I
I
:i
II
14 I'
"
,I
I ,
"
15
I; 'I
16 II
"
Ii
: 17 Ii
,
I; I'
,
18
"
!!
"
I; 19 Ii
I,
.
I; 20 i'
j!
II
21 II
0 I'
.
I' 22
I'
23 :1
I II
I:
24 II
"
I 'I
25 I,
II
II
I - .~--~--
II
32
litigation which will occupy the Board's
attention for the foreseeable future.
The Board also cannot just pick and
choose portions of the plan for adoption. This
would be tantamount to granting a series of
individual rezonings ,~ith the concomitant
requirements of notice, hearings, impact
studies, et cetera.
In short, I submit you cannot approve
this misbegotten plan ~ithout inviting pro-
tracted and ultimately successful legal
challenge.
Th~U_'lk you.
!.s. rl,FE: Natalie Rafe, Fishers
Island, Ne;l York. I believe you received
a letter this morning. I was asked to read
it. I ~oulj like to read it to this group,
and this is to the Southold T~'n Board, To"T.
Hall, Hain Road, Southold, New York.
After a detailed reading of the above-
n~med dOCUDcnt, the Fishers Island Conservancy
ref,retf~J;y ~nd firmly feels the Environmental
Impact Statement, the GElS, and the Haster Plan
update are not coupled by effective language or
II-32
I
I 2
I(
3
I 4
5
I 6
I~ 7
8
I 9
I 10 I
!i
II
11 Ii
I :1
12 I:
:1
I 13 I'
{ II
,
14 Ii
'I
I I,
15
:
I 16 il
: ,
. 17 Ii
. I'
I I'
!i
18 "
II
0 !t
I 19 i:
; I;
,
, 20 ,I
I . ,
e Ii
21 ,I
: I
~ ,I
I 22
I'
23 il
I 24 il
II
I (
- 25
II
"
Ii
I II
II
33
even strong emphasis on the conditions to
consider the amendments of the Southold ordi-
nance.
We also feel the zonings being imp le-
mented do not consider or contain sufficient
environment protection to Fishers Island and
l
we are also of the opionion that the entire
To~~ of Southold needs greater protection of
its gener~l resources if it is going to receive,
if these zoning ordinances are amended -- are
adopted.
Rather than p~ss such legislation, at
this tine, ~~e reco=end the above-named package
cont~ining the GElS, the Master Plan update and
the zoning law amendments, be given further
study and the anendnents undergo strengthening.
Certainly more of };- I, certainly more language
reflective of the intent to conserve rather
than simply enumerate. Environl!lental resourcas
should be ~dded to all levels of the GElS and
the ne", zoning ancndr..ents \vi th particular
emphasis placed on agricultural-residence hamlet
density and marine business zoning.
Despite reassurance in the GElS, the
II-33
-)'
I
I (
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I \-
I
I .
:
,
I .
I
I;
I'
I
,
I ',-
I
2
3
4
5
I
6 Ii
II
7 i'
8
9
'!
10 I'
I'
11 :i
"
12
13 I
14
15
16
II
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
,
proposed zoning law amendments do not emphasize
preservation of environmental resources.
H-II. under the Master Plan update
heading Hamlet Studies, there is quite possibly
a need to include Fishers Island along with
Plum Island and Little Gull Island as separate
island areas with unique geological and environ-
mental features that are distinguished from
other areas and hamlets of the Town of Southold.
We also feel that changes in the proposed
zoning luw are needed to include more environ-
~ental prot~ction for open space and other
ecologically sensitive areas.
The ne\~ zoning regulations should at
least give effect to the same environmental
emphasis and safeguards that th~ Haster Plan
update outlines.
A helpful suggestion here would be to
enact a local policy that all environmental
questions stemming from these local zoning
ordinances b:! fi::st reviewed, ::pproved by means
of a hearing, if nec3ssary, by the Southold
Town Board of Trustees before being passed on
to the Planning Board or heard by the Board of
II-34
I
I 1
I( 2
3
I 4
5
I 6
I~ 7 I,
II
8
I I
I
9 I
,
I
I "
10 :1
II
r
,I
11 Ii
I 'I
"
12 ,:
"
I
Ie 13
14
I 15 I'
I 16 Ii
~ i
: 17 ,
I 0 "
:1
. 18
, I;
.
I 19 I
,
. 'I
. I
0 20
I I
. i:
:
21 I'
: ,I
.
I ,
22 ;1
I
I:
I 23 :1
II
24 .'
"
( II
I , "
25 II
"
, I
I Ii
II
II
35
Zoning Appeals. To avoid bureaucratic foul up
not every case should be through a hearing of
this nature, but those deemed environmentally
sensitive by the Town ordinances or by trustee
action should.
It might be a good idea to add an environ
l
mentally sensitive dimension to the zoning code
designation, specifically low density resident
hamlets or marine business zones. This would
alert bidders and homeowners that great care
must be taken lvith any plans that might adverse-
1y effect the environment,
Our conservancy is thus very concerned
over the lack of environmental teeth in the
zoning law part of the GElS package. We can't
give our approval to it at the present time,
as much as we recognize it a necessity and
benefit of ~any Master Plan goals, as well as
the work of many other changes proposed.
Further study leading to a decision of
the envirom~ental safeguards outlined above is,
<ind, in ;)1;1r opinion, very badly needed at this
moment. An essential tightening of the zoning
regulations of any environmentally sensitive
II-35
36
\
I
I
!
!
areas of the Town will bolster and argue the
Town's intentions of the Master Plan outline
and for the conservancy board.
Signed by John Thurger (phonetic),
President.
If you read this into the record at any
t
relevant future hearing, that would be fine.
That letter was sent out yesterday. We had
contact with Charles Ferguson, speaker for the
museum on Fishers Island, New York. This
museum is very concerned about the habitat,
,wildlife, and so forth. 7here ,vas very little
on Fi3he=s lslanci in th~t p~rticular area, and
this brought to nind the thought that it would
be possible for us to, in the future, write
our o~~ environnental impact statement and
submit it ~ith the help of the Town Board, of
course, as part of one of the articles in the
GElS or the zoning regulations.
I an a little confused, having tried
to get through that 150 pa:;es in ~bout t,i"O or
three da::~~, just "hich comes first and so forth, 'I
i
HO'.'lever, "e think it would be particularly
helpful to all the officials who come over to
II-36
I
I
(
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I f
....
I
I .
,
I ~
I
I e
o
o
I :
I
(
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 II
11 \1
12 11
I
l
13 II
Ii
14 .1
i
15 :1
I:
16 II
'I
17 !I
:l
'1
18
.
o
20
19
21 ,i
"
i!
22 ii
d
23 II
24 Ii
II
25 il
II
I
37
the Island and have inspected it to know
minimally all there is to know about the
habitat, sale conditions, which by the way
are lacking in the Town mapping here in the
office, and perhaps it should have more on
the habitat and so forth. We also feel that
i
a lot of these areas, referring to the spot
zoning on the Island, make us very nervous
about hON we are going to protect the Island
in the future and, as we all still have not
had proof on, the Hetland designated areas
en the Island and there are at least 80 or 90.
We were \.]ondering whe ther \"e come under the DEe
classific~ticn or the Town classification or
both, but we would like to work with you.
That is about all I can say. Thank you.
HR. ;.nJRPHY, Thank vou, Hrs. Rafe.
Anyone e 1st! :Ln the middle "ho would like
to address the Board? Anyone over on my right?
HR. E:nLITl,; We have two more hours
to sit here. If you would just raise your
hand, if_:myone decides they would like to
address the Town Board on this Generic Environ-
mental Impact Statement.
II-37
1
1
I(
1
1
1 !
1
1
1
1 (
1
I:
I;
"
o
I:
o
1 ~
1
1
1
1
,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l'
12
13
14
15
II
16 II
it
17 i:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
k
MR. RAFE: I have another question for
you, because you have done so much on this
plan and our feeling, of course, is that it
is confusing and opens up a lot of cans of
worms, so to speak.
It is possible to tighten it up and
accept it, but accepting it with reservations
and improving the areas '-lhich we have spoken
about or firming up certain areas.
I u!1d3rstand from Hr. Kelley, he also
feels the GELS ,.,2S helpful but n:Jt specific
enough. Is that something l:hat you can answer
now or care to comment on?
HR. ::URPHY: Maybe D2ve could better
address it.
;-!R. B!ILITA: Mrs. Rafe, at this time
are you speaLing of zoning or GElS ",hen you
say nnccept>2c but then tighten up"?
MRS. RAFE: From my vi e'-'7 oint , personally,
I have a h~rd ti~e separating the two living in
an area ;..'hich i~ ver:, al-;are of enviro=ental
problem~-, l~ck of water, a different geological,!
hydrological aystem than you have here. So muchl
of our ialand, I think, Judge Edwards, would
II-38
I
I'
I(
I
I
t
I
I
I
I(
I
I:
I:
I~
:
I;
o
o
I:
I
I/~
I
39
bear this out. It involves first with environ-
mental, then with zoning. So how do we work
together? I'm not quite sure. I think you have
to keep referring from one to the other and
the hamlet definition, which I am sure was
added and should be very helpful to us are too
k
dense the way they are explained.
It s~ems they are a polka-dot arrange-
~ent of zonings for the island so that they
will seem -- we all would be better off before
this new plan came up than we will be new.
MR. EHILITA: Let me see if I can help
you or clarify an anSl.Jer.
T"is is a draft GIES. All your co=ents
will be reviewed and responded to by the Board
and a final determination made in the GElS
itself. Nou l~e do have the local law, which
has yet to be heard itself and may still well
be amended before it is heard. N~~ it would
be appropriate for the GElS to make certain
findings with regards to the impact in the GElS
and with regards to your comments, to make.
certain findings and determine that amendments
maybe noted to the local law to further refine
II-39
I
I(
I
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I (
I
I.
.
"
.
I.
.
I ~
o
I ~
~
I ~
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6 I
7 i
8 II
I
9 I
Ii
10 II
Ii
Ii
11 !!
"
11
li
12 "
:i
13
14 ,
15
16
17 "
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ii
;,
II
40
k
and mitigate certain measures that are spoken"
about already. It is possible to further
modify what you see before you before it is
heard and before it is adopted.
MRS. RAFE: Thank you very much. There
is a lot to this and we would be glad to help
in any way we can.
HR. HURPHY: Thank you. You have been
most helpful.
Anyone else that would like to address
the Town Board?
HR. RUSTUO: Joseph r~ustuo, I only heard
about this by reading it in today's paper. I
just read ~bout this in today's paper. Of
course, I came right over here. Unfortunately
I was unable to get here by two o'clock. I
understand there is a oeeting this evening. too.
My concern is I haven't seen the documents to
study this. Is there any ;,~y I could get a
copy of it?
l!R. :ruRPHY: It is available in the
library to read, all the public libraries.'
MR. RUSTUO: The thing that concerns me,
I don't know that much about it. I want to
II-40
I
I
I (
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I(
I
I .
I ~
.
I ~
.
o
I ;
~
,
I
I
Ie
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I
10 II
11 !I
!:
12 ii
I
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 ,
24
25
41
take an interest. The statement that the
gentleman who did the study, said he would
want to have the population doubled within a
certain period of time. That and there are,
of course, safeguards to that. That is the
I
thing that concerns me.
In other words, it isn't five years,
ten years, what safeguards are going to be
used to hold it at a certain level and is that
really a good figure? I don't know that much
about it. I would like to find out more about
it. I have to look in the library. It is
available there.
HR. HURPHY: Yes.
MR. RUSTUO: Can I take a copy out or
do I have to read it in the library?
MR. HUF1'HY: I am not sure if they have
copies to take.
}ffi. RUS7ilO: Tnis is a thing that I am
sure concerns everybody here. In order for us
to express our opinion in a legitimate and
proper v;-: J, we have to find out more.
MR. MURPHY: Anyone else that would
like to address the Town Board?
II-41
I
I
I (
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I ~
I
I:
I
I,
,
,
I :
,
I'
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 I
10 II
11 I:
II
"
12 :!
'I
I,
'I
13 ,
I
iI
14 !:
I'
I'
15
:
,
i:
16 '1
I,
ii
17 II
,I
'I
18 II
Ii
H
o
o
19
:1
I'
!!
20
21
22
23
II
24 i:
II
25
I'
'I
II
I:
Ii
II
42
Jean, identify yourself.
.
MS. TIEDKE: Jean Tiedke, 1035 Hobart
Road, Southold.
The zoning map accompanying the GElS
is not particularly helpful. There is no
~
indication of land contours, no bluff lines,
and by design no existing parks and public
open spaces are identified. Lot lines appear
to end at normal high tide along all coastal
areas. A scale stated in feet, in acres per
square inch, a~d in miles would be very
helpful.
Likewise, no salt or freshwater wetlands
and marshes are incentified, and no natural
drainage areas are show~. In 1982, a member
of the RPPH Co:n:nittee located 93 fresh-water
areas large enough to be counted, not counting
our off-shore isl~nds. How many are still in
existence?
TI1e IOO-year storm line for coastal
flood plains si,o\::!.d be clearly delineated at
the curr,-..;t 3 or 8'-, foot level. It may be,
however, that no construction should be allowed,
at least for residences, at that upper flood
II-42
I
I"
(
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
Ie
I
1=
I:
o
I;
.
o
I~
.
I:
I
(
1'-
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 II
9 'I
,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 i:
I;
17
18
19
20
21 .
22
23 \.
24 Ii
I'
,
"
25 Ii
"
"
Ii
II
43
plain level. Several feet above that level
might save both lives and property. Flood
insurance maps are based on 100, 50 and 25-year
floods. Now there seems to be increasing
evidence that our world environment is warming
.
up. If so, glaciers and snow pack will melt
and sea levels will rise. Perhaps those
agricultural areas that are surrounded by dikes
should keep those dikes even after they grow
houses instead of crops.
My overall impression of the map is that
it might make a fascinating jig saw puzzle,
useful but difficult to follow due to the
numerous zone designations, interwoven through-
out the plan.
In considering the reasons for zoning
categories, the overall population density
for a given area is a central issue. This
does not mean that every zoning category must
be developed with eqaal-sized lots. To provide
a more unique and interesting housing area, it
i
should be a mixed bag, as most older residential
areas are. j
Consider R-80. There might be 40 two-ace
II-43
I
I
{ 2
3
I 4
5
I 6
I 7
e
I 9
I I
10 I
Ii
11 ,
I i:
,I
'I
12 Ii
Ir 13
II
" "
14 :,
I
15
I 16 ,
11
: I
"
I~ 17 II
18
. :!
[ 19
,
,
I~ 20
.
: 21.
I ,
,
22 'I
"
"
I 23 !
,
,.
I'
.!
