HomeMy WebLinkAboutANGEL SHORESAlbert J. Krupski, President
John Holzapfel, Vice President
Jim King
Martin H. Garrell
Peter Wenczel
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Telephone (516) 765-1892
Fax (516) 765-1823
June 28. 1996
Doroski Nursery Inc
Robert H. Jenkins
North Road & Ackerly Pond Lane
Southold NY 11971
Re: ANGEL SHOP, ES
SCTM #88-6-1, 4 & 5
Dear Mr. Jenkins,
The following action was taken by the Board of Trustees at their
regular meeting of June 27, 1996:
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees approve the
request for a Waiver to clear the under brush, vines, bramble
bushes and dead debris from park area as per Planning Board's
reco~nendation which state that such work be done by hand only
and not by tractor, no clearing of trees or disturbance of
natural soils within the park area. Copy enclosed.
If you have any questions, please call our office.
Very truly yours,
Albert J. Krupski, Jr.
President, Board of Trustees
AJK:djh
cc. CAC
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Building 40 - SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356
Telephone (516) 444-0260
Facsimile (516) 444-0348
of Envi~
~As re NOTICE
quired by law, the Department
Conservation is hereby providing you with
an alleged violation of the Environmental
Conservation Law which occurred within your
municipality.
Michael O. Zagata
SOUTHOLD{
THIS NOTICE DOES NOT REOUIRE ANY RESPONSE OR ACTION BY YOU.
Please be advised that the Department has sufficient
evidence to commence an enforcement action against
eodo di for violations of Article ~4 of the New York
State Environmental Conservation Law, having reference to
freshwater wetlands, for violations occurring at Sunset
Avenue, Southold, New York.
Name:
Name:
NOTICE PROVIDED TO:
The Honorable Robert J. Gaffney
Suffolk County Executive
H. Lee Dennison Building
Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, NY 11788
The Honorable Jean W. Cochran
Supervisor, Town of Southold
Town Hall, PO Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Name:
Title:
Date:
NOTICE PROVIDED BY:
Gail Hintz
Assistant Regional Attorney
September 13, 1996
AUG 14 '96 15:19 HORTHPORT LIBRARY
Joseph & Catherine Barbato
PO Box 90
200 West Lake Drive
Southold, ~ 11971
August 13, 1996
OF'§OUTHOLD
P.1
Fax #516-765-1823 ~- ~-~'~--~
765-3~ 36
Supervisor Jean Cochra~
Tow~ of Southold
Tow~Hall - 53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re:~Trustees wa~t open space gift - ~!gel Shor~s
Dear Supervisor Cochran:
Since the middle of Ju~e of $'996, the locml newspappers have
published coverage of "A~gel Shores La~d Donation". As Area
residents amd homeowners who are directly impacted by the project,
kindly hear a~d consider views regarding the above subject.
With all due respect to the Tow~ Trustees, their involment in
She project started at inception of application in the early
1980's. l~y were provisions for o~mership under the Andros
Patent for the wetlands not cons~ed long before the Town Board's
rejecttion? ~ay not still acquire only .the wetland?
Again with due respect with concern "That it ~ll become a dump
for the whole community", the Town has a $1000.00 penalty for
dumping. The law ca~ be strictly enforced to produce revenue
for the Town, thereby, eliminating a burden on ta~rpayers and
the homeowners can be vigilant for abusers.
I~ a parcel was either sold or leased as farmland, kindly consider
the u~£orse~n impact o= water quality and the depletion of the
water table when the 49 houses go on line and the water is used
also for farm irrigation. This has been a concern of many
residents throughout the yea~s. ~fnen it was farmland, the whole
vicihity was greatly af£ected,in ~heir private wells, by farm
chemicals. Not one resident desires to experience conta~nat~on
again and if in the future, water problems occur, rill the Torsi
take responsibility of the expenses incurred because of failure
to heed the public concerns? Men~ion is made for information
purpose, that it was necessery to provide all homeo,i~ners w~_th
a free wa%er filter because of the temik, which wa~ said would
remain in the ground for 100 years.
Euclosed please find news article ( enclosure #1) headlining,
"Southold Rejects Angel Shores Land Do=atLon", that was in the
July 25, ~996, edition of "The Travelers ~at~" page #10.
9UG 14 '9~ 15-'~0 NORTHPORT LIBR~qRY p,~
The Town's planning is not deser~ing of the ridicule that is
stated. Rather, they should be pr~sed for thei~ committme~t
and concern in seeking what is beneficial and safe for the whole
community, since fences are put around catch basins for safety,
no% for looks.
At the final public hearing held on August 22, 1994, the Pl~ing
Board requested a written response from the representing attorney,
Moore & Moore, regarding comments raised. A copy of the letter,
dated September 26,1994, is e~closed (enclosure ~2) which was
received by Planning Board on Smpte~r~27, 1994.
Please note item #14. Mary Maus inquired about the ownership of
open space if a homeowners association was not formed. In the
last sentence, the attorney acknowledges that "Fir, Laoudis has
decided to transfer the open space to a Home Owner's Association".
~y the change?
Other related questions addressed at hearing are being ignored or
changed without the public input, knowledge or consideration of
the public interest. This causes and creates a conflict. ~Vhy
have public hearings, when after approval, pl~u~s are changed to
accommodate a wh~m?~.._.Don"t'make 'our Democratic system a mockery.
Your recommeadation that the Town Board "has to develope criteria
for the future and not set a bad precedent ~hat is harmful to the
town in any way" is admired. Eiadly give serious consideration
to this precedence to avoid that future developers who have a
change of mind because their decisions did. not materialized as
planned, can use this determination to manipulate the To~n to
accep~ a land donation so that taxpayers must pick up the
financial burden.
The Town Board has acted with prudence and wisdom ia rejecting
the donation and are deserving of many th~ks. Let it r~mai~
rejected. It's a liability, ~ot an asset.
Let's move forward by extending ~m~t. ~vishes that the future
brings success.
. ~Jo%eoh B~cat~o
~,Barbato
Enclosures (2)
Copy to: Richard G. Ward - Planning Board
Joseph Townsend - Board Member
Laury Dowd - Town Attorney
Louisa Evans - Board Member~ Justice
AUG 14 'S6 !5:ED HCRTHPORT LZ~RRRY
MOORE & MOORE
A~or~¢)~ ~ Law
3i$ Wcstph~ia Road
P.O. ~oz ~
P.3
l~auld~ C. Moor:
1994
Tel; (516) 298-5~74
Scr. n:zu7
~ou~hcld Town Planning Board
Town Ha!l, 53095~Main Road
~.O.Box 1179
~outhold, NY 11971
RE: ~a3or Su~dlvision for
Angel Shores
SCTX~ i000T88-6-1,4 & 5
Dear Mr. Ward:
~n response Uo =he Planning 5card's request that we respond, in
'wri=ing, =o comment~ raised at ~h¢ Auqus= 22, 1994 final hearsng
on %~a proposed Angel Shores subdivision, we make th= following
comments for your considcra~£on:
SOUmOLO TO;,'~ ' ~
PLANNING 80~R0 j
~. Ms. Bar~a=c asked =hat a sign ~e posted on the corner of Wa~er
Terrac~ s~a=ing =ha= Lit=!e Peconic Bay Lane is a righ= cf way for
=as£dmn=m"only - if the $ou:~old Highway Department has no
~bJec=ion we will pos~ a sign =o limit access to Li=tlm Peconic
gane.
R. Ms. Barbato asked about connecting to ~he' Angel Shores wa~er -
i=he Suffolk County Health DeDar=men= has solm Jurizdicuicn to m=ke
such a
~. Ms, Barba~o complained abou= d£r= bikes and All Terrain
Vehicles (ATV) trespass%rig on o~r client's pr~per~y - The prcper~y
4. Mr, J. E. M~lins questioned the 5~ fcc= road idenl:ificd on
%he su~divislc~ map as "~venue of Treee" and their accems - anyone
with t~e rlghn to pass over the roadm will ccn=inue to enjoy
5. Mr J. E. Mullins asked shoe= =he beac~ rights of p&rcal S
parcel B will nc~ have a re~=rict!on on access ~o ~he beach.
6. Hr. j. E. Mullinm amked about the access to lot 4Z and 42 -
?. .~r. J. E. Mul!ins obJec=ed =o ~he name ~'Avenue of T:rees!,- ~he
road within the s'~bdiv!Sion will be known as "Avenue o~ Trees',.
Deparumen: is monitoring the wauer quality.
9. ~. Joe ~arba=o ~estloned a buffe~ for lo=s 3=,33,34 ~ 35 -
~uffere~..
I~. Hr. Joe Bar, ate questioned how
be re=mined as open space - the open
long the open spmca will
space will be re:a~ned in
Cove/Anqe~ $~ores wa=er supply and iix cos=- The $~ffolk Coun=y
~a=ar Allthori=y will make much a determina=ion.
!2. M~. J. E. Hul!inm questioned =he drainage recentien area.-.~
War~ polnted, ou= r.~a: =~ oDe~ space is desagned as ~a.r~ of the
$~a'~hage r~tmn{ion area.
13. Mro ~cDonatd, ~l~ning ~oard Member aske= about the oDera~!on
~.e SUffolk Coun=y Water Authority.
~ Mary ~aus asked who will own t_he open space if a Homeowners
~oc!a:Ion is not formed- ~r Ward explained that if the open
~pace im ~ransferred =o ~he Peoon~c Land Tras=, Nature Conservancy
~r the To~n of Southold the land will be
entities, ¢onseque~:ly a Homeowners
necessary since al! the land is held by
Mr.. Laoudis has decided =o trmnsfer
OWner's Associatlon.~
If there i~ anythL~g else you need
contuc~ us.
con=rolled by
Association would not be
one of ~he above entitles.
the eden space to a_E~me
please do not hesitate to
Very/~r~ fy y our:~,
~illiam D.
Tad Laoudis .