24 i:
"
I \ I,
,
25 II
11
i
I II
II
II
II
44
lots on 100 acres. The overall density could.
be easily maintained while allowing half-acre,
one acre, three acre lots, or other variations
of size. This would provide for a diverse range
of lifestyles, family size, special interests
and individuality in housing design.
It would
I
also make it easier to preserve special features
such as old trees, remains of orchards, steep
slopes, wOOdlands and so on.
It appears that cluster development has
not been seriously considered. It is time to
allow our citizens and our planners to be more
imaginative, while adhering to the purposes of
zoning. Advantases are numerous: shorter
roads, shorter public water supply and public
sewer system piping - if we ever get it - a
community ~mter/sewage system might be feasible;:
preserves more open space for groundwater
recharge; preserved woodlands can moderate
storms and winds, help reduce summer tempera-
tures and shelters birds and wildlife. A wide
variety of housing styles could be accommodated'l
Miscellaneous Comments: I
A-C: This Agriculture-Conservation
II-44
I
I
I( 2
3
I 4
5
I 6
I~ 7
8
I 9
I 10
11
I 12
I{ 13
14
I 15
I 16
:
: 17
I 0
18
0
0
0
I - 19
.
.
0 20
I .
: 21
0
,
I .
. 22
23
I 24
I (
,
~. 25
~~ '
1-- ---..- --.- --- - --
II
I,
Ii
'I
II
I,
I
Ii
i,
!I
Ii
'I
II
:'
ii
ii
I'
i!
:,
I,
Ii
II
il
II
il
j:
II
I'
II
i---
45
district is a farce at two acres, since vir-
tually all the large open spaces are A-C and
are available for two-acre lots. tfuere is the
conservation which the title implies? If even
one quarter of the A-C area is actually
~
developed, what would our population figure
be? Where would the necessary groundwater come
from? I suggest a long hard look at this
category.
RR: Resort-Residential is a curious
combination, also. How is it determined
. whether an RR area is so similar to R-80 that
a reso::t is alloued, or who defines the consis-
tency between RR and R-80? I suggest that
a better description of RR be provided.
HD: Hamlet Density is a very useful
I
tool!
I
if properly applied to the housing problem,
and unless there are severe water problems,
a rezoning of R-80 near the hamlets to HD or
R-40 is desirable. For example, the R-80
designation north of the railroad tracks, south
of Route'-~S and bet\veen Boisseau Avenue and
Tucker's Lane in Southold is now R-80. Why so?
The area, so close to the hamlet of Southold
II-45
I
I
I(
I
I
I!
I
I
I
I (
\.
I
I
11
.
I.
.
.
I :
I
I
I '---
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 I:
II
11 II
I,
"
12 I'
II
13 I:
14
15 ,1
:
16 II
I,
17 j:
!i
:!
16
19
20
21 ii
!I
22 ii
:i
j'
23 II
'I
24 Ii
I!
25 :1
II
II
II
~'.) ~
._- -~- ------_.-- ..--- ---.-.-.---'
46
and its schools, churches, stores and the
"
center of town government, is ideal for a few
multiple residences, small homes and two-family
houses. Nany senior citizens, young couples
or singles would find the location ideal, as
~
would some who are looking for moderate cost
homes. Most lO~ler cost housing should be on
scattered sites to avoid any question of
segregation by income, race, religion or
national origin.
T.~e GIES states on Page 61 that growth
inducing impacts "appear to be limited to
hamlet [,ettings." If I interpret this statement
correctly, I could not agree. The visual
inducements of living along or near the shore-
line or in wooded areas have resulted in
excessive shoreline development far beyond
the hamlet borders, and the ~oodlands are
coning alive with nelV houses.
Alreadv much of the waterfront in
unavailable to the public. Section G on Page
52 of th",GEIS unfortunately confirms that
"due to decisions already made under existing
zoning, the existing and future quality of life
II-46
I
I'
e
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
1.(
I
I:
:
o
I;
o
I~
~
I~
o
.
I'
I
(
I "
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 II
I:
11 "
:1
'I
12 I,
1;
II
13 ;1
"
14
15
16 I'
11
"
17 ji
II
i!
18
19
'I
20 II
ii
21 II
,I
II
22
23 1\
i:
24 \i
I
25 I
I
II
I
I
. __ -_ I
I
47
has already changed,"
It does not appear that things will be
very different in the future unless we pay
strict attention to all the decisions which
our To\vn Boards are empowered to make.
I am not sure that this new Master Plan
~
is going to improve things very much. So as
to adopting a plan, I haven't made up my mind,
Have any of you? It is a tricky thing but you
are going to have to vote your conscience, not
your political interests.
,1R. llURPHY: Thank you.
Anyone else who would like to address
the Tmm Board?
MR. COP~EE: I have a question.
There was something in today's paper in
regards to stopping or more or less the infla-
tion of people having doubled, the population
that we have now. I don't knO'.... what bas is you
use to come to that conclusion, but I do have
a question.
In twenty years, since 1968, when the
residence population was 17,000 and it is now
22,000, how do you expect it to double in
II-47
I
I
( 2
I
3
I 4
5
I 6
I ~ 7
8
I 9
I
10
I 'I
I,
II
11 Ii
,
I :i
12 ,I
I'
,I
"
I 13 I
\.
14
I 15 I,
"
I 16 !I
I'
. I
: 17
I 0
18
.
I 19
<
<
e 20
I .
0 21. "
I .
22 I,
i,
"
,
23 ;1
I 24 Ii
II
I II
25 ,i
il
;,
,I
I I
i
I
- ---- _. ."-.-.-.. - -----. -_ __h_
48
"X" amount of years based on your theory that
.
you are trying to bring forth to us, that we
are overdeveloped or what -- I don't know?
MR. }IDRPHY: This is a public hearing
and open for your comments, but I would address
s
it just quickly, and hopefully it will give
a decent answer.
The man who did the tlaster Plan used the
available acreage that if everything was built
on that, it would double your population at
that period of time. That is presuming that
everybody is going to subdivide their property.
::R. COR.."1EE: Assuming you are permitting
them in the development of the properly out
here; is that right?
HR. }IDRPHY: Everybody has a right to
do 1<'ith the property what they wish. It is
their m,n prop~rty. and this putting two-acre
designation and limiting the number of eventual
houses -- you could have at one hundred percent
developl':ent.
HR. COPJ~EE: I see. Thank you.
MR. }IDRPHY: Anyone else? Okay. I
thil~ we shall take a five minute break
II-48
,
I
i
r
I
I
I 1
I( 2
3
I 4
5
I 6
I ~ 7
8
I 9
I 10
'1
I 12
I 13
f
\.
14
I 15 I
I "
16 Ii
"
0 Ii
. 'I
: 17 "
:1
I 0 ,
'I
"
~ 18 ,
"
0 "
I . 19
.
I ~ 20
.
,
0 21.
.'
I .
. 22
:i
!I
II
I 23 I!
'[
I,
24
I f II
25 I'
il
I
I i
I
II
49
a fifteen minute break, come back here and
start here.
Anyone else, again?
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken
and the hearing later resumed.)
~
MR. MURPHY: I would like to reopen the
public hearing and, at this time, ask if anyone
in the audience would like to address the Town
Board?
Please state your name.
MS. }1ARRINER: Jeanne Marriner, Matti-
tuck.
I am speaking as a person who has been
deeply involved with reviewing the Master Plan
updates, zoning amendments and maps since
1985, and who, as president of the League of
Homen Voters, first called for a full environ-
mental review of the Plan and zoning in the
fall of 1986.
With this.background, I should like to
co~ent on the Draft Generic Environmental
Impact Statement.
First of all, the DGEIS is not a full
gen~ric environmental review as described in
II-49
I
I
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I(
I
I,
I~
o
I;
.
.
I~
o
I~
I
I ~-
1
50
4
the NY State Environmental Quality Review Act.
It does not allow the Town to see the costs
and effects of the proposed zoning (and the
growth resulting from the zoning) on traffic,
groundwater and coastal water quality, the
wetlands and other natural resources, the Town
k
infrastructure and the Town's economy which is
based on maintaining the current environment.
The DGEIS does not adequately address these
impacts, nor offer, in accordance with SEQRA,
viable alternatives and mitigating measures.
2
3
5 I
"
6 l'
1
Ii
7 I
!I
8 I
9
"
'I
I'
I
10 "
Ii
Ii
"
11
12
13
14
15
16 j!
,
i!
17 ,
,
18
19
20
21.
22
i'
23
24
25
ii
"
'I
I,
II
Because there were many discrepancies
and intangibles in the I.laster Plan and zoning
docUl!lents thet need to be fully revie,,:ed in
terms of inpact, it is most distressing that
the DGEIS does not cover the full overall
inpacts. For example, the DGEIS does not point
out that the H<lster Plan is based on a year-
round population of 40,000, doubled to 80,000
in the :.;u::];ner and review the zoning in that
context.
Furthermore, the DGEIS does not point
out that the proposed zoning will encourage
a p~pulation far in excess of the RPPW numbers.
II-50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
2
3
4
5
6
!
7
8
9
10
.(
I
11 il
II
I-
12 II
,-
-
13 II
"
!I
14 ii
II
"
.
.
o
15 !
"
16 Ii
17 Ii
I
18 -I
II
!;
19 I'
Ii
II
20 II
Ii
21 I:
I!
;.
22 Ii
Ii
"
23 II
.
.
~
o
o
:
24
I
,
~
25
51
It also does not address the concerns of the
people of Southold Town as voiced at previous
public meetings and hearings.
For example:
1. Main Road congestion and traffic
~
safety;
2. Impacts on taxes of increased cost
of police protection and road maintenance;
3. Marine zone impacts.
None of these are adequately addressed
in the DGEIS. At the 1986 hamlet meetings on
the zoni~g. it was pointed out that the
zoning has tremendous potential for ab~se
particularly in the hamlet areas which could
end up looking like western Suffolk sprawl.
This was not addressed. At the Master Plan
hearings in February, 1987. the League and
1~EC 'and many other citizens questioned the
impacts of the marine zoning and Peconic es-
tuary system and the costs and impacts of public
water and sewers. Legal counsel for CANDO
ques tiot!'~{: the economic effects of the changes
in terms of taxes and asked what provisions
were made for affordable housing, particularly
II-51
I
I
I( 2
3
I 4
5
I 6 "
"
il
1- 7 Ii
~ Ii
8
I ,
9 II
Ii
I 10 II
II
11 II
I I!
"
12 :'
I
I 13
r
"
14
I 15
I: 16
, 17
I:
18
I: 19
,
0 20
I~ 21
0
1< 22
23
I 24
I 25
~'- j"
I
52
rental apartments. Many people called for
greater protection of the fragile areas
abutting the coastal waters (areas which
involve more than 50 percent of the Town).
None of these concerns have been ade-
quately addressed by the DGEIS. Nor does it
s
address the Town's overall ability to support
the growth that the zoning will allow -- a most
serious concern.
It appears that the DGEIS glosses over
the many i~perfections of the Master Plan and
, proposed 2oning. It is certainly not a generic
environnen~al review of the effects on the
Tow~ and the To~n's residents.
It seems that the DGEIS is designed
solely to push through a zoning plan that does
not advance the Town's goals -- a plan for
developers, not for controlling the density
of the Tow~ and protecting the welfare of its
people.
I urge the To_m Board to call time out
invoke a-~oratorium on development until we can I
I
get the proper experts to draw up zoning that
advances the goals of the Master Plan, based
II-52
I
I-
1('
I
I
I~
I
I
I
Ie
I
I ~
I :
.
I ;
.
.
~
I ;
o
,
.
I'
I
I (-
I
1
53
2
4
on the accumulation of scientific data already
available. The Town of Southold, and we the
people of the Town, should have the opportunity
3
5
to control our destiny.
6
Thank you.
7
8
t HR. MURPHY: Thank you, Jean.
Is there anyone else who would like to
address the Town Board?
9
I
10 '[
!
Hearing none, we will recess and come
,
11 :1
II
12 ii
,
i:
13 Ii
i'
back at four o'clock.
(\Thereupon, a brief recess was taken
14
. and the ~earing later resUQed.)
;'IR. J.!VRPHY: It is now a little after
15
16 il
ii
17 ,[
ii
18
four o'clock. We reopen the public hearing,
and again I would ask is there anyone in the
audience ~ho would like to address the Town
,
"
I
Board?
19
\.7ould you give your name?
HR. BEAR: Franklin Bear, speaking for
20
2\
l:1yself and not for any committee or organiza-
,.
'I
22
tion.
,
23 'I
ii
24 II
II
25 II
I,
'I
Ii
I
II
I am speaking specifically about a.part
of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on
the proposed Southold Town Master Plan, which
',~.
II-53
I
I
t
I
I
-
I
I
I
~
I
I
:
I
i
.
I~
e
Ii
I
Ie
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
\
9 'I
I
10 i\
II
11 II
,I
I
I
12 ~:
;'
ii
13 II
I'
I
14 I,
i'
I
15
H
"
,I
16 Ii
,
17 :!
II
I
I,
18 !I
r
'9
20
21.
22
23
.,
24 iI
I.
I:
25 :1
\1
II
II
54
is entitled General Groundwater Mitigation
Measures (Page 58).
Groundwater is the most crucial issue
of all the planning for Southold's future
health and welfare. The battle was lost in
Queens years ago, and it could be lost in Nassa
k
County if county officials, water suppliers and
others don't respond with less reticence than
is apparent now.
But Southold's water conditions and
problems are unique in view of the fact that
,our only source of drinking water is the Upper
Glacial, except for a tiny part of the Hagothy
this side of the Riverhead Tovm line. Our only
comparatively deep groundwater supply is in
the designated Core Hatershed Protection Area
which lies alon~ the North Fork spine, mostly
bet'\?een Hattituck and Ackerly Pond Lane on the
west side of the hamlet of Southold. Matters
of inrnediate concern are shoreline areas, IT.any
of ,\,'hich are o'!<?rdeveloped and subject to salt
water intru~ion, all of Southold TO\?n east of
the core area, and isolated areas such as
Nas~au Point and Great Hog Neck.
r
I
II-54
1
1 1
IJ 2
3
1 4
5
1 6
1 ! 7
8
1 9
1 10
11 I
1 II
12 'I
I,
1 13 i'
( "
II
14 II
1 "
"
15 "
Ii
I'
1
1 16 I
: II
: 17
1 .
18
. I
. "
. "
I,
1 " 19 i
~ I,
. "
e 20 I
. 'I
1 I ~
e II
~ 21 II
~ i
1 . !j
22
"
'i
I
23 iI
"
1 ,
,
24 il
II
, II
1 " II
25
'I
II
..... I
1
I
55
That is why the GElS portion on Ground-
water Mitigation Measures states:
"A general mitigation measure applicable
Town-wide relates to groundwater protection in
the planning and management of land use
activities to insure quality recharge. It
~
involves the development of a special overlay
district encompassing deep recharge and water
budget a~eas. Overlay district provisions
should preclude intensive uses except where
such uses can meet performance standards
designed to ninimize groundwater, surface water
and other environnental impacts."
The next page and a half lists at least
half a dozen suggestions depending on how you
count them, for inclusion in the Southold Town
Haster Plan. This Tmm Board has the urgent
responsibility to act now, not later, to
include such provision in the revised Town
Code, and to eliminate from the plan now
before you such provisions as those which would
expand c~~~ercial and industrial uses beyond
spots where there happen to be non-conforming
uses now. Please remove such conditions which
II-55
I
I
I (
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I (
-
I
I :
I ~
I
I
,
I'
I
I -
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 I
9 Ii
if
10 Ii
11 :i
"
i;
12 ,I
I'
,
j:
13 I'
14
15
,I
16 'I
I'
I'
i
17 "
18
19
20
i'
21 !;
22
23
24 "
,
25 i!
Ii
I!
II
~) ,
56
will endanger the water we drink, as well as
the Town's disappearing rural character.
Thank you.
HR. MURPHY: Thank you, Frank.
Hould anyone else in the audience like
to address the Town Board? Hearing none, we
k
shall take another recess.
(Hhereupen, a brief recess was taken
and the hearing later resumed.)
HR. }fij'RPHY: I would like to reopen
the public hearing and again ask anyone in the
audience that would li~e to address the Town
Board. ;':ould anyone like to say anything?
If not, it is net five o'clock. We will recess
this public hearing and reopen it at seven
o'clock.
(Hhereupon, a brief recess was taken
at five p.m. end the hearing later opened at
seven p.m.)
MR. lll:F.PHY: It is seven o'clock. I
".;ould like to r20pcm the public hearing. ;\e
did the ,0jfici.al reading this afternoon of
the notice. It was officially done properly.
It was in the paper and Judith Terry posted it,
II-56
_.-_0.'- _._
I
1
I- 2
(
I' 3
4
I 5
I 6
I~ 7
8
I 9
10
I 11
I 12 "
"
"
"
IC 13 Ii
;1
14 iI
"
I,
I I'
15 ,
"
"
i:
I'
I = 16 Ii
,
"
. 17 Ii
.
~
I ~ I
18 1,
II
. "
I ~ 19 Ii
0 20
.
I e
: 21
0
.
.
I 22
23
I 24
(
I '- 25
I
57
and just to save time, rather than read it
again, I would like read David Emilita's
comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement so that everybody here hears the
same thing and, for clarification, I would
like to remind everybody this is a public
k
hearing to receive input. We are not here
to debate good or bad points of the document.
We are here just to listen to comments on
it.
I ':.;ould like to read David's co=ents.
(\1hereupon, Hr. Emilita's comments were re
read into the record as previc~sly at the
commencement of this hearing.)
Now we go back to us and why we are
here. ~':e are here to take comments on the Draft
GElS. At this time I would like to open it up
and ask anyone on my left if they had any
comrnents? I would ask you identify yourself
by name, use the mike so the Stenographer can
keep a reco~d of this. Anyone on the left?
Anyone in the middle?
Anyone on the right?
MS. HUSSlE: Alice Hussie, President of
II-57
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I (
I
I :
I 0
I :
o
.
I ~
o
.
.
I
I
I ~
I
(
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 I
I
9 II
I,
I
10 I!
II
Ii
1 1 ~ I
il
I,
12
13
14
15
:
o
16 II
I'
,
17 ':
I.
18
19
i
20
Ii
i
21 i
I:
22
"
'i
.,
23 :1
I'
24 ,I
I
,
25 ii
I.
,I
I)
- --.----------.- -
58 .
the League of Women Voters of Riverhead/South~l
The League feels that the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement is inadequate
in scope, resolve, and language. The six
specific items, and their comments, are in-
k
complete in dealing with the overall problems
and they are flawed.
For example, although the plan calls
for prevention of industrial use of property
on Mattituck Inlet and Sage Boulevard by
replacing existing zoning with Marine II
rezoning, the text does not address the area
at the foot of Vi llage Lane, O=ient, "hich has
been proposed at ~kri!le II area, replacing the
present "Light Business" zoning. The latter
I
is a major impact on the environment. Presently/,
Light Business includes the usual offices, storeb
!
et cetera and in the present cede f9:
"Marinas for docking, mooring, and
acco~odation of non-comnercial boats, inclu-
ding the sale of fuel unci oil for these boats."
M-II ~oning adds to the list:
Docks for charter boats, clubs, boatyard
for building, storing, repairing, renting, sale,
,
j
II-58
I
I. 1
2
I(
3
I 4
5
I 6
I~ 7
8
I 9
,
I 10 II
I
11
I 12 il
Ie 13 I,
,j
il
14
I II
,
15 Ii
,
I,
'I
I: 16 II
. 17 II
.
0
I; 18 II
:!
. I!
I; 19 'I
I,
. "
01
I; 20 'I
Ii
21 ,]
0 'J
" I
. ,I
I' 22 ,
Ii
23 Ii
I 24
I
! I,
I "- 25
,
Ii
- "
"
I II
II
---- --- --
59
of equipment, restroons and laundry facilities.'
By Special Exception:
"Restaurants, hotels, motels, and fish
processing plants" would be permitted.
It is this kind of change, i.e., that
is good for one area but terrible for another,
k
that points up one of the glaring faults of
the GElS. Another serious flaw is represented
on Page 57, concerning the Sage Boulevard
zoning which states, "No further mitigation
than the rezoning described (Industrial to
M-II) is viewed as necessary at this time.
A developnent proposal under existing zoning
has become domant." Dormancy is a temporary
quiescence. Hhat will happen \vhen Sage Boule-
vard awakens?
As stated before, resolve is lacking.
i. e. .. too Much is left to chance. An example
is on Page 58, ,,'hich states, "It is also
proposed that no single development applica-
tion contaiu IT.orc thnn 100 units, et cetera,
et ceter~, unless the Planning Board finds
another limit to be more appropriate at the
application stage." Such a statement postpones
II-59
.-----...
I
1
I 2
I(
3
4
I 5
I 6
I! 7
8
I 9
I 10
I
11 I
I I
12 II
-,
II
I 13 ,-
/ I:
\. - I:
14
I Ii
I-
15 -I
,-
ii
,
I 16 I
: I
,
. 17 II
.
0
I 'I
18 I,
'I
0 II
0 Ii
I - 19 "
"
,-
. I:
.
. 20 ii
I .
"
S "
0 21 II
, Ii
.
I 22 I,
II
23 il
I II
24 'I
I II
I , - 25 Ii
'I
::~. I
I
I
60 .
decision and responsibility and falls far
short of being a plan.
The inherent characteristics and capacit
of Southold's 69 square miles of natural re-
sources requires the nost careful consideration
Land and w~ter are finite. They are not re-
l
placeable commodities. The responsibility for
stewardship of our town lies with the Town Boar
The Board must make sure that no flaws and no
ambiguity are present in the Naster Plan.
The League of Homen Voters Riverhead/
Southold recornE.ends no action on this Generic
Environ8ental Iup~ct Statement.
1m. }lVRPIIY: Th;::nk you. Hould you like
to present the written statement also?
Is there anyone else in the audience who
would like to address the To~~ Board on this
proposed or on the submitted GElS plan? We
are going to be here until nine o'clock. If
you have anything to say, say it now.
MR. HIl;STO: David Hins to; I \-IOU Id like
to know ;-; the residential taxpayers or proper-
ty owners will be furnished with a draft of
this Master Plan and how it can be obtained?
II-60
---.---- ---.----- ----
I
I-
I(
I
I
.
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
7 I
8
9
10 I,
1,
11
11 I:
I[
12
:1
I,
13 II
Ie
14
I
I:
:
I:
.
I;
.
;
I ~
;
.
,
I
I
(
I
I
15 I
i
16 !I
I'
I
17 II
,
q
18 !i
I
19
20
21
"
Ii
22 II
23 i:
!I
24 II
\1
25 II
q
I
I
,
61
MR. MURPHY: The paper or the booklet we
are discussing tonight is on file
is also
in the public library in the Town as a public
announcement. They are also available to read
in the Town Clerk's office.
HR. \HNSTO: Thank you.
l
HR. MURPHY: As will the zoning maps,
and also as they are presented today, will all
be done the same way
this bylaw.
Anyone else that would like to address
this?
}fR. ZHEIG: Michael Zweig, President of
Southold/2000, an organization of over 200
members here in Southold dedicated to sound
planning principles in mapping the future of
Southold Town into the 21st century. I am
addressing the DGEIS as it assesses the impacts
of the Master Plan and the Zoning Amendments
and Map.
As we have been advised by legal counsel,
a Generic Enviro~ental Impact Statement for a
Tmm's lIas ter Plan and Zoning is supposed to
point out and measure the adverse impact of the
Pla,', and zoning on the Town's environment, i. e. .
II-61
I
I .~
\ .
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I , ~
I
I .
:
.
.
~
I l
;
,
.
I ~
.
~
.
I ~
~
.:
.
,
I
I (
-
I
I
1 II
II
2 II
II
3 :1
I'
,I
4 ;1
5 il
,
.1
"
,
.,
G q
,I
"
7 ,I
;1
9 'I
9 i
,
"
"
10 !i
:1
'I
11 !I
il
12 :!
:1
"
13 i;
I
i
1\ d
'I
15 :1
:!
15
17
18
19
20
21.
22
23
24
25
..~ .'
. -:..,t~r:~~~~~ff~t~t~~'~~
~."".., ..."i!'".';!''f,;i\:
~r)~~t~(~{l ,.-, ";'.~'.
. i .
the ECONOIIY, the QUALITY OF LIFE,
" .....
. '.,
t1nd ti:, :'
~:o .
..
RESOURCES neces~llry to Stlstai.ll thf'! f'!lwlr<r.,.
It is also supposnd to provid~ mltl~aLLn~ ~
measures and altern:ltives tn nlh'vill!;/! ::1\:,,''.1,.'')
inpacts on the environment.
TIle PGEIS falls far short of il~ rUlrQ~B
because IT FAILS TO POHlT OUT mAT T!l1~ N(JrU:.~I:()
ZONING DOES HOT ADVANCr. la~ COAl,:; N' Tim ;:.\~;Tf':[t
PLAN \lhich zoning must do if i.t is to '.'1 lcz,'lli':
chfensible. (Tht) purpose of til<~ cn'!l.rm'!:I("Il:
quality t'cvic;. of zt'n1ng la~,elltkc.llr:J i.c; 1;0
c1eterrnin~ if tho :;C'l\illri \<Ji.U. IwlJ "l' .bl cel!l:t:,)
\i1lile the DCErs peiuts O'lt tJ,al: U1C,.'(!
Hi,ll be signifir..:1.nt ;!.rowlh, it Ul,i'J nr..t 11't:l.U';~
an environl'lcnta1 revie.~, nor m.ttir..1ti"~ If,;l"nlrc,'
or altcrlllltivC!5 for the impacts of this gru;.lh
on the current population and on the Tu',m' s
infrastructure, According to NY Stale Zoning
guidelines, "A Town's rate of gr(..wth should not
e::cced the To\it\'s ability to support it,"
TIle DGEIS does not point <'lit, \lor c'msi..
der the impacts of what tha proposed zonin&
,,:i11 have on the current population or the'
TOWI.' s character, and it DOES UOT lmASlI!:E
,
II-62
I
I ( 2
I 3
4
I 5
I 6
! 7
I
8
I 9
10
I 11
I 12 I
13 ,I
"
I ( I[
14 Ii
I il
15 Ii
"
ii
I 16 "
: II
: 17
0 II
I II
18 Ii
0
.
I ~ 19 'I
!!
'i
'I
: 20 I
; I
I ;
21 I
, i
. I
.
I 22 II
23 I
I
I I
24
I
. - 25
I.
~~
I
63
ECONOMIC IUPACTS NOR PROVIDE ALTERNATIVES AS TO
HOW THE TOWN CAN CONTROL GROWTH, i. e ., how the
Town can control and finance the location, size,
and timing of capital improvements such as roads
and traffic safety measures; water supply and
i
sewage disposal; police and fire protection;
drainage and flood plain measures; protective
measures for coastal and groundwater quality,
wetlands, farmland, and open space; municipal
and recreational facilities, schools, et
cetera.
The DGEIS does raise serious concerns
about certain environmental impacts such as
the fact that "a I:!ajor irreversible impact of
the Plan/Zoning will be that at least half of
Southold T01,m I s existing farmland will be lost
to development. The DGEIS also correctly
infers that the two acre A-C zone will be
completely inadequate to advance the Master
Plan's agricultural preservation goals, and
that this zoning will facilitate
the doub ling
of our farmland I
of our PQ~~lation and saturation
with residential and commercial development
(Summary, Page 11). But the DGEIS does not
II-63
64
offer viable alternatives and mitigating
measures. It merely points out that under
the proposed plan "the quality of life that
has been present in Southold for centuries
will change immutably." (DGEIS, Page 52)
Furthermore, the DGEIS touches only
k
briefly on the significant environmental
impacts of the marine zoning. This was an
area of great concern at the February, 1987,
Master Plan hearings, and these impacts should
have been carefully measured by the DGEIS
with regard to the effect on the Peconic
Estuary system. And, ~yith regard to one of
the Town's most vital coastal zone resources -
the wetlands - nowhere are they discussed in
the DGEIS description of the "Environmental
Setting" for the I.laster Plan, and even more
alarming is the fact that the Master Plan
itself, in Section 100-215, devotes only five
lines to properties located adjacent to creeks.
Considering that more than 50 percent of the
TO'.m is J-r the cons tal zune, the flaw in the
Master Plan should have been specifically
addressed by the DGEIS.
II-64
I
I
1'(
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I (
I
I !
I ~
.
.
.
I ~
:
~
I ;
~
I ~
I
Ie
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 '
16 Ii
II
"
17 'I
il
18 Ii
19 Ii
,
'I
Ii
20 I:
!I
"
21 ::
oli
22 ..
II
23 I'
,
,
"
24 'I
II
25 I
II
!I
Ii
65
As a whole, the DGEIS does not offer
mitigating measures or real alternatives to
the serious flaws in the Master Plan and
zoning. Indeed the Master Plan has many flaws,
but it does have laudable goals and these goals
should be endorsed by the Town. The zoning
l
does not advance the goals, nor does it embody
sound planning principles, and therefore, the
zoning needs to be re-done in accordance with
the goals.
It would seem, therefore, that a one yearl
moratorium v70uld be the most prudent course of
action for the Town to take in order to bring
the zoning into compliance with the Master Plan
goals. This course of action should be legally
defensible and has been taken by many NY State
and Long Is land tOlm to properly manage their
,growth in grcwth situations such as Southold
TOIm is facing.