'_4 'S~ I~: ~2 NORTHPORT LIBRARY
AUG 1 6 1996
Sault-,old To~,,n Cled,
60 Rambler Ct.
Southold, NY 11971
August 15, 1996
Town of Southold Trustees
Southold Town Hall
Sauthald, NY 11971
RE: Angel Shores
I am writing to you as president of the Terry Waters
Property Owners Assoc. regarding the possibilty of the Trustees'
assuming the parts of Angel Shores that were offered to the Town
by the owner. We have a number of concerns.
Our homeowners assoc, owns more then half of the two salt
ponds. If you grant public access, will the Trustees be legally
and fiscally responsible for what happens on and about those
ponds? We have had numerous teen parties at our assoc, beach and
were left ts clean up broken beer bottles and damage that they
caused. There have been abandoned cars~ appliances, eot. dumped
in the woods in recent yeaFs.
Our understanding of the Planning Board approval on the
subdivison is that Rambler Court wiii not be used for ingress or
egress. We forsee enforcement problems if the public is granted
The fresh water pond near Main Bayview has been used by the
public for ice skating since all of us can remember. Are the
Trustees ready to provide cleanup after the parties in the
proposed parking area? Are you fiscally able to take the legal
responsibility if an unattended young person falls through the
ice?
~= ~r the proposed farmland along Main Bayview~ it is our
understanding that the Use of pesticides and or herbicides would
be in violation of the EIS. Who will monitor authentic organic
The beach area bulldozed earlier this summer has still not
c. /ou .~, your z=nsideration.
T.W.?.O.A. , President
. flOWN OF ~UTHOLD
This
1995 ,
DECLARATION OF cOVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS
FOR THEODORE LAOUDIS AND ANGELA ~OUDIS
declaration made the ~\ day of ~Q_~0~g~? ,
by Theodore Laoudis and Angela Laoudis residing at 23 Van
(hereinafter referred to as
Buren
Court, Cresskill,
New Jersey
,,Declarant" )
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner in fee simple of certain
premises situate at Southold, town of southotd, Suffolk County, New
York described on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000,
Section 088.00 Block 06.00 Lots 013.001; 004.000 ; and 005.000 as
more fully described in the attached ,,schedule A" and,
WHEREAS, the Southold Planning Board, by resolution made on
C)(_~. ~q ~ lq ~ q , granted final subdivision plat approval of the
property described in schedule A, as shown on the map of Henderson
& Bodwell, dated ~%%~? ~'T ~, \~ ~lq , ~4~--r-e~ed
WHEREAS, the final subdivision approval was conditioned upon
the filing of certain covenants and restrictions,
NOW, THEREFORE, in compliance with the resolution of said
southold Town Planning Board, Declarant herein declares that the
lands described in Schedule A is held and's~all be conveyed subject
to the following covenants and restrictions which shall run with
the land:
1. No lot shall be subdivided or its lot lines changed in any
manner at any future date unless authorized by the Town of southold
Planning Board.
2. Clearing on privately
shall be limited as follows:
LOT SIZE
20,000 square feet
30,000 square feet
(1/2 acre)
(2/3 acre)
40,000 square feet (1 acre)
60,000 square feet (1 1/2 acre)
owned lots within the subdivision
MAXIMUM CLEARED
60 percent
58 percent
57 percent
46 percent
3. No more than 15 percent of each lot shall be placed in
fertilized vegetation.
4. No open space or privately owned lot within
subdivision shall be further subdivided in the future.
5. No docks or other structures to Peconic Bay shall be
allowed or constructed from Lot numbers 42, 43 or 44. However, a
the
pedestrian walkway of up to 15 feet in width to Peconic Bay shall
be allowed for each lot. These walkways shall be subject to
appropriate permits, if required, from the Southold Town Trustees
and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
6. All stormwater runoff resulting from development and
improvement of this subdivision or any of its lots shall be
retained on site by adequate drainage structures so that it will
not flow into Peconic Bay, the tidal and freshwater wetlands and
the ponds that exist on the site.
7. Erosion and sediment control measures shall be required
during and immediately after construction on each lot to insure
that stormwater runoff will not carry eroded and other deleterious
aterialS into and the tidal wetlands bordering the peconiC Bay or
the wetlands on the site-
S. AcceSS to Lots 42, 43, and 44 shall be via a common
only-
driveway-
9. AcceSS to Lots 24 and 25 shall be from water Terrace
These lots shall not have acceSS on the thirty-three (33) foot
right-of-WaY' site shall be of a type which
10. All graSS established on
requires no irrigation' This restriction shall apply to all lots
in the subdivision'
11. On-site wells for any purpose shall not be permitted on
s subdivision'
~in the Angel Shore - -1" to all co~On areas and
wing terms shall app ~ .
~ The follO . --bdivis~on:
12. - cated within the ~u .
all conservation easements lo disturbance of natural soilS,
a) No clearing of treeS, -- with the exception of
or any other activity is permitted to ocCur,
the creation of foot trails for passive recreational activities,
approved recharge basin construction and supplemental planting of
appropriate native or near native vegetation- pedestrian foot
trails located within the conservation easements on Lots 42, 43
and 44 shall be limited to one walkway (10 15 feet in width) for
each lot- (These walkwayS shall be subject to appropriate permits
from the Town Trustees and the Department of Environmental
conservation)
b)
area-
No bulkheading shall be permitted on any shorefront
No structural improvements shall be permitted in any
area with the exception of the Park site. Structures proposed to
be located within the Park site must be approved by the Planning
Board, Southold Town Trustees and any other agency having
jurisdiction in that area.
13. All applications for building permits shall be reviewed
by the Planning Baord prior to issuance of the building permit in
order for the Planning Board to ensure that the plans are in
accordance with the Findings Statement adopted in accordance with
the State Environmental Quality Review Act. All building permit
plans shall indentify the extent of clearing and proposed grading
in order to ensure that compliance is achieved.
14. These covenants and restrictions can be modified only at
the request of the then owner of the premises with the approval of
a majority plus one of the Planning Board of the Town of Southold
after a public hearing. Adjoining property owners shall be
entitled to notice of such public hearing but their consent to such
modification shall not be required.
15. The Declarant grants the continuing right in perpetuity
to the Town of Southold or any of its designated representatives
to inspect any areas designated as open space, common areas or any
similar nomenclature so as to insure continued compliance with the
covenants, terms and provisions designated herein in regard to same
and to insure that such covenants, terms ~nd provisions have not
been violated.
16. The Declarant grants the continuing right in perpetuity
to the Town of Southold or any of its designated representatives
to enforce the conditions and restrictions of the covenants as they
relate to the open space, common area or nomenclature and to take
any legal action it deems necessary to enforce the conditions and
restrictions of the covenants. These rights of inspection and
enforcement shall be binding upon declarant, their heirs,
executors, legal representatives, distributees, successors, assigns
and transferees.
Theodore Laoudis
Angela p.~ ~aoudis
State of New Jersey
County of //Jfl~(
day of
before me
individual
foregoing instrument and
On the ~2/
personally came Theodore Laoudis,
' d
describe in and who executed the
acknowledged that he executed same.
CAE[JOP! MAKRIS
.JERSEY '
NOTARY PUBUG OF NEW
Notary Public, my commisszUn expires:
to me known to be the
state of New Jersey
County of /~/~g~ ss.:
On the ,~': day of /c~c%~/~'?/? , 199~, before me
personally came Angela P. Laoudis, to ~e known to be the individual
described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and
~,cknowled~ed t~at he executed same.
CAi.L. IOp.r M, AKRI5
NEW ,IERSEY
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT, ]4, ]997 ' q. ' ' ',.
Notary Public, my commission expires:
Town of Southold Trustees
Southold Town Hall
Southold, NY 11971
RE: Angel Shores
Dear Trustees:
I am writing to you
60 Rambler Ct.
Southold, NY 11971
August 15, 1996
as president of the Terry Waters
Property Owners Assoc. regarding the possibilty of the Trustees
assuming the parts of Angel Shores that were offered to the Town
by the owner. We have a number of concerns.
Our homeowners assoc, owns more then half of the two salt
ponds. If you grant public access, will the Trustees be legally
and fiscally responsible for what happens on and about those
ponds? We have had numerous teen parties at our assoc, beach and
were left to clean up broken beer bottles and damage that they
caused. There have been abandoned cars, appliances, eot. dumped
in the woods in recent years.
Our understanding of the Planning Board approval on the
subdivison is that Rambler Court will not be used for ingress or
egress. We forsee enforcement problems if the public is granted
The fresh water pond near Main Bayview has been used by the
public for ice skating since all of us can remember. Are the
Trustees ready to provide cleanup after the parties in the
proposed parking area? Are you fiscally able to take the legal
responsibility if an unattended young person falls through the
ice?
As for the proposed farmland along Main Bayview, it is our
understanding that the use of pesticides and or herbicides would
be in violation of the ElS. Who will monitor authentic organic
farming?
The beach area bulldozed earlier this summer has still not
been rebuilt and replanted.
Thank you for your consideration.
T.W.P.O.A., President
cc: Southold Town Board
JEAN W. COCHI~,,AN
SUPERVISOR
OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMO
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1889
i. bJ OF SOUTHOLD
To; Trustees
From:
Date:
Jean W. Cochran, Supervisor
August 9, 1996
This will confirm that you will be investigating the Angel Shores issue discussed at the
August 6 Town Board Meeting.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
B~nnelt Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall. 53095 Main R
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 119
Fax (5163 765-1823
October 18, 1991
FINDINGS STATEMENT
State Environmental Quail .ty Revimv Act
Pursuant to Article 8 (State Env/ronmental Quatitv Review Act - SEQR) of the
Environmental Conservation Law arid 6 NYCRR Parr 61;7, the Plarm/ng Board of the Town
of Southold as lead agency, makes the follow/ng findings.