Southold/2000 suggests that a cousel
in zoning law and an ecological planner be
engaged by the TClm to take the data compi~ed
in the RPPH I-laster Plan study and use it to
draw-up a zoning map and amendments that will
:>
IT-fit;
--...- ----.. --_._---_.__._-_.~..'-,. ---_.__..__...--_._~.._-._-_. - ....- -
I
I
( 2
I
3
I 4
5
I 6
I ! 7
8
I 9
I 10 I
11 II
I Ii
,
12 'I
'I
I r 13 ii
"- Ii
14 ,I
I il
"
,I
15
I 16 1\
:
"
: 17 I'
I 0 I:
~ 18 Ii
0
I "
19 i!
.
.
0 20
I .
e
~ 21-
0 il
I .
.
22
I -I
24 I
I '- 25
I
66
protect the Town's economy and environment and .
the health, safety and general welfare of its
population now and into the future in accordance
with sound planning principles and the goal
of the Master Plan.
l
TI1ank you very much.
llR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mike.
Is there anyone else in the audience that
would like to address the Town Board? As I
for any comments.
I think we will recess this
until nine o'clock
I
I
I
said, we are going to be here
public he<;tring for 15 t:linutes, and come back
at 25 to eight to hear anyone th~t would like
to make some conocnts.
(Hhereupon, a brief recess was taken
and the hearing later resumed.)
llR. MURPHY: It is now 25 minutes to eigh
I would like to reopen the public hearing on
the Draft Generic Environmental Impact State-
rnent and, at this time, I would like to ask
anyone in the aUGience, going over to t:ly left,
if the)' would like to address the Tmm Board
on this?
Anyone in the middle that would like to
II-66
I
I 1
I( 2
3
I 4
5
I 6
I~ 7
8
I 9
I 10
11
I 12
I r 13 II
I'
'\.. Ii
14 ,I
I II
,I
15 Ii
I 16 II
Ii
:
: 17 ,I
I ,
I
18 II
. II
.
. !I
I , I'
. 19 I
,
~ II
.
. 20
I I
. i:
e 'i
21 I
: ,I
. "
I . .,
. 22 I
I
,
11
23
I
24
I ( -
25
~J
1--
67
address the Town Board on this Generic Environ-
mental Impact Statement? Hearing none, I am
going over to my right.
Is there anyone that would like to
address the Town Board? We are going to be
here until nine o'clock to take comments.
l
So please, this is what we are here for. If
you have any comments at all, it is not a
question and ansIVer period. It is for the
To~~ Board to receive comments.
Hearing none, I think we will recess
until eight o'clock and we will stay here.
.
Anyone th~t comes in is welcome to make
cOr:T.lentl
Thank you.
<,.)hereupon, a brief recess was taken
and the hearing later resumed.)
HR. HURPHY: It is eight o'clock. I
would like to reopen the public hearing to
receive comments from anyone infue audience
,~ho would like to address the Town Board on the
Draft Environmental I~pact Statement. So,
again, I,_~;ould like to start on my left.
Is theE anyone who would like to address
the Town Board hearing?
II-67
I
I
I( 2
3
I 4
5
I 6
I~ 7
I
B
I I
9 II
I 10 II
11 Ii
I
12 ,I
'I
L
I I:
13 ,
, :1
'- "
q
14 II
I !I
15
I 16 II
. I,
: 17 Ii
I 0 "
'I
18 I,
0 II
.
.
I II
"
19 Ii
;1
. I
.
0 20 I!
I . "
~ II
21 II
~ "
0 !I
I .
. 22 il
il
,
"
I 23 Ii
"
'I
II
24 "
I 25 Ii
!i
'I
'0' II
I I
i
I
.._.~-- .~_._-----_._.__... --..-..- .-----.--"--- ---.
68
Anyone in the middle? Anyone?
Yes, sir. Please use the mike and
identify yourself.
MR. LO\\1RY: Thomas Lowry, from New
Suffolk.
I have made something of a study of
k
DGEIS's in the last few years, and have
generally found them to be ill-written and
ill-conceived examples of special pleading
produced for hungry developers by ill-educated
hired guns.
The GElS which we are considering today
is a startling exception to the general rule.
It is a well-"rritten and humane document with
lofty ambitions. But when seen through my
admittedly myopic New Suffolk-preoccupied eyes,
it makes and distorts a zoning map which is
filled with egl:'egious errors and lapses in
judgment.
Take, for exar~le, the two blocks of
"do,mtown" ~,e,.; Suffolk between Jakson and King
and betu.-"m First and Second Streets. The ne,"
zoning map designates them as Hamlet Business.
This zone allows bus and train stations,
II-fiR
--------- "---,-
I
I.
I( 2
3
I 4 I
5 I
I
I
6
I~ 7
I
II
8 II
I
,
9 I
I
I
I 10 11
!I
,
11 Ii
I "
Ij
12 I'
I'
I'
"
Ie 13
14
I 15
I. 16 ,
'I
"
I'
I: 17 II
18 II
. I,
.
I: 19 "
I:
, Ii
,
e 20
I~ II
II
21 il
. "
., "
, !I
I: 22
"
ii
23 ii
1 'i
24 I,
( ,I
I \~ 'I
25 I
:1
I
1
69
laundromats, boarding houses, museums, govern-
ment offices, banks, drive-in restaurants, and
theaters.
One hundred and one New Suffolk residents
signed a petition and presented it to the Town
Board in a timely manner after the map was
~
published. We asked for the area in question
to be "unzoned," not to be zoned Hamlet Business,
and we were ignored. The two blocks are still
Hamlet Business.
Now ,7hat I suspect is that the proposed
Master Plan is shot through with similar stu-
pidities, that many of them (even most of them)
lie undetected, festering quietly, ready to
come to life someday and strike at the heart
of the North Fork.
Of course, what is already happening
to us without a decent Master Plan is unregu-
lated, uncalculated, unhindered growth. Its
virus erupts into ugly pustules like big new
gas stations and unneeded office and retail
complexes.
Hhat ,,'e need is an immediate cap on
fur~her development
no more building permits,
II-69
I
I
I
I
I
I !
I
I
I
I (
I
I :
.
I ;
.
I.
.
o
I ;
:
,
I'
I
I '-
I
(
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I
11 II
I'
12 :;
I,
13
,
'I
il
14 ;1
I
,I
II
':
15
16 Ii
Ii
I'
17 II
II
"
18 II
I:
I:
19 "
"
Ii
20 II
II
21 Ii
"
22 Ii
23 II
'I
24 i:
I
25 I
;
I
I
II
,i
II
70
no more fresh starts of new projects for six
months or a year, however long it takes for
a thorough examination of the zoning map and
a redrawn Master Plan.
I should think that with every developer
whooping and hollering that you would find it
1
worth your while to do your job quickly and
efficiently in order that we will soon have a
rational plan that we can all live with.
Thank you.
HR. MURPHY: Thank you, sir.
.i
i
I
Is there anyo~e else who would like to
speak in the middle section?
HR. HIClCHAN: John Hickman, Cutchogue;
I am a little bit distressed. I find I have to
also speak for my o~~ operation. I am distresse
that an area on Peconic Bay between Fleet's
Neck and NeH Suffolk is zoned A-C and it has
about one hundred feet of Peconic Bay frontage.
Also on Bayview there are several areas of
just out:;tand:.ngly prime Peconic Bay acreage
that is zoned A-C.
To me this is a mistake. On the other
sid~ of Bayview there is one section that is
II-70
--_.._--_._-+.__.-~._._,._-------. .--.
I
I
I(
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I~
I;
.
Ii
o
I~
I
I{~
I ~,
:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 I
11 I
i
I'
12 II
13 I:
,
Ii
11
14 I
II
;'
15 ~ I
"
"
l'
16 I
I,
17 II
"
Ii
18 'I
I
19 i:
I'
1\
"
20 II
"
21 I:
:1
"
22 II
"
I'
23 Ii
\1
24 "
25 II
~
71
zoned R-40, undeveloped land, and again the
difference between R-40 and A-C is tremendous.
I understand that the R-40 designation has
some special reasons but so has some of the
A-C special reasons.
We are providing catchment of about one
hundred acre fresh water catch, of about one
hundred acres for the Village of New Suffolk,
and it should be entitled to some recognition
for this. Just where it should be I am not
going to say, at this time, but obviously it
. seems unfair.
There is one other point I would like to
make, at this time. Last occasion of adopting
a Master Plan, the Master Plan was adopted but
at a later date. It was implemented by the
Zoning Map. My information is that this Master
Plan -and the Zoning Map together and the DGEIS
is discussing, in fact, these locations and
points that I have been bringing up. So the
DGEIS is in fact anticipating that the zoning
Vlill be ,~~t as shown on the J:lap.
To me this is a mistake, that the Master
Plan would be adopted and implemented, and some
II-71
I
I
I
I
I
I !
I
I
I
(
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11 1/
I
12 II
II
13 ii
ii
I (
14 :1
I
;'
15 i!
16 II
I.
17 II
Ii
18 i:
II
19 Ii
I
20 II
I
21 I
il
I
22 II
iI
23 Ii
24 II
i!
25 Ii
I
,
I
I
I :
:
o
I ~
I:
o
.
I:
~
.
I
I
I
I
~:.r:
72
of it immediately, but as it can be worked out
just to give this To~~ Board an opportunity to
not only make adjustments in the A-A and the
R-40, but also a marine zoning and so forth.
In short, I believe that the Master Plan
should be adopted and will ultimately, if not
,
immediately, some of the points in the Zoning
Map should be set in concrete but others should
be worked out more carefully.
Thank you.
MR. HURPHY: Thank you, John.
Anyone else in the niddle that would like
i
to speak to the To"~ Board?
J..nyone on the right have any cOll1ll1ents
on the Generic Inpact Statement? Yes.
HR. HASBERGER: (Phonetic spelling).
Freddie l~asberger, Vice-President of
Orient Association.
I have been here since practically the
beginning. One of the reas ons ';e speak, or
for myself one of the reasons I had trouble
thinking about how to get up and address this,
,- /
is the problem seemed manifold and enormous.
We don't know really whether to address the
II-72
I
I,
If
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I (
I
I :
I ~
.
I.
.
:
I ;
.
I'
I
I (
1
2
3
4
5
II
6 II
7
8
9
10 I
II
11 !I
12 I:
II
I
13 ,I
"
Ii
14 :i
!!
15 ,i
16 Ii
17 ,I
I,
I'
18 II
;1
I.
19 r
:1
20 11
,
II
21j
jl
22 'I
I,
I,
!
23
:1
I'
24 ,I
Ii
"
25 Ii
:1
II
I
I
I
73
Environmental Impact Statement, the Master Plan,
and in addressing these, whether we want to
say through the whole thing out because if we
say that then what will happen? So I think we
are presented with kind of a problem that is
kind of hard to find pur way through, I would
l
simply like to echo what Mike Zweig and what
Hr. Lo~vry said, sinister implications of things
that might be buried in the plan and are very
disconcerting.
I think most of us have been able to
look at it ~nd consider things for our own
particular areas. It is almost impossible for
any of us to have a scope of the whole town
proximity in the individual area. I think we
at least expect to see in the Environmental
Impact State~ent some kind of address to the
impact of some of these problems that we see
in the areas.
I
,
I
I
M . ,
ar1ne
I
The idea of marine zoning, marking
Zone II at the foot of Village Lane and Orient
is a horrendous idea. I am incapable of
understanding why anyone would come up with it.
I hope to see the Impact Statement address
,-,
II-73
I
I ( 2
I 3
4
I 5
I 6 II
!'
I ~ 7
k
8
I 9
10 ,
I I,
,!
11 Ii
I ~ I
12 I,
I 13
r "
\.. II
,
14 "
i
I 15
"
I 16 Ii
. !I
: 17 II
0
I 18
. II
.
I 19 I,
, I
,
0 20 j!
"
I "
e "
21 ::
~ I'
I
, "
"
I . 22
I:
"
I'
23 "
"
I 24
I 25 ,
"
,
!I
il
"
L
I --11- ..-..---.--
74
implications, the direct result that we might y
expect for such a zoning in Orient and I would
assume that most people feel the same way about
particular things that matter to them in their
areas.
Again, the problem I think we have is
how do we stop things going the way they have
been without some kind of plan going into
effect. If we are going to sit around and
wait for the new plan to evolve, I don't like
the idea of approving a plan as it is because
it gives ficense for all sorts of things; that
while you are deciding to change them already
applications .;-ill be going in under the la\"
that has been approved and by the time you get
around or come to them most of the protection
will have been lost.
So I don't like the idea of approving
it as it is. I don't like the idea of acceptinb
the Environmental Imp&ct Statement because it
doesn't specifically give any tools to work
.vith to say, no, this plan, this aspect of'the
plan is really bad.
I don't know what the answer is. I guess
II-74
I
I.
I(
I
I
I!
I
I
I
I (
'-
I
I :
I ~
I
:
o
I ;
o
o
I'
I
I (
I
75
o
o
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11 II
d
:,
12
13
14
15
"
,
16 Ii
:'
d
17 i
ii
I,
I'
18 'I
I,
,
I
"
19 ::
Ii
20 'I
II
"
"
21 'i
::
,
22 I'
Ii
I'
23 ,I
Ii
ii
"
24 "
!I
25 I
to echo what Mr. Lowry suggested and put a
cap on development until you can all come up
with a plan that will not please everybody but
will at least support the goals as stated and
give us something to work with.
MR. }fURPHY: Thank you.
k
Anyone else on the right that would like
to address the Town Board? Is there anyone
that would like to address the Town Board?
We are going to be here until nine o'clock.
We will recess for another twenty minutes
and come back at 25 minutes to nine.
(Hhereupon, a brief recess was taken
and the hearing later resumed.)
MR. }fURPHY: I would like to reopen,
resume this public hearing and again I would
like to ask if anybody would like to address
the To"m Board on anything concerning this
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement
that has been advertised in the notice. Having
all read that official notice, that is why we
are h,"re. T,:e are going to be here until nine
,,-...
o'clock and we are going to take any comments.
I \~ould like to ask anyone on the left,
II-75
I
I 1
( 2
I
3
I 4
5
I 6
I ~ 7
8
I 9
I 10
,
11 I
I ,
"
I'
12 d
ji
I !;
13 il
.- "
\, Ii
14 II
I ,
"
15 ,
I 16 II
0 I,
"
I : 17 1i
0 I.
ii
0 18 "
0 Ii
I 0 I,
19
"
. !!
. II
, 20
I L
. Ii
- :i
: 21 'I
.
I .
22
I 23 "
r
II
24 I:
II
( ,
I il
- 25
,
['
::1_ I
I
I
76
if there is anybody, please identify yourself .
for the record.
}!R. LATSON: Stephen Latson, of Water-
front Revitalization.