NAME OF &CTION
Angel Shores, Sections I and II
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The proposed project involves the subdivision of 92.7 acres of land into 49 residential
lots. Project includes required roads, recharge facilities, a 0.6 acre park site, and
i.ncorporates the retention of open space (including wetlands and unique habitat) through lot
s~ze r, eduction. Project density is based urmn a densit ma utilizing, ot in
with 'R 40" ' ....... Y P ~,, s,, corLformance
- u--acre) y e u on ~cctmn I (exclusive of wet ands); and, A-C (2-acre) yield on
Section II, submitted in conformance with a Stipulation of Settlement applicable to the.site.
Project utilizes a water supply system approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services (SCDHS), the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) and the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). Individual lots w/Il
utilize on-site sanitary disposal systems.
LOCATION
Angel Shores Sections I and II is located on the south side of Main Bayviexv Road,
~west o,f.,C~dar~e,a,c.h Road, ?d comprises 92.7 acres extending west to the border of the
~erry waters ~uuolvision. Tim site lies on Great Hog Neck, in the Hamlet of Southold
Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. The site is more particularly'
described as Suffolk County Tax Map (SCTM) No. 1000-88-6-4, 5 and 13.1.
A~C, I.; N~ y .IU_R ISI) I'CTION
The Town of Southold Planning Board is the lead agency for this application.
Involved agencies and jurisdictions :ire identified below:
Town of Soulhold Planning Board (subdivision approval)
Town of Southold Board of Trustccs (wetland delineation completed, activity proposed such that no
AnRe Shore:s, Sou[huld
Trustees permit will be required).
Suffolk County Department of Health Services (approval of suhdi¼sion of l~nd; approval of individua3
permits to cnns£ruct sanitary systems [subsequent to subdivisionl; approval of water supply system for
the Cove and Angel Shores, completed)
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Article ~ individual wetlands permits for
lots in jurisdiction; Article 24 wetlands permits for subdivision and individual lots within jurisdiction,
with possible additional joint application permits dcpcndlng on project [xvatcr qualltv certificate,
protection o£ waters{) .
Permits and approvals for the water supply system from SCDIIS, NYSDEC, and NYSDOH, and the
VilIage of Greenport have already been obtained. Construction of this facility has been completed
and an operating permit issued in July of 1989. The plant is currently being operated by William
Gremler (c/o GNS, Route 25, Maultuck, NY), under contract as a licensed water treatment plant
.DATE FINAL ElS FILED
The Final ElS was accepted by the Planning Board on sept_. 30, 1991.
_BACKGROUND AND SEOR PROCEDURES
The project has been subiect to a Draft EIS prepared by Henderson & Bodwell,
consulting engineers, located in Plainv ew, New York. The Draft ElS w
~.4.L!.991 a.fter cgmple, tton of several remsmns necessa~,, to ,~rovide - ,~(.a.s. accept,ed January.
· ' ' '; t' ,~ u~,-ument a~equate for
l. munc remew. ,tn oroer to provide an adequate time from tot interested and involved
agencms, the public and parties of interest to consider tim document, a public comment
period was provided between the date of acceptance and March 21, 1991. Public hearings on
the Draft EIS were held on February 4, 1991, February 12, 1991 and March 11, 1991. A time
period for submission of written comments was provided for a period of ten (10) days after
the close of the public hearing establishing the close of the comment period
1991. on Mar'ch 21,
On March 22, 1991 comments were forwarded lO the applicant for the attorney
providing the opportunity for the applicant to respond to substantiv
t~' cBoanS:udlt~nnt~,°~reaSPm~nrd~noC:r~?sCe,~ve~d_ fro.m th'e,applicant, the mI~en~n~r~trSd°d~rtehc~eDdraft
~ oc *xssocmtes, inc. to prepare the Final ElS for Ange~
Shores. The Planning Board as lead agency is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of
the Final EIS, regardless of who prepares it, as per 6 NYCRR Part 617.14(0. The Planning
Board ~vas involved in the preparation of the Final EIS tlu'ou!zq '
after review and deliberation ~. ~ ,, =m ,,,- .... ~. ~ input to the consu tam
, th ....... ~ .... as accepteu o tile Plannino B ,r,a ,,_ ,., and
Y ~ o~.,~ on oeot.
30, 1991. In accordance ~vith SEQR, adequate t/me was provided subsequent to the filin~ of
the Final EIS, in order to allow the public and involved and/ntereste..d agencies time to
consider the Final EIS. The minimum period of ten (10) days has been provided, and the
findings have been completed in less than thjrty (30) days as requirct, t by SEQR, and in
consideration of comments received hy the I kmning Bdard from interested parties. This
l'age 2 of 10
An~cl Short's, Southold
Statement of Findings
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE F~IS RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT THE DF. CISION
With regard to environmental impact issues, the following facts and conclusions in the
Final EIS are relied upon to support the decision. In general, the most common impacts
from the Sketch Plan proposed as part of the Draft ElS which require mitigation include the
need to preserve Marttime Red Cedar Forest, avoid steep slope areas, expand wetland
setbacks, enlarge and preserve wildlife corridors, avoid flood plain and constrained soil
areas, and maintain the current diversity of habitats, with regard to Section I. Section II is
recognized for importance to open space and rural character and wildlife use to a lesser
extent than Section I. In addition, a key issue of concern ~vas the impact of the project upon ~_~,__
wate. r quan. tity a.n.d water quality, due to the pumpage of the water supply system on the ~ite, ~
on-stte samtary dtscharge, and the presence of private ~vells downgradient of the site. These ,./
concerns related to potential for salt-water intrusion and water quality impact on private
wells. Based upon these concerns it was recognized during the preparation of the Final EIS
that, the Draft ElS and the Sketch Plan (whiclq was the subject of the Draft EIS) did not
adequately consider these issues. Accordingly, significant additional documentation was
prov/ded as well as further analysis of alternative design concepts. Considerations regarding
specific key impact areas are as follows:
Constrained Sails
Constrained soils including Haven Loam, with a thick surface layer, and tidal marsh, exhibit limitations
due to saturation and poor leaching qualities. In addition, portions of several lots were within the flood
plain area, causing further constraint. Furthermore, a dcpth to groundwater of less than ten (10) fee was
a concern due to thu need to fill sites to provide adequate leaching depth for sanitary systems. Excessive
fill was found to be contrary to goals of minimizing clearing and disturbance. The location of these soils
and the lots affected included six (6) lots of Section I.
Steep Slopes
Concern with regard to steep slopes primarily involved potential con,traction on lots with steep slopes
adjacent freshwater wetlands. Although strict interpretation of wetland setbacks could perhaps be met,
the disturbance of highly erodable soils on a slope adjacent to important freshwater wetlands and
associated habitat was determined to be a potential impact which could be avoided by alternate lot
configuration and density. Approfimately eight (8) lots within Section I were affected by this constraint.
Nntnral llnbltat and Wildlife Cnrrldors
Angel Shores Section I includes fresh ponds and associated wetlands and adjacent areas. In addition, the
southwest corner of the site includes tidal marsh and a portion of a salt pond. Upland areas include
dune environment, Maritime Red Cedar Forest, and other shrub upkmd and former nurser/upland
areas. Wetland areas were documented in the Final EIS as being more biologically productive areas.
This productivity supports a greater variety and density of wildlife species. Adjacent upland provide
additional foraging, hunting and nesting opportunitius. It was also noted that the cedar stands provide
wildlife value for animals such as ~ongblrds, upland ground birds, small mammals and hoofed browsers.
With this greater intensity of wildlife activity it is important to preserve tho diversity of habitats and
provide for sabstanti:fl inter-connection of habitats in order to support wikllifu populations. Preservation
of corridors is a common tool in order to promote and maintain xvildlifo activity between productive
The presence of vegetation characteristic of a Marilime Red Cedar Forest on Section l was also found to
be significant. This type of habitat is uncommon in Ne~v York State, and warrants protection. The most
Page 3 of I0
AnguiSh rcs, Southold
significant stands of this habitat are located in ¢ central per on of Sect orr I; how ct, most portions of
Section i contain dominant stands of red cedar. Based upon natural bah,tat areas,
found to be ]~'iernate designs were
appropriatc for consideration. In addition mitigation measures and special conditions were
explored in the Final EIS and found to be appropriate to furthcr reduce impact.
Open Space nnd Visual hnpnct~
It is evident that Section I is the most ecologically sensitive portion of the site. It should also be noted
that Section II provides visual resources and open space value in terms of open, former agricultural
expanse. This is important to the vicwshcd and open space appreciation along Main Bayview Avenue·
In addition, preservation of this type of habitat is important to many xvildlife species, due to documented
species diversity associated with field habitat as compared to many Long Island forests. The Final EIS
also notes that recharge design in the Sketch Plan accompanying the Drali EIS would cause visual and
aesthetic impact, and could be improved through dcslgn and mitigation.
Land Use and Znnin
Important features of the site include unique habitat on Section 1 and Open space views along Main
Bayvicw Avenue on Section II. Protection of these resources is not necessarily dependent upon density,
provided the concept of crcative clustering is employed. The Angel Shores parcct was upzoncd to 2-acre
density equivalent, A-C &sir,ct; however, subsequent htigat on established a compromise density
of
1-acre equivalent on Section I and 2-acre equivalent on Section 2. Through crcativc re-design efforts are
being made to protcct unique resources and observe thc density criteria of thc Stipulation of Settlement,
while providing a residential development which conforms to thc intent of the "A-C~ district.
Grmmtlwater Resources
Groundwater quantity issues involve the impact of pumping the ~vull field and. lis m act ·
tg:) area s'te. .he na, found that the well fie,d s'te,v, cbs t
---- . · . , jut. t t.u d CarClUl re'new Dy .~GDI IS, NYSDEC and (
t'4YSDOH The well field m controlled through restricted pumpage of no more than 2 of 3, 30 gallon per
minute wells. Further, significant storage is provided in thc Ibrm of a 54,000 gallon supply lank which
avoid, s prolonged pumpage stress to meet peak water demand. Pumpag¢ of the well at a rate and depth
consistent with the approved pumpag¢ limit and well depth lbund no significant incrcase in chloride
(which would indicate salt water contact), and no significant drawdown in wells at 3, 62 and 103 feet from
the pumping well (which would indicate no potential for lateral encroachment of salt water). These facts
were relied upon by the pcrmitting agencies prior to permit issuance. In thc Final ElS evaluation, the
Planning Board has given local consideration to issues beyond the scope of Planning Board purview, in
order to ensure that the proposed subdivision would not cause adverse impact. Mitigation measures
were found to be approprlatc through the Final EIS, in order to reduce water demand and fimit
proliferation of private wells.
Water quality issues involve potential for clcvated contangnaut levcls as a rcsult of thc subdivision. The
Draft and Final EIS provide information concerning nitrate levels, as this is the prime contaminant
associated with rcsldcntlal development. Couclusions indicate potcutial for lcvets clevalcd above natural
recharge characteristics, but less than drinking water limitations, and comparab{e to Current nltratc
concentrations in arcs groundwater. Similar to water quantity issues, mitigation measures can be utilized
· to minimize impact.
Given the magnitude of thc impacts recog ~ zed throu 'h the Final IEIS · · ·
to mitigat.e impacts through alternate design conccnt~ a --~,..- . and. the abdtty
· , ' e' -~ ,tl~ta lllltlmdtl()ll,consideration was
g,ven to alternative (development plans. '1 itc folh)xving set of criterkt was established as a
Page 4 of 10
Anent Shores, Southold
StZ, tcrncnt of Findings
basis of design concept in consideration of specific impacts:
"Reduce coverage of private lots on Section [, in order to control clcarina, provide more contiguous
open space for wildlife & aesthetic enhancamcnt, expand wetland setbacks, and maintain a greater
portion of Maritime Red Cedar Forest.
* Reduce pavement area on Section I and, where possible, on Section II, in order to minimize
stormwater runoff, and to reduce needed recharge basin capacity.
· Provide area on lots for location of sanitary dlsposal systems above the ten (10) foot contour, in order
to minimize needed fill, clearing and grading.
"' Remove building lots from areas of constrained soils and flood prone areas.
* Remove building Iots from areas of steep slopes, particularly where runoff and/or erosion could
impact freshwater wetlands.
E.'rpand open space areas on both .Section I and Section 1I, where possible, while providing reasonable
sized lots for the proposed single family residential use. -
Enlarge recharge areas in order to eliminate need for deep excavations which could intersect
gxoundwater, and to allow for greater setbacks, buffering, and landscaping of recharge areas. Pro',"ide
some potential for natural drainage areas where existing topographic contours permit..
In order to meet these criteria, and objectively evaluate alternatives which ~vould
minimize sign/f/cant impacts, three alternative concept plans were t~rermred as art '
. -
Final EIS. The plans are slmtlar but provide a variety of configura~ior~s which
employed ~P:'gh
on the Angel Shores site to achieve stated ~.nd necessary objectives in a redesign.
The design concepts illustrate that the project can be designed such that o.p.en space is
increased on Section I from 38.6 percent to at least 61 percent, while still maintaining at
least 31 percent open space on Section II. In addition, wildlife corridors and xvetland
setbacks can be significantly expanded, constrained soils and steep slopes can be avoided,
and the most significant stands of red cedar forest can be preserved. Further, the open
space and old field resources associated w/th Section II can be maintair~.ed, and recharge
areas can be expanded in order to improve visual and aesthetic qualities. It is recogn/zed
that there are both beneficial and adverse impacts associated with alternative designs.
These trade-offs are considered below:
Significant benefits arc observed and quantified in thc Final EIS. Bcncflts corrcpond with aclaic¥ing
objectives outlined above and found to be necessary o minimize impacts. The Final EIS pro','idcs a table
of relative percentages of contiguous Open space preserved through each of the development plans.
Relative open space ratios are noted on the following page:
Page 5 of 10
AnKcl Shores, Soutlmld
Stateroom nf Findh~s
~ OPEN SPACE IL%TIOS
__~1 Proposed ?' FEIS FEIS FEIS
co=c p co=c p =; co=c p =
Negative impacts include a potential lOWer selling price of lots due to a smaller lot sizes. In the real
estate market the price of a building Iot is more dependant on its location rather that size, proGded ~at
the lot(s) is not significantly smaller than surrounding building lots· In the subject area there is a N~
real estate value of building lots on the Great Hog Neck peninsula due to thc desirab~ity of thc area.
addison, common areas presumed as contiguous open space pro,de an amenity which also partially
offsets this impact. Finally, the water access opportunity which this subdiGsion pro'des is a desirable
feature that is in limited supply, wh ch further buffers tcmpora~ recesses in thc real estate market, and
economic aspects of providing smaller lots.
Lot size reduction w511 require certain architecture ~vhich may or may not allow for side unto/garages
depending on lot configuration, particularly on Section L Privacy can be prcscr,,'ed through }etention of
natural and planting of supplemental vegetation on individual lots by homeowners. One-half acre and
three-quarter acre lots have been used successfully in many residential subdivisions, and can be
developed in such a manner as to avoid an appearance which is too dense. Private roads, significant
Open space and separation of clusters of housing and the non-grid llka design of the concept plan ensures,.
that the site will not take on the appearanca of a high density suburban subdivision. In addition, duc to
constraints in lot placement, many lots are greater than tho minimum lots sizes as is evident in review of
the average lot sizes for each concept. Larger lot sizes could be provided through density reduction;
however, this would also have economic implications for tho developer. An overriding concern is thc
need to protect open space as noted in the number of comments and concerns Mth regard to the Draft
EIS and previousIy proposed Skatch Plans.
Shortening of cul-de-sacs and reduction of paved surface areas is a commou concept to each of the plans.
This technique allows for less clearing and grading, xvith greater retention of natural vegetation and open
space. In addition, reduction of paved surfaco area reduecs the quantity of stormwater generated
thereby reducing impacts related to runoff. Therefore, this design technique has significant
environmental benefits. In addition, this concept has economic benefit to thc developer through the
reduction of improvement costs associated with road construction. This economic benefit can be used to
offset potential increased costs associated with recharge basiu landscaping which may be required as a
result of project implcmentatlon.
One potential disadvantage of the alternative design concepts is the shortening of md-de-sac lengths to
reduce paved surface area, thereby requiring private roads for several cluslcrs of Iots. The concepts
create flag lots Mth a minimum of 15 feet of frontage on a subdivision right-of-way. This wonld allow for
separate access to individual parcels if absolutely necessary; fint in reality, a group of bomnmvncrs or the
developer would construct ()ne private road to sen'icc a cluster of k~ts. The road would be used and
maintained jointly by homcuwners. This technlquc allows for rcduccd road width and reduced
maintenance. Private roads have been used extensively in rural areas, and eau add it) the rural character,
privacy and prestige of thc homcs which they serve. T e usc of private roads has att economic advantage
to thc developer by reducing the im[~rovemcnts necessary as part uf the sul~dlvlslon, specific-ally the
Page 6 of 10
Angel Shores, Southldd
Statement (~f Findint:s
installation of additional road. The disadvantage iq that such use of roads requires cooperation bc~.veen
homeowners, may limit thc range of potential homcbuyers and increases the maintenance needs of
homes which use the road. These disadvantages must be balanced with the social benefit cited above as
well as the environmental benefit previously noted.
Other potential impacts of these design concepts should also be recognized. Clustering of lots raises
concerns with regard to concentration of sanitary effluent. The 208 Study encourages large lot
development in order to distribute sewage over a larger area and minimize concentration of effluent.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services has established a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet
for clustered subdivisions where public water is provided in order to maintain ,groundwater nitrogen
within acceptable levels. The water system is a community water supply system located upgradinnt of
development areas. The only area where the alternatives involve lot sizes approaching 2121,000 square
feet, is in Section I. Under these scenarios, sanitary systems would be clustered in three areas, the
northwest corner (7 lots), the northeast corner (2 lots), and the south east corner (between 4 and 6 lots).
The size of most lots is much in excess of 20,000 square feet, and in the northwest corner where the
greatest number of lots is clustered, lot sizes are generally in excess of 30,000 square feet. In addition, it
is not possible to spread the lots over a larger area of Section l, due to constraints with the depth to
groundwater and the need to limit fill due to unique habitats. Lot sizes in Section It are intended to be
in excess of 30,000 square feet, thereby providing for further distribution of sanitary effluent. In addition,
density and lot size limitations as a function of nitrogen in recharge include nitrogen influx associated
with lawn fertilization in standard residential communities. Tho Final IEIS has made it clear that Iow
maintenance vegetation must be used due to provisions restricting lawn watering. This further reduces
potential for nitrogen im pacts due to decreascd lot sizes (20,000 + square foot) in a small portion of the
overall subdivision.
Overall, although there are adverse and beneficial impacts to consider, adverse
impacts are significantly less as compared to previously proposed proiects, and through
design alternatives the project is considered to be mitigated to the m:~.,:imum extent
practicable in consideration of the site resources, the objectives of the project sponsor, social
and economic considerations, and the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement.
As a means of further reducing impacts, the following mitigation measures are
necessa~ a--~'7-~TEbuldssa~ be lncorporai-ed int6 any decision o~ject project.
* A preliminary suhdivision plan should be prepared and submlttcd to the Town which conforms to the
criteria cstablishcd for alternative design concepts established in thc Final EIS. A minimum of 61.
percent open space must be maintained on Section I and 31 percent open space on Section II, in a
configuration similar and no less retrictive than in design concepts. Street length and width should be
reduced and common drives must be explored similar to &:sign concepts. The Planning Board will
review the preliminary map for conformance to the Findings Statcmcnt.
* Drainage design should incorporate leaching catch basins in the street in an effort to reduce recharge
capacity needs. Rcchargc areas must be expanded as sho~"n in concept maps in order to allow
buffering and/or natural recharge. [t is recognlzcd that some excvation may be nceded to achieve
outfall grades aud capacity. Supplemental landscaping is cucouragcd, in addition to natural buffers, in
recharge areas as well as the overall subdivision.