I guess one issue I want to address is
~
M-I and M-II and the basic problem is that in
a definition of M-I it is supposed to be in the
creek and small bodies of waters, and M-II is
supposed to be in the open waters. I went over
the map today and I counted out of 24 M-I and
M-II districts, there are lS M-II. Out of 18
11-11, 12 of them are in what anybody would
define as creeks or shallow bodies of water.
They are not on open waters.
One of the concerns of the \Vaterfront
Revitalization is that in the future are we
going to have enough marina space? The
suggestion that we are going to be recornQending
is that 1ve need all the marina space we have
nO,'T. \\That it comes down to is the }!-II
allowance, you can put restaurants and motels
in M-II ~~eas. It is going to contravene the
idea of having marinas because somebody can
come in with a bit of money, buy up the marina,
II-76
I
I.
I( 2
3
I 4
5
I 6
I~ 7
8
I 9
I 10
I 11
12
I
I'
I I
{ 13
I 14
15
I 16 11
I'
: II
I : 17 'I
, "
Ii
18 "
0 ii
Ii
I 0 I'
, 19 I
. II
.
I 0 20 :1
.
I,
~
: 21. 'I
I i
.
22 ::
,
I 23 ;:
,
~ ~
24 'I
I ( ;;
'I
~ 25 !I
!I
I
I II
II
----- - -.. . -- . .---- --. -~- .-..-------
77
and develop it as hotel. This is going to reall
put a strain on marina space in the Town in the
future. I think the recommendation I would have,
as far as hotel/motel space, would be -- because
this kind of coincides with the Mattituck region
we are just going through, and this is on the
k
south side, we would like to see some areas
preserved up on the bluff for like scenic
vistas and things like that so all people in
the future will be able to go in and say this
is what Southold used to look like in the bluff
areas.
If you could set aside one area on the
left side of Mattituck. left one area on the
left side of l1attituck by the inlet, say one
acre areas, developing 80 acres of that area
to preservation and 20 acres to the top notch
hotel resort type of development, I think you
would be able to evaluate a couple of problems.
I think this 'my also that if I ,,,as coming
someplace or I an coming out to Southold. I
think being up on the bluff area if I see a
hotel or a motel it would be quite scenic and
spc~ifically if you had 80 acreS of untouched
-.
II-77
I
I
f
I
I
,
I
I
I
II'
I
I
I!
I~
I :
o
o
I:
I
I
I
--~ -- ._~..---
,
~
k
78
land surrounding it -- and this is a sugges- ,
tion -- the real point is that we really want
to see M-I and M-II stay as marinas. It is
because there are only 24 of them in the
whole Town. I think it encompasses under 221
acres. I guess it is also pretty obvious
in the future we are going to be needing
these areas.
Thank you very much.
HR. HURPHY: Thank you, Steve.
Anyone else on the left that would like
to address the Town Board?
Anyone in the middle?
Anyone on the right?
We are going to be here until nine
o'clock again. This is your chance.
ifuy don't we recess until five minutes
to nine and have the last comnents at nine
o'clock. He will come back a five minutes
to nine.
I
I
Thank you.
(Hhereupon. a brief recess ,vas take.n
and the hearing later resumed.)
HR. HURPHY: It is now five minutes to
II-78
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I(
I
I
I~
I;
.
.
Ii
e
I !
I
1
2
3
4
5 ,
6 II
7
B
9 ,\
\!
10 'I
I.
'i
1
11 q
Ii
,
121
II
13 Ii
il
14
15
i
16 "
II
17 \1
I
.1
\i
18 Ii
I
\1
19 II
,I
,
,.
20 Ii
II
,
21
22 "
II
23 1\
I'
24 I
I
i
25 \1
"
d
II
1\
I (---
L~'
79
nine. I would like to resume the public
hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and, again, I would like to ask if
there is anyone who would like to address the
Town Board on the Haster Plan, starting on
my left. Over in the middle? Over on my
l
right?
Yes.
MS. SPATES: This is off-the-cuff.
I guess a lot of you s,m me writing it
right here, but I would just t~ to say it as
slm. as I can. I would like to speak to this
forum on further growth in hopes of achieving
some preservation of the chara~ter of what we
now have as the North Fork. I say we now have,
because it is fast looking like the west of us.
Recently I talked with a woman who has
also.been in Oregon, who was born and raised
there. She said they have a protective en-
vironmental policy there among the Oregon
people. Since she came here to Long Island
about a year ago she said she just wants to
..- '~
shake people and ask: '~at are you doing to
your Island? I, myself, came to Long Island
II-79
I
I
I(
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I c
I
10
:
I'
I
I ;
o
,
I:
I
I
I
,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-,
10 ::
ii
l' II
II
I-
12 Ii
I:
13
,:
I'
14 II
i'
15 :!
16
o
o
17 .1
I
18 II
"
1 ~
19 i;
II
,
,
o
20 Ii
Ii
"
_I
21
22
23
Ii
24 "
-'
i!
25
~..r.
80
some years ago.
I lived in the East Moriches
.
area and occasionally had people speak about
some new counties in the east end. I hoped
my home would be completed in the western end,
but I new the politics of the eastern county
on its own. I liked what I saw east of me and
k
not what I saw west of me. Eventually my
family and I moved east some more to Southold,
but we can't move much f~rther.
He like the quiet wildlife and rich
soilage. Each nook and cranny of the United
States is having similar problems as ours here
in the Southold To,~. There is no i~@ediate
answer to the problem identified in the Environ-
mental Impact Statement in zoning the Master
Plan and overdevelopment, and pollution piled
dow~ by, of course, one too many people.
I like people. I teach the young of
our species nearly every day, but I love the
Earth too and all the species that live on it.
It is time to take [{ hard look at our numbers.
Hhat all._,;:his tranlates or means is that the
Southold Town, in my opinion, needs structured
land use laws and revision on the number of
II-SO
I
I 1
,
r 2
I
3
I 4
5
I 6
,I
I ! 7 II
8 I
I 9
,
I 10 I
II
11 il
I :1
12
I ( 13
, "-
14
I 15
I 16 I'
!
I
: 17 ,
I.
I 0 "
18 Ii
0 'I
~ !I
I 19 I'
"
"
, I'
. 'I
; 20 "
I'
I . II
~
: 21. "
. I,
. 'I
I . Ii
22 I'
ii
23 :1
I Ii
24 :1
"
{ I'
I 1
- 25 il
"
Ii
I ~ _____ .u_ . I
81
people who live on the North Fork.
I have heard peoples recommendations
tonight which are indeed heartfelt and I
applaud them, but all these can do is put off
to the future other consequences that are
coming do.m the road ever so fast.
t
Limits on the growth of people, I guess
it sounds anti-democratic, but it is not. It
is in fact the responsibility of us who want
democracy, who want to help the environment,
to deal .:ith this problem that "e ourselves
have caused. Demanding a limit to growth,
it would be the first place. It is done.
It has be~n done in other parts of the country
somehow. I don I t know how. '~e have to do it
here.
The only thing I want to add is that
if I can b~ of any help to anybody I would be
glad to try to do so. I hope we can hit it
hard. We have to if there is any hope of
h3ving anytbing left of Long Island here on
the East End.
MR. HURPHY: Thank you. Very well said.
Again, is there anyone who would like
r
II-81
I
I 1
( 2
3
I 4
5
I 6
I 7 I
8 I
I 9 I
'I
I,
I II
10 "
II
11 Ii
I 11
12 I,
:
"
"
Ii' 13 I
'I
i!
I 14 Ii
I:
,
15 I!
,I
I ,
.,
16 l'
: i:
17 "
I ~ .'
I:
p
18 II
~
I . I
19 ,
.,
Ii
Ii
, "
, I'
I 0 20
I:
. "
~ I:
21. i,
0 ;i
I ~ il
,
22 :I
\1
II
I 23
"
il
24 II
I I,
25 Ii
II
Ii
I I'
,
I
82
to address the Town Board? I think we are
,
"
,
getting near to the hour of nine o'clock and
so I would like to close this public hearing
and thank everybody who has participated and
came out here to listen, Enjoy.
k
(Time noted, 9:02 P.M.)
*
*
"k
I, Gail Roschen, do hereby certify that I
I
.
f
1
am an Official Cou~t Re?orter and that the foregoing
constitutes a true and ~ccurate transcript according to
my official stenogrophic notes.
I '
/'
<. /..
GAIL ROSCHEN,
Official Court Reporter
II-82
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION I I. B.
WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DGEIS
FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING OF
APRIL 26, 1988
S41
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. E....\IRO....".-\f....r".l cO....S.UP,.....TS & PL4.........ERS
S41
. c;I'p'
J
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
cc.
.
.
.
-:?'P fl t'v
)
;/3
COpy FOR YOUR
INFORMATION
James G. Gibb
Howell Farm
South Harbor Road
Southold, New York
5 April 1988
.-""',
-........,.
1197.1:""'" '.....
..- /, \" ....,. ,
"' ~ "y" . '.
(,., :? >' .
(,. "0 ';>,;
~ \v........
,V .
~.\ \ .
\ ~~..~ ....',-;~J:>. .
~..\ _.:~(:.;:,\....;.;
..::;~~.:......;~ ~;,;."
S\~.;.~\~>,,:,
"\..... ..,.-
Hon. Frank Murphy and Members of
the Southold Town Board
Southold Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Town Board Memberr:
The Town Board is to be congratulated for its completion of a draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (GNEIS). The final version of this statement
will represent an important step in insuring the Town's compliance with New
York St~tp's EPvironmenta1 Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Unfortunately, I have
found what I believe to be a major omission in the draft GNEIS; viz., the near
total disregard for the community's cultural resources.
SEQRA, and its predecessors in state and federal law, includes cultural
resources as part of the environment. Among these are historic and prehistoric
sites, regardless of whether they are architectural ("above ground") or
archaeological ("below ground") in nature. While the natural resources of
Southold are summarized and evaluated in the draft GNEIS, there is no c~arable
summary and evaluation of the community's historic and prehistoric resources.
Given the ample precedents for considering these resources, it is very surprising
that the Town's consultants failed to address them.
The missing section in the draft GNEIS should provide overviews of the prehistoric
and historic occupation of Southold, specifically addressing changing land-use
patterns. There has been sufficient archaeological research on the North Fork to
enable identification of areas of potentially significant prehistoric occupation.
Landmarks preservation activities and archival research in the area have also progres'
far enough to begin to identify priorities in local preservation efforts. Guidelines
have been established at national and state levels for identifying and designating
historically significant sites and districts. These issues must be addressed
if the To~~ of Southold is to comply with the provisions of SEQRA.
The Town's consultants can rectify this omission by retaining the services
of a professional historic preservationist and a professional archaeologist with
experience in historic, prehistoric and industrial archaeology. More specific
rec~~endation3 C~n be SOlicited fro~ t~e Histcric PrEse~v~tio~ Office cf the
New York State Department of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. I
Strongly suggest that their comments be sought and considered by the Board
before evaluation of the d=aft GNEIS has bec~ comp12ted.
Respectfull~ di J
Ov"4 . WI.--
Michael Lynch, NYS Department of Parks, Recrea~ and Hi or c Preservation
Zachary Studenroth, Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities
Ed Johannemann, Long Island ArchaeOlogical Project
II-83
I. '\ A
-' .".
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
,
( (
FISHERS ISLAND CONSERVANCY, INC.
GELS
RECEIVED
APR 2 '3 1988
So"th,,''! r""", t"I...t.
BOX 553
FISHERS ISLAND, NEW YORK 06390
April 25, 1988
To: The Soutnold Town 30ard
To.m Hall, I.lain Road,
Southold, E.Y. 11971
Re: Generic =nvironnental lr.pact Statement (GElS)
1,laster Plan 'ip-Date
,tmendments to the Town of Southold Zoning Ordinance.
.\fter a detailed ~eading of the above-na"ed doc~~ents, the Fishers
Island Conservancy regretfully but firmly feels that the
envirore:lentally oriented statements in the GElS and the Easter Plan
up-uate are not paralleled by corres~ondin~ly effective language
or even stron3 ecological emDhasis when it cones to considering the
alc.endlClents to the Southold local zoning ordina..'1ce. "ve also feel
that these zoning ~1endments do not contain sufficient environmental
~rotection for Fishers Island, and we also are of the opinion that
the entire town of Southold needs greater protection for its
natural resources phan it is going to receive if these zoning
ordinance ~"endments are adopted. Rather than pass such legislation
at this time, we recommend that the above-n~~ed pac~age containing
ohe GElS, t'le lIaster Plan Uy-Datc and the zonin3 10.;-1 a!,"endr.1ents be
d 'lCl~ further study and amendr"ent, and under.,.o strengthening in
(especially, ~ut not li~ited to) the followin~ areas:
.... Certainly more lanc;ua"e reflective of intent to conserve (rather
tha..'1 simply enlli~erate) environmental resources should be added to
all levels of the GElS and t'ne nell zoning amendments, lli th
particular c~phasis placed on agricultural, residential, hamlet-
density and ro1arine business zones. Despite reassuranoes in the GElS,
the proposed zonin~ law arnen~,ents do not enphasize preserva~ion
of envirorur.e~~al resources.
.. Under the Easter Plan th-Drcte headin;-o; "~la:'.let studies", there is
cuite nossibly a need to include ?is'lers Island (along llith Pl~'1l
Island and ',rent and 1"ittle1ull Is:!.ands) as senarate "barrier
island" area.s '..:ith unique :;eologic a.l"1cl enVirOnl'lental features
that are quite distinct from other areas and h~lets of Southold
totm.
0);. ;;!e also feel t~1at c:1c.n~cs in the propo sed zonin~ la\l arc needed
to i::c1 UdCl Jc.ore envirol'.I.1ental protection for open space and other
ecolo~ical1y sensitive areas. The new zoning regulations should
at least Rive effect to the same cnviro~'1lental e~phasis and
safeGuards as the Hastcr Plan Up-D:.Lte outlines. A helpful
sus~estion here would be to enact a local policy that all
environr1ental questions stemmin~ frOM these local zoning ordinances
be first revieHed and a:Jproved (by means of a hearing, if necessary)
II-84
I , ,.
.r:" ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
(
- 2 -
by the Southold Board of ~rustees before bei~g passed on to
the Planning Board or heard by the board of Zoning ~ppeals.
To avoid bureaucratic pile-up not every case should go through
u hearing of this nature, but those deemed environmentally
sensitive by to"m ordinance or by Trustee action, should.
It mi:sht be a good idea to add u" envirom.lentally sensitive
dimension to zoning code desienations (especially low-density
residential, hamlet, or marine business zones). This would
alert builders and home o,mers that great care must be t~{en with
any plans that mi.c:ht adversely affect the envirom.lent.