* Due to t c sensitivity of ~cspcct to water supply issucs,?rass established on site should be
of a type which rcqnire n~ i~ Duc to their hardiness, these species ~vould likewise be of low
Page 7 of 10
Angel Shores, Sent/mid
Statement of Findings
fertilizer dependency. Thc species list provided in Attachment H of thc Final EIS is appropriate to
use for guidcfincs.
"Covenants should be filed on the Overall subdivision and lots which
lots, as a means of reducing potential lawn area restrict clearing on privately ow'ned
those in ....... ,. ~ . . , and as a means of expanding natural areas beyond
dlo,
000 Square feet (1/4 acre) 90 percent
15,000 square feet (1/3 acre) 70 percent
20,000 sqn/are feet (1/2 acre)
l/ 60 percent
30,000 Square feet (2/3 acre) 58 percent
/ 40,000 square feet (1 acre) 57 percent
II 60,000 square feet (1 1 2 .
~oquure feet ( / acre) 46 percent
Clearing on each lot should be limited to no more than that pcrccntagc which is indicated in this
table. These rcstrictlons should be indi~c,?tcd on e subdivision map, and co_9~.Venants should be
.~rennred and filcd to r n with each indkidual lot. Compliance should bc determined at thc tim
building permit review, and implcm~ntatio~'~sh~"~d . · e of
routine construction inspections It i- -,- be, determined by the budding ~nsDcctor cb,r;
.... ,-~o rccommcnucd that budding pcrmk plans iC}cntify ~'h~'ng
eXtent of clearing and proposed grading in order to ensure that compE ncc is achic,,ed. In addition,
.building perm t review may consider clustering houses nearer to a common lot line on adjacent lots
m order to provide W/der expanses of vegetation remaining on thc outside perimeter of these lots.
Covenants will serve the purpose of educating landowners, and increasing probability of
Compliance. Thc use of covenants creates a legal mechanism for awareness of issues relating to
preservation of vegetation, there educating homeowners. In addition, iuformatlon and/or excerpts
from tho Final EIS can be made available on
~, l~ndscape alternatives and a request basis through tl~c Town offices to prey/de
~..[~.. information on water quantity issues.
Covenants should be filed as part of the subdiviskm and on each indivldua lot indicating 1 at no on-
* site wells are permitted in the Angel Shores subd vision This is nccdcd in order to limit additional
aquifer pumping not controlled under the water supply ~ite. The agency requiring the covenants is the
Planning Board dtrough subdivision approval, and compliance will be determined d~rough planning,
building and Zoning en£orcement mechanisms available to thc Town, or legal actkm as determined to
be appropriate by the Town Atiorney.
?Vith regard to common areas, no clearing of trees or disturbance of natural soils, or any other act[','Jty
~s permitted to occur, with the exception of creation of foot trails for passive recreational activities,
approved recharge basin construclion and .
vcgctatlon (Attachment I {). supplemental phmtmg of appropriatc native or near native
· No bulkhcading shall bc pcrmittcd iu any shorcfront areas. No Structural
{mprovcmcnts shall be permit/cd [n any common brad areas of Angct Shores Scction I and Il.
C°vcn'qnts shall bc llrcp:trcd aml filcd ~° rcflect Lbcsq'c(mditi°ns l2rilE t° ~ st~txl~a rnxal
P:~ge 8 of 10
Submission Without a Cover Letter
Sender:
Date:
Subject:
Coi~iments:
,,
?
I
NOTICE
Police Dept. - Bay Constable
Town of Southold
Peconic, New York 11958
23 Van Buren Court, Crasskill N.J. 07626
Address: ............................... J_~ ......
(Address of owner or authorized agent of owner)
Please take notice there exists a violation of the Code of the
2O
Town of Southold, Chapter 97 Article ............ Section .............
you are conduc~in~
at premises hereinafter described in that ....................
activities within 75 feet of a wetlands. ~ithout first
obtainin~ a Southold Town Trustee Permit.
You are therefore directed and ordered to co~Pty with the
Apply for a Trustee ~erm~t.
following: ........................................................ _ _ - _ _
3~ July 96
on or before ........... day of ................ , 19 .......
The premises to which this Notice of Violation refers are situated at:
Angel Shores, ~ain Bayvlew, Southold
........... = ......................................... town of $outho!d,
Suffolk County, N%¥. (Suff. County ~'ax Map Designation: Dist.
89.6 4 ' 5, 13.~
Section: ....... -=---Block: ........ Lot:2 ...... ~
1000
Failure to comply with the applicable provisions of the law may
constitute an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.
NOTICE: You have the right to apply for a hearing before the Board
of Trustees of the Town of Southold, provided than ~ou file a written
request with the Clerk of the Trustees within 1~ days after service'of
the Notice of Violation. Such request shall have annexed thereto a
copy of the Notice of Violation upon which a Hearing is requested and
shall set forth the reasons why such notice of violation should be
modified or rescinded..
Bay N~
CAS~ NUMBER
ACTIVITY NUMBER
CASE DESCRIPTION
CLASS CODE I CASE
I
COUNTER REPORT
INCIDENT LOCATION
NaR
D BLOCK
C INTERSECTION
ID PRIVATE HOME
P
E
R
S
O
N
S
INCIDENT REPORT
Southold Town Police Department
Route 25
Peconic, New York 11958
516-765-2600
PACE / OF I
STREET NAME
COMMERCIAL BLDG.
INDUSTRIAL BLDG.
MULTI DWELLING
PERSONINVOLVEMENTCODES
C-COMPLAINANT F-FINDER
D-DRIVER I+INJURED/AIDED
E-EMPLOYEE J-JUVENiLE
LAST NAME
HOME PHONE
L°E?
B - BLACK
REPORTI~D
DATE
/ ;L: ;b&
FROM
TO
DESK OFFICER
PATROL OFFICER
APT. SECTOR
PUBLIC BL~. ~ SCH~L ~ COUNTRY CLUB/GROUNDS
PUBLIC PARK ~ BANK ~ OTHER
PARKING LOT ~ CHURCH
M - MISSING PERSON R - REPORTING PERSON V - VICTIM
O - OWNER S - SUSPECT W - WITNESS
P - POLICE OFFICER U - UNKNOWN Z - OTHER
FIRST MI ADDRESS
BUSINESS PHONE · OC.CUPATION
DOB ~ A HOT EYES HAIR
COMPLEXION
H- HISPANIC
FIRST
I - AMERICAN INDIAN O - OTHER
MI ADDRESS
W - WHITE
HOME PHONE I SUStNESS PHONE
DOB HGT
LAS NAME FIRST Mi
HOMEPHONE
Narrative: (Print or Type Only)
BUSINESS PHONE
DOB HGT
OCCUPATION
EYES HAIR COMPLEXION
~DDRESS
OCCUPATION
EYES HAIR COMPLEXION
HRS
HRS
rn
z
PDTS-1A
RAYMOND L. ]ACOBS
SUPERINTENDENT
SOUTHOLD TOWN~IGHWAY DEPARTMENT
Fax. (516)-765-1750
]AMES A. RICHTER, R.A.
ENGINEERING INSPECTOR
PECONIC L.~q[, PECONIC,
Tel. (516)-765-3070
OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER
TOWN OF SOLJTHOLD
JULY 11, 1996
Mr. Albert Krupski
President - Board of Trustees
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, NewYork 11971
Re:
Proposed improvements to Park Site
Angel Shores Subdivision, Southold
SCTM #: 1000-88-06-(3,4,5 & 13.1)
Dear Mr. Krupski:
This letter is to confirm our recent conversation concerning the park area within the
above referenced subdivision. At our site visit on Wednesday, 7/10/96, we inspected the
work that has already been completed. The waiver that was given to the developer by the
Trustees did not permit heavy equipment to be used in clearing the site. Heavy equipment
was used to clear the Right-of-Way adjacent to the park and therefore it was a violation.
The remaining work, in your opinion, was in keeping with the requirements of the Town
Trustees.
At this time I also reviewed the additional work that has been proposed by the
owner, Mr. Ted Laoudis, for completion of the park area restoration. It was your opinion
that these items did not require additional permits from your office. These items would
include the following:
Fencing: An old fence was found on the east side of the right-of-way
extending down to the dune just above the high water mark. The existing
fence consisted of 10" concrete piers approximately 3' in height that were
connected by wooden rails. The owner intends to renovate & reconstruct
this fence where it now stands. Additional fencing to match the existing will
be constructed at the north eastern corner of the park to define the park
entrance. This fence will also frame out a parking area (Approx. 50' x 50')
within the right-of-way adjacent to the park. This parking area is outside of
the 75' setback required for Trustee jurisdiction and should not require
permits.
Page I of 2_
Mr. Albert Krupski
Proposed Improvements to Park Site
Angel Shores Subdivision, Southold
JULY 11, 1996
Page 2 of 2
Note:
If you
Pavement at parking area: This item will consist of blue stone blend and
gravel. (No Asphalt will be used in this area)
Sand Fill: Clean sand will be added to the site to reconstruct the dune located
at the end of the right-of-way and to bring the elevation of the road end up
to that of the adjacent park area. Clean sand will also be deposited on the
ground throughout the park site.
Beach grass planting: The newly reconstructed dune shall be planted with
beach grass and spartina to prevent erosion. The newly planted area shall
be approximately 20' deep across the front of the 50' right-of-way. This item
should be done in the fall to allow the grass to survive.
10' wide walk through the conservation easement: As per the original
Planning Board approvals, lot numbers 42, 43 & 44 will have a 10' wide
cleared walk that will extend in a southerly direction from the building areas
down to the edge of the trees above the high water mark. Only brush and
Iow vegetation shall be removed. No trees will be taken down as a result of
this clearing.
With the exception of delivering materials to the park site, no heavy
equipment shall be used to perform the above referenced work.
have any questions concerning this report, please contact my office.