Our Conservancy tis thus ve~J concerned over the lack of
environmental teeth in the zoninG la1-l part of the G:r;IS pacl.{age,
and we cannot ~ive our approval to it at the present time, much
as He recognize the necessity and benefit of many Easter Plan
goals, as well as the worth of ~any of the other chanGes proposed.
Further study leadin~ to the addition of the enviroTh,ental
safeguards outlined above is in our opinion ve~y badly needed
at this moment. Essential ti::;l1teninr; of zonil:" regulations in
enviroIl.-nentally sensitive e.~eas of therolm l-:ill 001 ster a."J.d
augment tl1e sound intentions of tl:e Easter Plan outline.
POl' the C0ns0rv~~J 302rd,
c/1~ '~.~~~,~resident
l~e..t:J.lie :13.f'f'erty - ~/ice-j?resident
.. ::OT;;; - ::'his letter 3''1ould ::'0 re2d L'lto the record a1; any relevant
officie.l hearing.
II-8S
'.
___c.._
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.'
/.. ." '\
"
(
(
~c-2:S
RECEIVED
APR 2 a 1988
SC"'lth^'..I T,..\.,,, rl"r~
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ALBANY. N.Y. 12231-0001
GAIL S. SHAFFER
SECRETARY OF STATE
April 25, 1988
\
~!s. Judith T. Terry
Tom Clerk
Town of Southold, Town Hall
l-lain Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re: S-88-o09
Generic Environnental Impact Statarent
(GElS) for the Proposed Local Law to JI.mend
the Town of Southold Zoning Code and I.lap
Dear ~. Terry:
As Neil York State's Coastal l-lanagerrent Agency, the Departrrent of State,
Division of Cbastal Resources and waterfront Revitalization, appreciates the
ofPOrtunity to comrrent of the GElS cited above, dated February 1988. Our
cCI11lrents are as follows:
Descriotion of the prorosed Action
We support the legislative proposals that aCCXJll\plish the follDl'ling:
concentrate high density and canrrercial developnent in or near existing
hamlets where infrastructure is adequate, establish al'eas where
water-defendent uses will be allowed and not threatened or displaced by uses
which do not require a waterfront location, prevent the unnecessary loss of
large continuoos areas of prine agricultural soils, and protect
enviromentally sensitive areas.
The Department of State olJX>ses the creation of zones that would fermit
high density resicential and cc:inrrercial developrent in envi ronrrentally
sensitive areas or in areas where ground water supplies, that are depended
upon for drinking water supply, are inadequate.
Descril)tion of the Enviromental Settino
Page 33 should be revised to indicate that 18 Significant Fish and
Wildlife Habitats in Southold have been designated by the New York State
Department of State. These habitats were recomrrended for designation by the
n-86
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/,
. .
(
c
"ew York State DepartJnent of Environnental Conservation. The Town should have
a cop.{ of the narrative and rrap for each habitat. Please contact me if the
Town does not have this infornation.
lo'.itiaation ~leasures
Many of the mitigating measures, set forth on pages 53 to 60, to minimize
adverse el1l1ironnental irrpacts should eventually be incorporated, through the
aooption of local laws, into the Tawn's zoning law or other land use
regulations.
Alternatives
k
The Depart:rrent of State considers the proFOsed local law the IlOst
desirable alternative of those described in the GEIS.
As you knaw, the Town of Southold is preparing a Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program (Ll'lRP). Adjustrrents or refinements may be necessary to
the prop:>sed local law, for which the GEIS has been prepared, in order to
implerrent the TO\m's LI'lRP. Ho..lever, the Town should not delay its decision On
the prop:>sed local law due to this possibility.
Thank you for the oPFOrtunity to canment. Please contact me, at (518)
474-9201, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
!1h UJd~
Peter I'lalsh
Coastal Resources Specialist
IW': rdc
cc: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
Jim ~1c11ahon, Canmunity Developrent Director
Steve Latson, L\~ Advisory Corrunittee Chairman
":,t-.
.-
......'
II-87
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. t
(
~EIS
1""'hPn ~
~~
(
,/ ~ ff,~mj7-t__.
A TIORN;,;;:;;:;;;;r ---
828 FRONT STREET. " O. BOX 803
GREENPORT. NY 11944
RECEIVED
APR 2 7 ~98a
15161 477-l016
Sc\tllh,..I..I T"',....r\ ('I..,,,~
April 26, 1988
Southold Town Board
Town Hall \
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Mullen and pilles
Dear Members of the Board:
While I realize that the hearings scheduled for today
are for the purpose of discussing the Master Plan's generic EIS,
I am taking this opportunity to once again address my clients'
grievances. I have enclosed two previous letters sent to you by
Irving L. Price, Jr., Esq., along with my letter dated January
20, 1987. These letters clearly outline the situation as it
affects my clients.
Despite these repeated requests, I do not believe that
anything has been done to alleviate the underlying problem. The
parcel owned by Esther Pilles (Tax Map No. 1000-62-3-12) upon
which Mullen Motors operates a body shop remains in the Hamlet
Business District under the present Master Plan. Upon adoption
of the Master Plan as constituted, this body shop will become a
non-conforming use.
Clearly, such a result would be unfair, discriminatory
and unlawful. As set forth in my previous letter, other
automobile dealerships have been included, in total, in a
Business District by means of amendment of the Master Plan. All
we are requesting is to be treated in the same fashi~n/7."
Very trul ~rs, 1,1
JKM/Ig
Enclosures
cc: Mullen Motors, Inc.
II-88
..----------
I,. .
I. .., . ..
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
(
/ ~A!r~ '&'.
A'ITORNEY AT LA;;!
628 FRONT STREET. P. O. BOX 803
GREENPORT. NY 119<<
,.161<77.1016
Janaury 20, 1987
Southold Town
Town Hall
Southold, NY
Board
11971
Re:
Mullen and Pilles
,
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that this office represents Richard F. Mullen
and Esther Pilles in relation to the proposed Zoning Regulations and Master
Plan.
1 have enclosed copies of two letters previously sent to you from
Irving L. Price, Jr, Esq., regarding this situation. On the basis of these
letters, Mr. Price was assured that our clients' concerns would be addressed
and the problem would be rectified.
Richard F. ~Iullen is the record Dlmer of certain parcels on the
south side of Main Road'in Southold, New York, which have been used for over
thirty (30) years as an automobile showroom and dealership by Mullen Motors,
Inc. (Tax ~Iap Nos. 1000-62-3-10.003, 11 and 20). Esther Pilles is the record
ownor of a parcel on the north side of Main Road, Southold, New York, which
h3s beon usod for over thirty (30) years as a body shop adjunct of Hullen
Hoturs Inc. and for thirty (30) years prior to that was the site of Hullen
Hotors, Inc. (Tax Map No. 1000-62-3-12).
Apparently, in response to Mr. Price's letter, lots 11 and 20 were
ch;lIlged from a Hamlet Business District (in which an automobile dealership is
nut a permitted use) to a Business District (in which an automobile dealership
is a permitted use). As a result. lots 10.003 and 12 remained in the HanlIet
UllsIness District. In the event that the proposed Zoning Regulations and
N~lster PloCln arc. adopted as presently constituted. the uses on these two lots
will beconlc non-conforming uses. This would result in a very substantial
decrease in th~ v~lue of my clients' property. as the non-confornling status
of tl1cse p~rc~ls cuuld be extinguished by sale. fire loss or other contingency.
it is our l>o::>it1on th.:lt to hav~ these t\/O parcels remain in .a lbmlet
BusIness District \JtlulJ be confiscatory. AJJitiollally. it would be Jiscrimina-
lor:,' .hi otller autolllubil..:: dealerships in the Town h.:lvC been placed in Busin~ss
II-89
I ~ \-
~. , r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
(
Janaury 20, 1987
Page 2
Districts. Volinski Oldsmobile, located on Traveler Street in Southold, is
within a Business District, as is Wells Pontiac located in Peconic. In fact,
an amendment to the proposed Master Plan was made on October 21, 1986, to~
include another lot used by Wells Pontiac to that Business District. This
amendment was labeled a technical correction, indicating that this added lot
should have been originally included in that Business District.
Likewise, alltof the lots owned by my clients should be included in
the Business District established for the existing Mullen Motors complex. To
do otherwise would be unfair, inappropriate and unlawful. Please be assured
that my clients are willing to take whatever steps are necessary to insure
fair, non-discriminatory treatment and to have the remaining parcels included
in the Business District.
JKM/Ig
"Z:J/fll!lv
C' '"'" ,.,1,v
II-90
I " ,
.
~
"0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-,-
-.----.
(: {
lavING L. PRICE, JR.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P .0. Box E 8a8 FRONT STREET
GREENPORT, L I., N. Y. 11944
(IUO) 4n-1010
February 12, 1986
Southold Town Board
Town Hall
Southold, NY lli?l
Gentlemen:
It has come to our attention that under the
proposed Zoning Regulations ("Master Plan") my clients' vested
rights in his property would be eliminated.
..-
My client, Richard F. Mullen, Jr., owns property on
the south side of the Main Road in Southold occupied as an
automobile showroon, repairs, and car loti a typical automobile
dealership. The use of this property as such commenced over
thirty (30) years ago. It is an upgraded facility that moved
from premises across the road, the use of which as a dealership
was commenced nearly sixty (60) years ago. See request of
Esther Pilles submitted simultaneously.
It is proposed to include these premises in "Hamlet
Business (HB) District, Article IX-l" which does not allow the
use of the premises for an auto dealership.
The continued use of these premises as now used is,
however, permitted under proposed "General Business (B-1)
District, Article X.
It is accordingly requested that the use of these
premises be changed to proposed General Business (B-l) District,
Article X, before the proposed zoning regulations are adopted.
This should be to the depth of the present district lines.
Very truly yours,
Irving L. Price, Jr.
ILP/lg
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
-,..,' b
tee t U:,,, 1\ i,l'l< "\
II.,.91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
( (
..:::...... ... ,
IRVING L. PRICE, JR.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P .0. Box E 828 PRONT STREET
GREENPORT, L.I.. N. Y. 11944
(lue) 477-IOUt
February 12, 1986
Southold Town Board
Town Hall
Southold, NY lt97l
Gentlemen:
It has come to our attention that under the
proposed Zoning Regulations ("Master Plan") my clients' vested
rights in her property' would be eliminated.
My client, Esther Pilles, owns property on the north
side of Main Road, Southold, New York, occupied as a body shop
adjunct of Mullen Motors, Inc. The use of this property as
such has been for over thirty (30) years when Mullen Motors,
Inc. moved across the road and continued as an automobile
dealership. pridr to its said move, Mullen Motors had occupied
my premises as a dealership for thirty (30) years.
It is proposed to include these premises in "Hamlet
Business (HB) District, Article IX-l" which does not allow the
use of my premises for a body shop and/or automobile dealership.
The continued use of these premises as now used and as
used in the past is permitted under "General Business (B-1)
District, Article X" of proposed ordinance.
It is accordingly requested that the use of these
premises be changed to General Business IB-l) District, Article
X before the proposed Zoning Regulations are adopted.
Very truly yours,
Irving L. Price, Jr.
ILP / Ig
CERTIFIED HAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
L:c.. '.0. mv-...tl ( .,
II-92
-.-,---..-----.-
I , .
.
- " .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.'-
I ,r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
(
.
.
IRVING L. PRIOE, JR.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
aaa BONY 5T1lEET
GllEENPORT. L 1., N. Y.l1844
(a"8) .."-loa8
June 3, 1986
Southo~d Town Board
Town, li\all ' '.
Southold, NY 11971
Gentiemen: Re: Mullen and Pi11es
,
On February 12, 1986 I wrote you with regard to the
change of zone under the proposed Master Plan for
the premises of above in Southo1d, which together are
used as an automobile dealership.
I enclose copies of said letters.
I have examined the proposed revisions of the map and
observe that this dealership" is to be made a non-conforming
use, which I believe is confiscatory.
The situation can be remedied by two methods:
.
1) Change the zoning to "General Business (B-1)
District" under Article X.
2) Amend the provisions of "Hamlet Business (HB)"
Article X-l to allow automobile dealership as a
permitted use.
If you wished, the suggestion 2) above could be limited to
a certain premise area so as to prevent any proliferation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours very truly,
Irving L. Price, Jr.
ILP:fae
Ene.
CC: Southo1d Planning Board
Mullen Motors, Inc.
II-93
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RECEIVED
MPo..'( 13 1988
( ~.6~#~
TWOMEY. LATHAM. SHEA & KELLEY ~C~ YOUR
ATTORNEYS AT LAW mfORMATIO:4
33 WEST SECOND STREET
P.O. BOX 3ge
Hl\'ERHEAD. NEW YORK 11901
Sroo.thnlA T........ ~
THOMAS A. TWOMEY, JR.
STEPHEN 8. LATHAM
JOHN F. SHEA. III
CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY
LAWRENCE M. STORM.
MAUREEN T. LICCIONE
CATRION" GLAZEBROOK
DAVID M. DUBIN..
. ALSO ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT
8 NORTH MAIN STREET
EAST HAMPTON. N.Y. 11837
S1tS.324.1200
516-727'2180
TELEFAX; 516-727-1767
AND FLORIOA
. -ALSO AOMITTED IN LOUISIANA
, tlay 12, 1988
Town Board
Town of Southold
Town Hall, Ilain Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Dear Supervisor Murphy & Ilembers of the Board:
,
1 write this letter to clarify the position pre-
sented on behalf of Messrs. Weismann and Flynn at the
hearing held on April 26, 1988 on the Master Plan GElS.
It was not my intention nor was 1 authorized to suggest
the acceptability of M-II zoning for the Young's Harina
site nor did 1 intend to suggest support for 11-1 zoning
as the M-l zone uses are proposed in the Code.
l1y clients would support low-density residential
use, or R-80 zoning, which is the zone proposed for the
area surrounding Young's Marina.
Sii;f~'~
I (J /C.
bh~istoPher Kelley
CK:jo
'.
11-94
1.---~~~::~~~-7(:e~' GCZ~5 --~
NEW yORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF E( .)NMENTAl CONSERVATION M< /I
REGULATORY AFFAIRS ~~~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I )
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTE( JFFICE SPEED MEMO
(USE ONLY FOR UNOFFICIAL
CORRESPONDENCE)
TO:
FROM:
JKd>f!t {;-t.,,, 7... LCt-, k DATE: 5/1
I ~
'~-It t'~Ei~ v:-ec: ~~:!;EPlY REQUIRED BY
n {" ~ /5 iJp '7 ATE RETURNED:
REPLY AT BOTTOM OF THIS FORM
SUBJECT:
1'4AL-~-1Cca1ltP_,~ ;;'F;-"~~--1#~ ~A'7 ~/ /f/~'~-
~/(s,~ ~ Lftlnl/I'oJ /~H,e'-.::tJ. ,9~C~ 6" ,n......-c- .