CC;
Richard G. Ward
(Chairman - Planning Board)
Officer Kent McCarthy
(Southold Town Marine Police)
/James A. Richter, R.A.
P.O. Box 1627
Southold, NY 11971
July 8, 1996
Honorable Jean Cochran
Southold Town Supervisor
Southold Town Hall
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Ms. Cochran:
UUt .JUL1
I own a home on Sunset and West Lanes, immediately adjacent
to the "new" Angel Shores community beach. I understand that
the town issued a permit for the developer to make a path to
the beach for the future occupants of his development.
On Saturday, June 30 at 8 AM, and again on Thursday, July
4 at 8 AM he had a bulldozer on the beach tearing down the trees
and beach grass in a fifty-foot swath. He then subsequently
cut down most of the trees covering the rest of the lot.
The town gave him a permit with limitations, but did not
supervise what he was doing. This made it possible for him to
destroy a wetlands gem.
Since the town did not supervise the execution of its permit
it allowed this developer to do great ~amage for his own personal
gain. It is my position that he not only did great environmental
harm, but has also has lessened the value of my property and
other adjacent properties.
In my opinion, it is the town's legal responsibility to see
that this beach area is restored to its former natural beauty.
I would like to have your response to my request before
proceeding further.
Sincerely,
TRUSTEES
John M. Bredemeyer, III, President
Henry P. Smith, Vice President
Albert J. Krupski, Jr.
John L. Bednoski, Jr.
John B. Tuthill
Telephone (516) 765-1892
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Trustees
John Bredemeyer
Attached memo from Planning Board - Angel Shores
February 3, 1991
As the Trustees have already flagged and confirmed the tidal and
freshwater wetlands under their jurisdiction in this proposed
subdivision and whereas the subdivision and whereas the
subdividers are proposing 75' or greater buffer area adjacent to
all wetland areas and whereas the wildlife and engineering
concerns this Board previously transmitted have been addressed.
I would recommend we send a letter to the Planning Board
confirming same. The impact statement is available in our
office for review.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
George Ritchie Latham. Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
October 22,
~)TT L. HARRIS
Supervisor
[all, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 1197t
1991
Fax (516) 765-1823
Frederick Block
Block, Amelkin & Hamburger
202 East Main Street
Smithtown, New York 11787-2813
RE: Proposed Major Subdivision
of Angel Shores,
Sections I and II
SCTM#1000-88-1-4 & 5
Dear Mr. Block:
The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town
Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, October 21, 1991.
Be it RESOL9ED that on this day the Southold Town Planning
Board hereby adopted the Findings Statement dated October 18,
1991: for the proposed major subdivision of Angel Shores,
Sections I and II.
If you or your client have any questions, please contact
this office.
Very truly yours,
Bennett Orlowski, fir.
Chairman
Encl.
cc: Mr. T. Laoudis, owner, c/o William Moore
William Moore, Esq., Attorney for Applicant
Thomas Jorling, Comm. DEC. Albany
Roger Evans, DEC, SUNY, Stony Brook
Mohabir Perseud, NYS Dept. of State
Vito Minei, Director, Office of Ecology, SC Health Services
~John Bredemeyer III, President, Board of Trustees, Southold
John Holzaphel, Director, Conservation Advisory Council
Mayor William Pell, Greenport Utility Co., Village Hall
Arthur Kunz, Director SC Dept. of Planning
Stephen Costa, Suffolk County Health Department
Frank Dowling, Suffolk County Planning Commission
Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney
Judith Terry, Town Clerk
Public Notice Bulletin Board
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
George Ritchie Latham,
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SCOTT L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
October 18, 1991
FINDINGS STATEMENT
State Environmental Quality Review Act
Pursuant to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act - SEQR) of the
Environmental Conservation Law arid 6 NYCRR Part 617, the Planning Board of the Town
of Southold as lead agency, makes the following findings.
NAME OF ACTION
Angel Shores, Sections I and II
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The proposed project involves the subdivision of 92.7 acres of land into 49 residential
lots. Project includes required roads, recharge facilities, a 0.6 acre park site, and
incorporates the retention of open space (including wetlands and unique habitat) through lot
size r, eduction. Project density is based upon a density map utilizing lots in conformance
with 'R-40" (I-acre) yield on Section I (exclusive of wetlands); and, "A-C' (2-acre) yield on
Section II, submitted in conformance with a Stipulation of Settlement applicable to the site.
Project utilizes a water supply system approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services (SCDHS), the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) and the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). Individual lots will
utilize on-site sanitary disposal systems.
LOCATION
Angel Shores Sections I and II is located on the south side of Main Bayview Road,
west of Cedar Beach Road, and comprises 92.7 acres extending west to the border of the
Terry Waters Subdivision. The site lies on Great Hog Neck, in the Hamlet of Southold,
Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. The site is more particularly
described as Suffolk County Tax Map (SCTM) No. 1000-88-6-4, 5 and 13.1.
AGENCY ,JURISDICTION
The Town of Southold Planning Board is the lead agency for this application.
Involved agencies and jurisdictions are identified below:
Town of Southold Planning Board (subdivision approval)
Town of Southold Board of Trustees (wetland delineation completed, activity proposed such that no
Angel Shores, Southold
Statement of Findings
Trustees permit will be required).
Suffolk County Department of Health Services (approval of subdivision of land; approval of individual
permits to construct sanitary systems [subsequent to subdivision]; approval of water supply system for
the Cove and Angel Shores, completed)
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Article 25 individual wetlands permits for
lots in jurisdiction; Article 24 wetlands permits for subdivision and individual lots within jurisdiction,
with possible additional joint application permits depending on project [water quality certificate,
protection of waters])
Permits and approvals for the water supply system from SCDHS, NYSDEC, and NYSDOH, and the
ViLlage of Greenport have already been obtained. Construction of this facility has been completed
and an operating permit issued in July of 1989. The plant is currently being operated by William
Gremler (c/o GNS, Route 25, Mattituck, NY), under contract as a licensed water treatment plant
operator, to the Homeowners Association.
DATE FINAL EIS FILED
The Final EIS was accepted by the Planning Board on .Sept. 30, 1991.
BACKGROUND AND SEQR PROCEDURES
The project has been subject to a Draft EIS prepared by Henderson & Bodwell,
consulting engineers, located in Plainview, New York. The Draft EIS was accepted January
14, 1991 after completion of several revisions necessary to provide a document adequate for
public, review. In order to provide an adequate time from for interested and involved
agencies, the public and parties of interest to consider the document, a public comment
period was provided between the date of acceptance and March 21, 1991. Public hearings on
the Draft EIS were held on February 4, 1991, February 12, 1991 and March 11, 1991. A time
period for submission of written comments was provided for a period of ten (10) days after
the close of the public hearing establishing the close of the comment period on March 21,
1991.
On March 22, 1991 comments were forwarded to the applicant for the attorney
providing the opportunity for the applicant to respond to substantive comments on the Draft
EIS. Based on correspondence recetved from the applicant, the Planning Board directed
t~h, eir conj~ulta~n~ts, C. rarn~er, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. to prepare the Final EIS for Angel
snores. ~ne manmng t~oard as lead agency is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of
the Final EIS, regardless of who prepares it, as per 6 NYCRR Part 617.140). The Planning
Board was involved in the preparation of the Final EIS through input to the consultant, and
after review and deliberation, the Final EIS was accepted by the Planning Board on sept.
30, 1991. In accordance with SEOR, adequate time was provided subsequent to the filing of
the Final EIS, in order to allow the public and involved and interested agencies time to
consider the Final EIS. The minimum period of ten (10) days has been provided, and the
findings have been completed in less than thirty (30) days as required by SEQR, and in
consideration of comments received by the Planning Board from interested parties. This
Findings Statement concludes the SEQR process as related to the Final EIS for Angel
Shores Sections I and II, and provides a basis for the Planning Board decision on the project.
Page 2 of 10
Angel Shores, Southold
Statement of Findings
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE EIS RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT THE DECISION
With regard to environmental impact issues, the following facts and conclusions in the
Final EIS are relied upon to support the decision. In general, the most common impacts
from the Sketch Plan proposed as part of the Draft ElS which require mitigation include the
need to preserve Maritime Red Cedar Forest, avoid steep slope areas, expand wetland
setbacks, enlarge and preserve wildlife corridors, avoid flood plain and constrained soil
areas, and maintain the current diversity of habitats, with regard to Section I. Section II is
recognized for importance to open space and rural character and wildlife use to a lesser
extent than Section I. In addition, a key issue of concern was the impact of the project upon
water quantity and water quality, due to the pum[~age of the water supply system on the site,
on-site sanita~ discharge, and the presence of private wells downgradtent of the site. These
concerns related to potential for salt-water intrusion and water quality impact on private
wells. Based upon these concerns it was recognized during the preparation of the Final EIS
that, the Draft EIS and the Sketch Plan (which was the subject of the Draft EIS) did not
adequately consider these issues. Accordingly, significant additional documentation was
provxded as well as further analysis of alternative design concepts. Considerations regarding
specific key impact areas are as follows:
Constrained Soils
Constrained soils including Haven Loam, with a thick surface layer, and tidal marsh, exhibit limitations
due to saturation and poor leaching qualities. In addition, portions of several lots were within the flood
plain area, causing further constraint. Furthermore, a depth to groundwater of less than ten (10) fee was
a concern due to the need to fill sites to provide adequate leaching depth for sanitary systems. Excessive
fill was found to be contrary to goals of minimizing clearing and disturbance. The location of these soils
and the lots affected included six (6) lots of Section I.
Steed S[oDes
Concern with regard to steep slopes primarily involved potential construction on lots with steep slopes
adjacent freshwater wetlands. Although strict interpretation of wetland setbacks could perhaps be met,
the disturbance of highly erodable soils on a slope adjacent to important freshwater wetlands and
associated habitat was determined to be a potential impact which could be avoided by alternate lot
configuration and density. Approximately eight (8) lots within Section I were affected by this constraint.
Natural Habitat and Wildlife Corridors
Angel Shores Section t includes fresh ponds and associated wetlands and adjacent areas. In addition, the
southwest corner of the site includes tidal marsh and a portion of a salt pond. Upland areas include
dune environment, Maritime Red Cedar Forest, and other shrub upland and former nursery upland
areas. Wetland areas were documented in the Final EIS as being more biologically productive areas.
This productivity supports a greater variety and density of wildlife species. Adjacent upland provide
additional foraging, hunting and nesting opportunities. It was also noted that the cedar stands provide
wildlife value for animals such as songbirds, upland ground birds, small mammals and hoofed browsers.
With this greater intensity of wildlife activity it is important to preserve the diversity of habitats and
provide for substantial inter-connection of habitats in order to support wildlife populations. Preservation
of corridors is a common tool in order to promote and maintain wildlife activity between productive
areas.
The presence of vegetation characteristic of a Maritime Red Cedar Forest on Section I was also found to
be significant. This type of habitat is uncommon in New York State, and warrants protection. The most
Page 3 of 10
(
Angel Shores, Southold
Statement of Findings
significant stands of this habitat are located in the central portion of Section I; however, most portions of
Section I contain dominant stands of red cedar. Based upon natural habitat areas, alternate designs were
found to be appropriate for consideration. In addition mitigation measures and special conditions were
explored in the Final EIS and found to be appropriate to further reduce impact.
Onen Space and Visual Impacts
It is evident that Section I is the most ecologically sensitive portion of the site. It should also be noted
that Section II provides visual resources and open space value in terms of open, former agricultural
expause. This is important to the viewshed and open space appreciation along Main Bayview Avenue.
In addition, preservation of this type of habitat is important to many wildlife species, due to documented
species diversity associated with field habitat as compared to many Long Island forests. The Final EIS
also notes that recharge design in the Sketch Plan accompanying the Draft EIS would cause visual and
aesthetic impact, and could be improved through design and mitigation.
Land Use and Zoning
Important features of the site include unique habitat on Section I and open space views along Main
Bayview Avenue on Section II. Protection of these resources is not necessarily dependent upon density,
provided the concept of creative clustering is employed. The Angel Shores parcel was upzoned to 2-acre
density equivalent, or "A-C" district; however, subsequent litigation established a compromise density of
1-acre equivalent on Section I and 2-acre equivalent on Section 2. Through creative re-design efforts are
being made to protect unique resources and observe the density criteria of the Stipulation of Settlement,
while providing a residential development which conforms to the intent of the "A-C~ district.
Groundwater Resources
Groundwater quantity issues involve the impact of pumping the well field and its impact upon private
wells in the area of the site. The Final EIS found that the well field site which is already approved by the
appropriate permitting agencies for use, was subject to a careful review by SCDHS, NYSDEC and
NYSDOH. The well field is controlled through restricted pumpage of no more than 2 of 3, 30 gallon per
minute wells. Further, significant storage is provided in the form of a 54,000 gallon supply tank which
avoids prolonged pumpage stress to meet peak water demand. Pumpage of the well at a rate and depth
consistent with the approved pumpage limit and well depth found no significant increase in chloride
(which would indicate salt water contact), and no significant drawdown in wells at 3, 62 and 103 feet from
the pumping well (which would indicate no potential for lateral encroachment of salt water). These facts
were relied upon by the permitting agencies prior to permit issuance. In the Final EIS evaluation, the
Planning Board has given local consideration to issues beyond the scope of Planning Board purview, in
order to ensure that the proposed subdivision would not cause adverse impact. Mitigation measures
were found to be appropriate through the Final ElS, in order to reduce water demand and limit
proliferation of private wells.
Water quality issues involve potential for elevated contaminant levels as a result of the subdivision. The
Draft and Final EIS provide information concerning nitrate levels, as this is the prime contaminant
associated with residential developmcnt. Conclusions indicate potential for levels elevated above natural
recharge characteristics, but less than drinking water limitations, and comparable to current nitrate
concentrations in area groundwater. Similar to water quantity issues, mitigation measures can be utilized
to mtmm~ze ~mpact.
Given the magnitude of the impacts recognized through the Final EIS and the ability
to mitigate impacts through alternate design concepts and mitigation, consideration was
given to alternative development plans. The following set of criteria was established as a
Page 4 of 10
Angel Shores, Southold
Statement of Findings
basis of design concept in consideration of specific impacts:
* Reduce coverage of private lots on Section I, in order to control clearing, provide more contiguous
open space for wildlife & aesthetic enhancement, expand wetland setbacks, and maintain a greater
portion of Maritime Red Cedar Forest.
* Reduce pavement area on Section I and, where possible, on Section II, in order to minimize
stormwater runoff, and to reduce needed recharge basin capacity.
* Provide area on lots for location of sanitary disposal systems above the ten (10) foot contour, in order
to minimize needed fill, clearing and grading.
* Remove building lots from areas of constrained soils and flood prone areas.
* Remove building lots from areas of steep slopes, particularly where runoff and/or erosion could
impact freshwater wetlands.
* Expand open space areas on both Section I and Section II, where possible, while providing reasonable
sized lots for the proposed single family residential use.
* Enlarge recharge areas in order to eliminate need for deep excavations which could intersect
groundwater, and to allow for greater setbacks, buffering, and landscaping of recharge areas. Provide
some potential for natural drainage areas where existing topographic contours permit.
In order to meet these criteria, and objectively evaluate alternatives which would
minimize significant impacts, three alternative concept plans were prepared as part of the
Final EIS. The plans are similar but provide a variety of configurations which might be
employed on the Angel Shores site to achieve stated and necessary objectives in a redesign.
The design concepts illustrate that the project can be designed such that open space is
increased on Section I from 38.6 percent to at least 61 percent, while still maintaining at
least 31 percent open space on Section II. In addition, wildlife corridors and wetland
setbacks can be significantly expanded, constrained soils and steep slopes can be avoided,
and the most significant stands of red cedar forest can be preserved. Further, the open
space and old field resources associated with Section II can be maintained, and recharge
areas can be expanded in order to improve visual and aesthetic qualities. It is recognized
that there are both beneficial and adverse impacts associated with alternative designs.
These trade-offs are considered below:
Significant benefits are observed and quantified in the Final EIS. Benefits correpond with achieving
objectives outlined above and found to be necessary o minimize impacts. The Final EIS provides a table
of relative percentages of contiguous open space preserved through each of the development plans.
Relative open space ratios are noted on the following page:
Page 5 of 10
Angel Shores, Southold
Statement of Findings
OPEN SPACE RATIOS
Proposed FEIS FEIS FEIS
Project Concept A Concept B Concept C
Section I 38.6% 65.2% 61.7% 69.4%
Section II 31.1% 33.7% 40.9% 31.2%
Negative impacts include a potential lower selling price of lots due to a smaller lot sizes. In the real
estate market the price of a building lot is more dependant on its location rather that size, provided that
the lot(s) is not significantly smaller than surrounding building lots. In the subject area there is a high
real estate value of buildlng lots on the Great Hog Neck peninsula due to the desirability of the area. In
addition, common areas preserved as contiguous open space provide an amenity which also partially
offsets this impact. FinalIy, the water access opportunity which this subdivision provides is a desirable
feature that is in limited supply, which further buffers temporary recesses in the real estate market, and
economic aspects of providing smaller lots.
Lot size reduction will require certain architecture which may or may not allow for side entry, garages
depending on lot configuration, particularly on Section I. Privacy can be preserved through retention of
natural and planting of supplemental vegetation on individual ,lots by homeowners. One-half acre and
three-quarter acre lots have been used successfully in many residential subdivisions, and can be
developed in such a manner as to avoid an appearance which is too dense. Private roads, significant
open space and separation of clusters of housing and the non-grid like design of the concept plan ensures
that the site will not take on the appearance of a high density suburban subdivision. In addition, due to
constraints in lot placement, many lots are greater than the minimum lots sizes as is evident in review of
the average lot sizes for each concept. Larger lot sizes could be provided through density reduction;
however, this would also have economic implications for the developer. An overriding concern is the
need to protect open space as noted in the number of comments and concerns with regard to the Draft
ElS and previously proposed Sketch Plans.
Shortening of cul-de-sacs and reduction of paved surface areas is a common concept to each of the plans.
This technique allows for less clearing and grading, with greater retention of natural vegetation and open
space. In addition, reduction of paved surface area reduces the quantity of stormwater generated
thereby reducing impacts related to runoff. Therefore, this design technique has significant
environmental benefits. In addition, this concept has economic benefit to the developer through the
reduction of improvement costs associated w/th road construction. This economic benefit can be used to
offset potential increased costs associated with recharge basin landscaping which may be required as a
result of project implementation.
One potential disadvantage of the alternative design concepts is the shortening of cul-de-sac lengths to
reduce paved surface area, thereby requiring private roads for several clusters of lots. The concepts
create flag lots with a minimum of 15 feet of frontage on a subdivision right-of-way. This would allow for
separate access to individual parcels if absolutely necessary; but in reality, a group of homeowners or the
developer would construct one private road to service a cluster of lots. The road would be used and
maintained jointly by homeowners. This technique allows for reduced road width and reduced
maintenance. Private roads have been used extensively in rural areas, and can add to the rural character,
privacy and prestige of the homes which they serve. The use of private roads has an economic advantage
to the developer by reducing the improvements necessary as part of the subdivision, specifically the
Page 6 of 10
Angel Shores, Southold
Statement of Findings
installation of additional road. The disadvantage i~ that such use of roads requires cooperation between
homeowners, may limit the range of potential homebuyers and increases the maintenance needs of
homes which use the road. These disadvantages must be balanced with the social benefit cited above as
well as the environmental benefit previously noted.