~" t I
i/!r~///t:'d s (( l
V .
rvf~!t/";{1~-hdt:;'" -
;uh ' . t).L
~.>I, rl-if/l; )../, f~
~
~KtlVfD
REPLY
--A\' . :J '='P"
. I ... _, '. ~.;f)
~_,,;~...'.J T~..._ "-'_.\
II-95
..~1"X
I c~.'
. ;-1'
.
''''...
-::;'i;'-,,:
I
I
1 ...
1 .:'~----'-
1 ,
. -
"."
1
~~
.'W'~~~
-,~ '(-two .~~_~_..i.:
, '?!r~"~
. .' '1:I:~;j
.., 'K.~;.;t ~
1.~::g
~~'<C1i;
- "".
" f
'---"fl.~.
__ . :;~t
...~.;....:~::,~-:J
)I"
1
.
:L..;
.
.~; -'- .
..,'
'~-~.
,i'~;:~~~':'; ,
..-..!'~,
. .': ....~
;~,
\ -,~:"
-..:.,"
',.
"-::)
~-
"
: .COMMENTS ON ~BE tJRAFT GENERIC
lnwLROIDIXN'rAL '.IKPACT.STA'l'EKENT.
'-ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW OF 1987
'AMENDING THE TOWN OP SODTBOLD
~ONING ORDI5ANCE.
--~-~.:.:~
, ..
1--
'~.' -
1
....,:
"
'.,
1
"
,
~< -,"
.'~" -. \'.
'0'1
'.:;..
........,.-
--~.~,.,.'.
1
";1
'-
1
1
'Dated:
April 26,1988
1
.3;:hr istophetKelley I-~
'Of Counsel
.p,;-; -;"'>~-~.'
,. "
" "'.l-
,,--,,-
-' . -
. ~~;~l':':i.l.,'~';~~~'v'
, '."- -..~ ~~
TF"'~' ,)"-:-_,,,,-::;~,,
,.
-'-, -
1
,
-'-.'.
1
'"
'.
- ,. -. ~ . --
J..-.;,.
I.
..'
TwOMEY, LATHAM, 'SHEA &. KELLEY
~ .-~.."
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
'<
'<.:;
I:; "
-',
'" ',~_,. .'. k:~;-"':~~9s:::..~~_;~-,~,I%i'::~:;"i,~~;;f.r~~~:.;':'~d! ,
..,:... _ _.. R1-vlCRH&AD.NEWYORK~l -.....,,,-.. ':~';-,~~,,>_.~-:.r- -'<{'-J"~-.z..(...:(--,-.,.~--
'. ':.~".. IJ', , ' :t,?';:: "....... .>,"~~' ;;-~"":'~~<~f~ --'~~Jj~~~;');~kl- \;i\i<~:?~.(j>Yi:,..,.,~--;;~*.t;.'.>Otj.,--....~-:~~r~~\:~:-_,/'~~..i~. .
-: ,.>It' ~. ~ '..,.. ~l"''-~ ~ '~~~ t"-.--.~~;,.~lI.:.. ...,-,,'a'~i"~' >':1-:': ~d~~'.~."-~'): "'-~'~"'~~~'.r'. ~~~~-~"-~ .?f":,--,"~""'."~\'J"-,"-. '.'<. '....-_- ',-""" .
,_. ;'~'_':>"",.;.;.J;S~~ '. ",.;,:...'t'2:~~: .,~.y,,.~;o:~,,,.,:;;-[ " ,,;.,' ..... ~:;:!-2~-1i.~"?~'.;,,:.
.."l!i..... ~}o,t".-~~~ii"'W~'}; .l. ~ 't:'i.,,"--}_I .. ';.~..;'" .'<1'''' ''''.. ~"__
.,1''; -,~.. ' f~:;..l '1:.' , ~;~>t.; t ':. c~+.....~~,.' 1I-96':.~<;.., .~~ )~.t"-:--~..,, ........'ti..~_- :;~--r.r;;j- 71"'<',':';~~'_"': ._:~~..,J
, ,..-...-'-.....-~,~ .x '<?il'--C: - ~';~'-"" .;;.,',~ '-', ~ _._._J ,~$!~....~~~,,";~~~..v.d~~<:~.;r: ,.t.;J.~-"""'"
. -- -'i.. ; ~"' ..~." - 'T:'~..' ~,~,:~ :~-.'!1:",<-~,- <-.~- ':~~:;::~~i':~J~;1l;?:l;;~~<'_~>;' :~~~ ~'-,-~>, -- ,.~. - '
;-.t".
: ~ . ;...."
'."'I~::?,
I. -r:,~i:
..;~-:.j~
..... . p'....i,.,'
",' ~.....
';c--;"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lu
TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
-----------------------------------x
In the Matter of the Draft
Generic Environmental Impact
statement on the Proposed Amending
of the Town of Southold Zoning
Ordinance.
-----------------------------------x
k
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT GENERIC
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW OF 1987
AMENDING THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING ORDINANCE.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This memorandum is submitted on behalf of Henry Weismann and
Frank Flynn who re~ide on Tarpon Drive in Southold across Sage
Cove from the site of Young's Marina, one of the properties
scheduled in the master plan to be rezoned to M-II use.
Messrs. Weismann and Flynn appeared and submitted expert
testimony and legal comments on the proposed master plan in
January of 1987 at which time they objected to the location of
marine business uses on certain environmentally fragile areas in
the Town and objected to the adoption of the plan without an
Environmental Impact Statement.
These comments are submitted as a critique of the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Town and its
failure to fully identify or mitigate the environmental impacts
1
n-97
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
of the proposed waterfront rezoning as applied to the Young's
Marina Site.
Overall the GElS is superficial in nature and does not give
any significant treatment of the potential environmental impacts,
proposed mitigation or alternatives to the plan. While claiming
to be a Generic Environmental Impact Statement, the document does
little to identify or analyze the cumulative impacts of the
~
proposed zoning amendments including the cumulative economic
water quality, wetlands and traffic impacts. Instead, while
claiming to be a GElS it identifies six site specific aspects of
the proposed law which it seeks to address. However, the
analysis of the six aspects is meager, if not non-existent.
Rather than succeeding in being a Generic Environmental
Impact Statement identifying those broad impacts and cumulative
impacts of the plan as a whole and rather than doing a careful
analysis of any of the site specific aspects identified at page 1
of the document, including the Sage Boulevard zoning, the
document is nothing more than a superficial regurgitation of
information previously received by the Town Board. It provides a
rationalization for going forward with little or no modification
to the original plan. The GElS, while seeking to accomplish two
purposes, fails to accomplish one.
The sections of the GElS are addressed chronologically below
in the context of their application to the Young's Marina
(Zehner) property on Sage Cove.
2
.
II-98
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
POINT I
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
In the section entitled "Description of the Proposed Action"
. ~ . at pages 7 and 8 the document describes the purpose of the
Marine-One (M-I) and the Marine Two (M-II) districts. The M-II
district which is~pp1ied to the existing Young's Marina site has
as its purpose:
to provide a waterfront location for a wide range of
water-dependent and water-related uses . . . and which
in general are located on _jor waterways and open
bay fronts and on the Long Island Sound.
This is the first and most obvious inconsistency between
the purpose of the plan and its application.
The marine uses
located and projected to be located by the applicant's current
plans at the Young's Marina site would not be on major waterways,
but would be on a shallow flushing pristine and relatively
undeveloped cove whose waters are still certified for
shellfishing.
Potential expansion of the uses on the Young's
Marina property would substantially impact this current
condition,
Later in that same section it states:
Restaurants and transient hotels and motels would
require a denitrification treatment of their
wastewaters. Public water as defined in the zoning
Ordinance should be required due to the potential
problems of salt water upcoming near the fresh/salt
interface.
However, nowhere in Sections 120, ~ sea. of the proposed Zoning
Ordinance, which govern the M-II district, are such regulations
3
II-99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
set forth.
There is no requirement for denitrification nor is
their one for public water. A transit hotel/motel and restaurant
could be built on the site without the requirement of such
amenities.
Furthermore, even if they were required the well-
known condition of the Greenport water district is not such that
sufficient water could be supplied for such uses at the site.
The M-I district described on page 7 of the GElS is designed
l
to be located on "Marine or tidal waters but which are located
within the confines of the Town's tidal creeks or natural coves".
This description more closely conforms to the site attributes of
the Young's Marina property.
By the use district's own
description in the GElS,
it is evident that the M-I
classification is more appropriate for the site than the M-II
classification.
POINT II
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
At page 42 under the section entitled "Marine Business" the
GElS describes the reason for creating two marine districts
instead of one. The document says:
In general, development proposals under these two new
districts would prevent fewer adverse impacts on the
marine environment than would be expected from such
proposals under current zoning.
However, with regard to the Young's Marina property this is
clearly incorrect.
The Young's Marina property is currently
zoned "C-Light Industrial".
As such, no hotel or motel use is
permitted by special exception or otherwise. In addition, except
4
II-IOO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
for certain agricultural uses which the site is not suitable for,
all commercial/industrial uses are by special exception use which
'.
gives the Zoning Board of Appeals an opportunity to review and
reject certain uses where appropriate conditions cannot be made
to prevent environmental damage. Under the new M-II Zone a whole
range of potentially hazardous uses are permitted with no special
exception requirement at all. These uses include marinas and
.
boat yards with the sale of fuel and oil and the use of boat yard/
ship building which by its nature includes the use of hazardous
chemicals and oil byproducts.
The potential for release of
pollutants into the waters of Sage Cove and the potential for
fire is great with these uses.
In addition, with special permit review, restaurants and
drive-in restaurants would be allowed and hotels and motels with
a density of 10 units to the acre. Under the current industrial
zoning, no such intense use of the property could be made.
At page 42 the GElS sites as the one exception to the
statement that the new amendments present fewer adverse impacts
than the current zoning, a case of an M-II district on an unnamed
creek in New Suffolk. There it is stated:
The small
nature of
dwellings
expansions
either the
volume of water, the narrow and confined
this creek and the closeness of existing
could create adverse impacts if major
of existing activity were to take place in
Marine One or Marine Two districts.
This is essentially identical to the case of the Sage Covel
Young's Marina property.
The confined, shallow Sage Cove, with
little flushing could be virtually wiped out biologically by the
5
II-IOI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lu
excessive expansion of the existing marina and the addition to it
of hotel/motel, restaurant and boatyard uses. There is nothing
that distinguishes this case from the New Suffolk case cited.
Although the GElS on page 43 goes on to discuss other areas
of concern where the M-II district has been located, it fails to
even mention the Sage Cove site. At page 46 the GElS purports to
analyze the environmental impacts of the Sage Boulevard zoning,
t
referring to the Young's Marina site. This one paragraph gives
virtually no analysis of what the addition of numerous, more
intense uses in the new zoning Code would do to this property,
and the cove and wetlands surrounding it. Furthermore, it makes
the incorrect statement that all lands not currently utilized as
a marina on site have been returned to the residential (R-SO)
category when, in ~act, all of the Zehner property not utilized
by the marina is still within the M-II zone and available for
motel/hotel boatyard construction. The GElS makes no reference
to the fact that this is clearly a spot zoning sticking out like
a "sore thumb" in a low-density residential area.
In discussing the potential impacts of this new zoning on
the site, no mention is made of the effect of the available uses
on the quality and quantity of surface and groundwater supplies,
traffic on Route 25, wildlife habitat, or wetlands.
POINT III
ALTERNATIVES
The Alternatives section of the GIS is extremely weak. It
. does nothing to analyze what modifications could be made in the
6
II-I02
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
proposed Zoning Ordinance that would more clearly mitigate
environmental impacts. It states only that we can enact the
plan, we can adopt part of the plan and hold it for further study
or we can do nothing. It makes no mention of the alternative of
adopting the plan with significant changes.
One of the most obvious alternatives to the proposed zoning
for the Young's Marina property is to change the zoning to M-I.
i
The site conditions are clearly more consistent with the
definition and purpose of the M-I zone. This is an obvious
alternative to giving the owner a bonus of having the option for
motels/hotels and restaurants on a site with a marina and
boatyard, yet it was not even discussed in the GElS. Another
alternative would be to delete the hotel/motel and restaurant
uses from the M-II district and significantly upgrade the special
permit criteria which would limit and constrain offensive uses at
the site.
POINT IV
MITIGATION MEASURES
Subsection "H" of the GElS entitled "Mitigation Measures"
discusses in skeleton form some mitigation measures but
identifies measures not included in the plan. Under the
subsection entitled "Marine Business" the GElS discusses ways to
minimize marine pollution, none of which are included in the
Zoninq Code. Identifying mitigation measures and failing to
incorporate them into the plan is the absurd result of a document
7
II-103
..-..------.-----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
intended merely to give lip service to the state Environmental
Quality Review Act and not to meet it substantive requirements.
The requirement of pump-out facilities, proper drainage, the
banning of toxic bottom paints, and the adequate disposal of
marine solid and hazardous wastes are all identified as
mitigation measures but not one provision of the Zoning Code
requires any of them. The "Mitigation Measures" section also
t
requests further studies regarding bulkhead and pier limits but
does not incorporate any limits into the Zoning Code. The GElS
also calls for coordinated review of marina expansion as
mandatory but does not incorporate that into the Zoning Code
which clearly does not have such coordinated review requirements.
Identifying the provision of community or public water and
advanced waste treatment for all new marinas and for expansion of
existing marinas, is a nice thing to say but when the uses in a
particular zoning district, in this case Marine II, are not
contingent upon them, such suggestions are mere puffery.
In total, the "Mitigation Measures" section is merely a joke
of well-intentioned suggestions which are not converted into
concrete mitigation measures contained within the proposed zoning
amendments.
The "Mitigation Measures" section reverts from the absurd to
the sublime when at the "Sage Boulevard" subsection on page 57
the statement is made: "No further mitigation then the rezoning
described previously is viewed necessary at this time". This
statement is made with the full knowledge that the potential use
8
rr-104
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-
of the site will be expanded to include 80 dwelling units with
boatyard, marina and restaurant facilities, suspiciously
coinciding with the uses requested in a recent development
proposal of the owner.
POINT V
GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS
The section ~f the GElS entitled "Growth Inducing Aspects",
at page 61, is grossly inadequate. The following statement is
made in the GElS at this section. "Growth inducing impacts of
the proposed local law appear to be limited to Hamlet settings".
No mention is made of the fact that the residential growth of the
current Young's Marina site could increase from no units to 80
units with significant commercial uses on site as a result of
this plan.
CONCLUSION
On the whole the GElS neither satisfied the requirements of
SEQRA nor the more limited purposes that its drafters sought to
accomplish. It does not adequately describe the broad impacts,
economic, environmental and otherwise of the plan as a whole nor
does it adequately discuss the impacts of the six individual
aspects that it purports to analyze. The plan is a RQ.2.t hoc
rationalization for the Board's kowtowing to the individual
gripes and complaints about restrictive zoning by affected
property owners.
9
II-ID5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
prooosed Alternatives
Messrs. Weismann and Flynn respectfully submit that the
GElS and zoning Code should be rewritten to eliminate the
inadequacies cited herein. They propose that the zoning
amendments be changed to eliminate the Young's Marina property as
an M-II site, making it instead an M-I site which is more closely
applicable to the environmental setting of the site and which
would make the exIsting use conforming.
In the alternative, they propose that the M-II regulations
be revised to eliminate numerous special permit uses including
hotels, motels and restaurants. In addition, the special permit
criteria should be revised and more specifically denominated so
that the Code determines exactly how many units will be permitted
and under what circ~stances.
Special criteria including provision for safe water quality
and protection of wetlands should be made for all special permit
uses. Clearly, special permit criteria can be drawn to
incorporate the mitigation measures identified in the GElS which
are not already incorporated into the plan. In addition, such
potentially hazardous uses as marinas and boat yards should become
special permit uses under both the M-I and M-II zoning
classifications. with such a change, specific criteria should be
set forth as to the limits on water use, the impact on the
quality of surface and groundwater and the number of boats which
can be accommodated both on land and in the water at each site
depending on the particular characteristics of the site.
10
II-106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1-
These alternatives, rather than the plan proposed, will
better serve the Town's needs in providing sound planning and
protection of the Town's natural resources.
These alternatives
would incorporate mitigation measures identified in the GElS and
elsewhere making the proposed zoning more environmentally
acceptable.
I
Respectfully submitted,
TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA & KELLEY
Attorneys for weismann and Flynn
PO Box 398
33 West Second Street
Riverhead, NY 11901
(516)727-2180
11
'"
II-107
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION III
LEAD AGENCY'S RESPONSES
TO
SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS
S41 Ltd.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & PLANNERS
S41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I S41
I SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & PlA"ERS
S41
SECTION III.A.
RESPONSE TO SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS MADE AT THE
PUBLIC HEARING OF
APRIL 26, 1988
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS OF THE PUBLIC HEARING
1. Ronnie Wacker:
A general response must reiterate that the proposed local
law, the subject of the GElS, is an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance. It is not a Master Plan. The Zoning Ordinance
regulates private development initiatives, it has nothing to
do with the provision of municipal services of schools, fire,
police, roads, hospitals, or traffic control. It does
however place an ultimate limit on the overall population in
the Town and on the ultimate distribution of that
population. To this end it does affect municipal services
and the proposed amendments, the map amendments in
particular, lessen the overall impact on the Town relative to
the provision of municipal services, based on population,
than does the existing Zoning Ordinance.
2. Response to Christopher Kelley's written comments submitted
at the Public Hearing
Point I
Young's Marina's is located on a direct connection to
Southold Bay. It is an existing marina requiring and directly
benefiting from its access to the Bay. Any adverse impacts
resulting from uses proposed as a part of any plan to change
from the existing marina activity would be revealed through
the SEQR process.
A general response to the commentator is that his knowledge
of the existence of SEQR regulations is not admitted in his
comments and that most, if not all, of his concerns can be
addressed knowing that other regulations beside SEQR also
remain in effect and will be adhered to when a specific
development proposal is made to the Town. Thus, the
requirements for public water and denitrification, for
example, would be made under Suffolk County Health Department
auspices, as the commentator should know, not under local
zoning ordinances.
Point II
Whether a use is by special exception or by right, no use
would be permitted to be located where it would cause
significant adverse environmental impacts. Marinas and
boat yards with fuel and oil sales are uses included in the
present "C-Light" Industrial District, and in the proposed
M-II District. C-Light Districts are primarily industrial
S41
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMEr-;TA,l CONSL'lTANTS & PlA'....ER"
S41
III-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I S41
I S4;WSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
districts and not waterfront districts. The difference
between the two is that marinas and boat yards are a permitted
use in the M-II and a special exception use in the "C-Light".
This is because M-II Districts are already on the waterfront
and water-dependent uses are permitted. This in compliance
with the Town's draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
and with the New York State Coastal Policies.
The unnamed creek in New Suffolk and the Young's Marina
property are dissimilar in frontage on the Bay with respect
to tide flows, prevailing winds, width vs length and existing
and potential land use.
Specific combinations of
actual site development,
SEQR.
uses, when proposed at the time of
will be analyzed with respect to
Point III
The Lead Agency feels that Young's Marina suitably meets the
requirements of the M-II District.
Point IV
Mitigation measures are proposed for Town action. These
measures are not normally enacted under Zoning Ordinances but
as separate Town ordinances and regulations. Obviously zoning
cannot regulate paints on boat bottoms, for example. These
and other measures are properly regulated by other agencies
and have nothinq to po with zoninq, either existing or
proposed, but are health matters. The commentator needs to
argue this point before the appropriate health agency.
Point V
Growth inducement means residential or other growth that is
unanticipated, unwarranted or, unplanned for as a by-product
of a given municipal action. The Town Board fully recognizes
the growth potential at the site of the present Young's
Marina. No site development plan will be approved that will
cause a significant adverse environmental impact.
3. Ed Seigmann:
The placement of the zone itself has been upheld in the
courts. The degree of development the site can sustain is
now the subject of an environmental impact review.
ENVIRONMENT AL CO!\oSL'L T ANTS & PlA'NER'i
III-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S41
I SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
S41
4. F.M. Flynn:
(Please refer to the response to Christopher Kelley on
Young's Marina) With respect to the area west of Greenport,
the LI and LIO zones are in keeping with the planning policy
of LI and LIO Zoning in proximity to each hamlet, including
Greenport. The LIO District with a three acre minimum lot
size and twenty per cent maximum lot coverage is felt to be
appropriate to provide both an employment opportunity with
minimum environmental impact.
5. Natalie Rafferty:
There is a standing set of State regulations on environmental
review of proposed developments that do not need to be
included in the proposed zoning amendments. The operation of
these regulations is automatically triggered by any project
that may cause significant adverse impacts as assessed by the
lead approval agency before it commences formal project
review. Properly administered, these regulations plus the
proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance, will not cause
any development proposal to create an adverse environmental
impact. Locally, the environmental regulations are contained
in Chapter 44 of the Town Code, a totally separate chapter
from the one being amended, Chapter 100. (Zoning).
6. Jean Tiedke:
The zoning map is a legal document showing the development
districts into which the Town is divided. It does not show
physical features. These are more properly shown on an
environmental inventory map in the Master Plan. Flexible lot
sizes and cluster development have been and will continue to
be encouraged by the Town. These provisions already existing
in the Zoning Ordinance today.
Conservation in the A-C District is achieved by a number of
methods contained in the Ordinance. A major one is cluster
development. The Master Plan contains the answers to
questions on population and water supply. The proposition
before the Town now is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.
The purpose of the RR District is stated in Section 100-60 of
the Ordinance, namely to provide an opportunity for resort
development in appropriate area where utilities are present
and the development is consistent with surrounding land.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSL'lTANTS & PLANNERS
III-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It is possible within the Affordable Housing overlay district
provisions to rezone lands to a higher density to permit
affordable housing developments to be built in proximity of
existing hamlet centers including the area between Boisseau
Avenue and Tucker's Lane.
The shoreline is a powerful attraction for growth. Densities
have been set with a general appreciation for the balance
between desire and value for development, and environmental
sensitivity.
7. J. Cornell:
(Response was made at the Public Hearing)
8. Jean Mariner:
It is not possible to quantify the effect of the proposed
zoning on traffic due to the almost infinite combination of
uses to which every unbuilt parcel of land could be put. It
is also not possible to quantify the effect of the proposed
zoning on the Town's coastal waters. Non-zoning factors,
such as road runoff and nutrient loading from lawn
fertilization and existing septic systems would tend to have
a much greater effect. On the subject of groundwater, it is
possible to estimate the impact of development to the
groundwater system. The Master Plan addressed the subject to
some degree and determined that two-acre zoning is the
maximum density that can be built over groundwater recharge
areas while maintaining a satisfactory quality recharge.
The issues of wetlands and natural resources protection are
~o[e germane to environmental quality regulations for the
preservation of the resource than to zoning. Municipal
infrastructure and economy are more properly addressed in the
Master Plan itself. Congestion and traffic on Main Road
requires a detailed engineering review not possible in a GElS
for a town-wide re-zoning effort. Municipal cost analysis
requires detailed economic modeling based on a large number
of variables such as rate of growth, type of housing,
employment distribution, agricultural and open space
preservation that cannot be estimated at this time. Cost and
impacts of public sewers are more properly the subject of a
"201" study under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Affordable housing provisions have already been adopted by
the Town. Support for rental apartments from the general
public is needed before such apartments will become a
reali ty.
S41
I SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL COl\i5l'lTANTS & PlA.....NERS
S41
__~L_ __
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9. Franklin Bear:
The Town Board and planning Board will be considering
adopting the measures detailed in the Mitiqation Measures
section of the GElS.
l~. Alice Hussie:
The Marine II District is recommended for the Mattituck Inlet
and Sage Boulevard because of their waterfront locale and the
water dependent and water enhanced uses in the Marine II
District. The Village Lane, Orient site however was not
originally recommended as Marine Business but rather Marine
Recreational, and will be returned to the current designation
for that zone, M-I.
New development applications will be reviewed on their own
merits with respect to the zoning district in which they are
located and their potential for environmental impact.
Calling for a limit on project size in the Hamlet District
prevents an out-of-scale development from being proposed.
However the limit needs to be set high enough to make
affordable housing projects feasible.
11. David Winston:
(Response was made at the Public Hearing)
12. Michael Zweig:
The comments raised do not have relevance to the zoning
amendments being proposed but to the Master Plan for the Town
itself. Please see the responses to other comments on the
subjects of roads, sewage, municipal services, etc. and the
section of the GElS containing the Master Plan. What the
GElS completely states is "...that quality of life that has
been present in Southold for centuries will change immutably
if the Town does not continue to strive for controlled,
qualitv development." (Underlining indicates commentator's
incomplete quote). That is the job of all boards including
the Town Board.
The M-I and M-II Districts are created in response to the
concerns raised the the January and February 1987 hearings.
Section 0-44 Wetlands has a ten page description of tidal and
freshwater wetlands. See pages 18-28 of the draft GElS.
S41
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
S41
Section 1~0-215 of the proposed zoning amendments contains
the minimum wetlands buffer requirement. Currently there is
no minimum.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSL:LTANTS & PLA"'''''ERS
111-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I S41
I MiWSK' ASSOCIATES INC.
13. Thomas Lowry:
The Hamlet Business designation on the proposed zoning map in
New Suffolk for the two blocks is in agreement with the
adopted Land Use Plan.
14. Jchn Wickham:
The zoning district proposed for New Suffolk and Bayview in
general have been recommended by the Planning Board. The
Master Plan was adopted by the Planning Board in December of
1985. The currently proposed zoning amendments and map are
now bein~ considered to imp.lement that Master Plan.
15. Freddie Wasberger:
The formerly proposed M-II Cistrict designation for the foot
of Village Lane in Orient, being on open bay front, fits the
locational criteria for the M-II District. It is zoned
Business B today, however, the Master Plan recommended the
site to be Marine Recreational. The distinction between the
uses proposed in the Master Plan ana in the zoning ordinance
permits more intense ~ses to potentially locate on the Bite.
The limited land area available here is felt to bp too
limited to continue to propose it aB an M-IJ, thus i~ is now
recommended as M-I.
16. Stephen Latson:
More information is n~edpn tQ address specifically which 0t
the M-I1 Districts are felt to be incorrectly zoned, hcweve:,
it is r\:'l,; recommended that thE' !I--II District c.t the west end
of F:~st ~d.]l RoaC: on Mat-titt:.~l~ Cre-r::k t.~ p;:(,:pcIE~e(;. an a::,".l ~1.'I
Dj.~trict. Providing acreA9~ for open space wouia be tne
purpose of an opEn space &cquisiticn program. A zoning
ordinance cannot by itself provide for open space.
17. Ms. Spates:
The Tcwn Board welco~es the vulunteer spjrit.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSL'lTANTS & PLANNERS
III-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I S41
I S4iWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONS"'T"TS & Pl''''RS
SECTION III-B.
RESPONSE TO SUBSTANTIVE WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED
DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Response to James G. Gibb letter of 5 April 88
The section on Cultural, Historic and Archaelogic Resources of
the Town from the Master Plan Update - Backqround Studies for
the Town of Southold in March of 1984 has been reprinted in
Section I.B. The process of historic and archaelogic
documentation is included in the discussion reprinted.
Response to Fishers Island Conservancv, Inc. letter of 25 April
88
The Town's environmental quality review prov1s1ons are contained
in Chapter 44 of the Town Code and are not the subject of
currently proposed amendments to Chapter 199.
Response to New York State Department of State letter of 25
April 88
The Description of
amended to include
in Southold. This
of the FEIS.
the Environmental Settinq in the GElS will be
the 18 Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitats
amendment has been reprinted as Section I.C.
The Town will give strong consideration for adopting each of the
mitigating measures set forth on pages 53 to 69 of the GElS.
Response to J. Kevin McLauqhlin letter of 26 April 88 et al
Your request for a different zoning classification has been
reviewed and the zoning classification proposed remains as
proposed.
Response to Christopher Kellev letter of 12 Mav 88
Your amended proposed alternative zoning for Young's Marina will
be considered.
Response to Joseph Hall NYSDEC Reqion I letter of 17 Mav 88
The NYSDOS has commented on the proposed zoning
State's Coastal Management Program. No adverse
Greenport's LWRP was included in the comments.
relative to the
impact to
S41
I MiwSK' ASSOCIATES INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & PLAr\jNER5
1II-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I S41
I SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONIC""" & PlA"'R\
S41
SECTION III.C.
PROPOSED TEXT REVISION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I S41
I SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.
S41
PROPOSED TEXT REVISION
An oversight in the M-II District regulations on transient
hotels and motels with respect to a maximum density on guest
unit with either public water or sewer being absent has been
corrected by the text revision below. This revision parallels
the requirements in the Resort Residential District.
Section 100-121 B(3) of the text contained in the draft GElS
should be amended by adding the underlined phrase:
"(3) Transient hotels or motels subject to the following
conditions:
(a) The m~n~mum 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, (l)the proportion of
the site utilized for such use, and (2) 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, or one (1) unit per six thousand (6,000)
square feet of land without public water or sewer."
The added provision thus includes a zoning cap on the
density of such units. Individual site assessments will
to determine further limitations that may be required by
environmental conditions or by the imposition of Suffolk
Health Department water supply and sewage treatment.
be made
local
County
ENVIRONMENT Al CONSL'l T.~~ T5 & PLA~""ERS
1II-8