Other potential impacts of these design concepts should also be recognized. Clustering of lots raises
concerns with regard to concentration of sanitary effluent. The 208 Study encourages large lot
development in order to distribute sewage over a larger area and minimize concentration of effluent.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services has established a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet
for clustered subdivisions where public water is provided in order to maintain groundwater nitrogen
within acceptable levels. The water system is a community water supply system located upgradient of
development areas. The only area where the alternatives involve lot sizes approaching 20,000 square
feet, is in Section I. Under these scenarios, sanitary systems would be clustered in three areas, the
northwest corner (7 lots), the northeast corner (2 lots), and the south east corner (between 4 and 6 lots).
The size of most lots is much in excess of 20,000 square feet, and in the northwest corner where the
greatest number of lots is clustered, lot sizes are generally in excess of 30,000 square feet. In addition, it
is not possible to spread the lots over a larger area of Section I, due to constraints with the depth to
groundwater and the need to limit fill due to unique habitats. Lot sizes in Section II are intended to be
in excess of 30,000 square feet, thereby providing for further distribution of sanitary effluent. In additiou,
density and lot size limitations as a function of nitrogen in recharge include nitrogen influx associated
with lawn fertilization in standard residential communities. The Final EIS has made it clear that low
maintenhnce vegetation must be used due to provisions restricting lawn watering. This further reduces
potential for nitrogen impacts due to decreased lot sizes (20,000+ square foot) in a small portion of the
overall subdivision.
Overall, although there are adverse and beneficial impacts to consider, adverse
impacts are significantly less as compared to previously proposed projects, and through
design alternatives the project is considered to be mitigated to the maximum extent
practicable in consideration of the site resources, the objectives of the project sponsor, social
and economic considerations, and the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement.
As a means of further reducing impacts, the following mitigation measures are
necessary and should be incorporated into any decision on the subject project.
A preliminary subdivision plan should be prepared and submitted to the Town which conforms to the
criteria established for alternative design concepts established in the Final EIS. A minimum of 61
percent open space must be maintained on Section I and 31 percent open space on Section II, in a
configuration similar and no less retrictive than in design concepts. Street length and width should be
reduced and common drives must be explored similar to design concepts. The Planning Board will
review the preliminary map for conformance to the Findings Statement.
Drainage design should incorporate leaching catch basins in the street in an effort to reduce recharge
capacity needs. Recharge areas must be expanded as shown in concept maps in order to allow
buffering and/or natural recharge. It is recognized that some excvatlon may be needed to achieve
outfall grades and capacity. Supplemental landscaping is encouraged, in addition to natural buffers, in
recharge areas as well as the overall subdivision.
* Due to the sensitivity of the site with respect to water supply issues, grass established on site should be
of a type which requires no irrigation. Due to their hardiness, these species would likewise be of low
Page 7 of 10
(
Angel Shores, Southold
Statement of Findings
fertilizer dependency. The species list provided in Attachment H of the Final EIS is appropriate to
use for guidelines.
* Covenants should be filed on the overall subdivision and lots which restrict clearing on privately owned
lots, as a means of reducing potential lawn area, and as a means of expanding natural areas beyond
those in common ownership. Restrictions are as follows:
Lot Size Maximum Cleared
10,000 square feet (1/4 acre) 90 percent
15,000 square feet (1/3 acre) 70 percent
20,000 square feet (1/2 acre) 60 percent
30,000 square feet (2/3 acre) 58 percent
40,000 square feet (1 acre) 57 percent
60,000 square feet (1 1/2 acre) 46 percent
Clearing on each lot should be limited to no more than that percentage which is indicated in this
table. These restrictions should be indicated on the subdivision map, and covenants should be
prepared and filed Lo run with each individual lot. Compliance should be determined at the time of
building permit review, and implementatlon should be determined by the building inspector during
routine construction inspections. It is also recommended that building permit plans identify the
extent of clearing and proposed grading in order to ensure that compliance is achieved. In addition,
building permit review may consider clustering houses nearer to a common lot line on adjacent lots
in order to provide wider expanses of vegetation remaining on the outside perimeter of these lots.
Covenants will serve the purpose of educating landowners, and increasing probability of
compliance. The use of covenants creates a legal mechanism for awareness of issues relating to
preservation of vegetation, there educating homeowners. In addition, information and/or excerpts
from the Final EIS can be made available on a request basis through the Town offices to provide
landscape alternatives and information on water quantity issues.
* Covenants should be filed as part of the subdivision and on each individual lot indicating that no on-
site wells are permitted in the Angel Shores subdivision. This is needed in order to limit additional
aquifer pumping not controlled under the water supply site. The agency requiring the covenants is the
Planning Board through subdivision approval, and compliance will be determined through planning,
building and zoning enforcement mechanisms available to the Town, or legal action as determined to
be appropriate by the Town Attorney.
* With regard to common areas, no clearing of trees or disturbance of natural soils, or any other activity
is permitted to occur, with the exception of creation of foot trails for passive recreational activities,
approved recharge basin construction and supplemental planting of appropriate native or near native
vegetation (Attachment H). No balkheading shall be permitted in any shorefront areas. No structural
improvements shall be permitted in any common land areas of Angel Shores Section I and II.
Covenants shall be prepared and filed to reflect these conditions prior to final subdivision approval,
Page 8 of 10
Angel Sh'ores, Southold
Statement of Findings
CONCLUSION
It is the conclusion of these findings that the project as proposed and modified
through this discussion and mitigation measures cited above, addresses the concerns and
potential impacts which are associated with the proposed action. The measures included
herein seek to minimize the impacts of the project to the maximum extent in consideration
of the environmental sensitivity of the site, balanced with the environmental, social and
economic needs and objectives of the Town of Southold as determined through land use
planning and environmental documents and policy. Therefore, the further consideration of
the Ang.el Shores, Sections I and II project vnth the incorporation of the above findings is
appropriate.
Page 9 of 10
Angel Shores, Southold
Statement of Findings
Certification of Findings to Approve
Having considered the Draft and Final EIS, and having considered the preceding
written facts and conclusions relied upon to meet the requirements of 6 NYCRR 617.9, this
Statement of Findings certifies that:
The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met;
Consistent with the social, economic and other essential considerations from
among the reasonable alternatives thereto, the action approved is one which
minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent
practicable; including the effects disclosed in the environmental impact statement,
and
o
Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the
maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the
environmental impact statement process will be minimized or avoided by the
inco~orating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures which were
identffied as practicable.
Consistent with the applicable policies, this action will achieve a balance between
the protection of the environment and the need to accommodate social and
economic considerations.
Southold Town Planning Board
Signature o/Responsible O]~cial
Bo~nn~ Orl~wnk~ ,
Name of Res~ible Offic~l
Planninq Rnard Cha4rman
Title of Responsible Official
Town Hall. 53095 Mai. n Road. ~qouthold. New York ]1971
.dddres~ of ~dgency
Page 10 of 10
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Telephone (516) 765-1938
TO: Reviewing Agency
FROM: Bennett Orlowski,
DATE: February 13, 1991
~ L. ~IARRIS
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P O Box 1179
Southold~ New York 11971
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
Jr. , Chairman ~5
RE:
Proposed Major Subdivision
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Angel Shores, Southold Town
SCTM9 1000-88-6-1,4,5
On January 15, 1991, the Southold Town Planning Board forwarded a copy of
the December 1990 Draft Environmental Impact Statement to you for review.
The following changes have occurred since then:
The public hearing on the DEIS, which was opened on February 4,
1991, was not closed until February 12, 1991.
The Planning Board has scheduled another public hearing on the
DEIS for March 11, 1991 at 7:45 P.M. This date was selected so
that the hearing would be advertised for 14 days prior to the
hearing, as required by Sate Environmental Quality Review Act.
Neither the February 4th hearing nor the February 12th hearing was
advertised 14 days in advance.
The public comment period has also been extended to March 21, 1991.
I would be most appreciative if your comments were submitted prior to the
closing of the new comment period.
If you require any additional information, please contact Melissa Spiro at
this office.
cc:
John M. Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Town Trustees
*John Holzapfel, Conservation Advisory council
*Town Board Members
Stephen Costa, Suffolk County Health Department
Mohabir Perseud, Department of State
David Morrell, N.Y.S.D.E.C. SUNY, Stony Brook
Thomas Jorling, N.Y.S.D.E.C. Albany
Vito Minei, Director, Office of Ecology, SCDHS
*Robert DeLuca, Office of Ecology, SCDHS
*Louise Harrison, Office of Ecology, SCDHS
Gerald W. Hickson, Greenport Public Utilities
Frank Dowling, Suffolk County Planning Commission.
Steven Colabufo, Suffolk County Water Authroity
* DEIS was not enclosed with original submission
TRUSTEES
John M. Bredemeyer, III, President
Henry P. Smith, Vice President
Albert J. Krupski, Jr.
John L. Bednoski, Jr.
John B. Tuthill
Telephone (516) 765-1892
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SCOFF L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Planning Board ~
Board of Trustees fft~./
Proposed Major SubdiVision -
SCTM ~1000-88-6-1,4,5
DATE: February 7, 1991
Angel Shores
The Southold Town Trustees have reviewed a copy of the D.E.I.S.
in the above referenced matter dated December 1990.
The Trustees confirmed our previously adopted wetland lines as
noted in the attached surveys.
As these wetland lines and contiguous 75' buffers provided by
the developer place all activities beyond our jurisdiction, this
Board has completed its review and comment on the project in its
present form.
We appreciate the transfer of density from the wetland section
and the earnest attempt at balancing the wetland versus open
space values.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Telephone (516) 765-1938
TT L. HARRIS
Supervisor
1, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Reviewing Agency
Southold Town Planning Board
February 5, 1991
RE:
Proposed Major Subdivision
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Angel Shores, Southold Town
SCTM# 1000-88-6-1,4,5
On January 15, 1991, the Southold Town Planning Board forwarded a copy
of the December 1990 Draft Environmental Impact Statement to you for
review.
Please take note of the following date changes:
The public hearing on the DEIS was opened on February 4, 1991.
The hearing will be continued on February 12th at 7:30 P.M.
The public cormment period has also been extended.
February 22, 1991.
It will end on
Your co~ents should be submitted prior to the closing of the comment
period.
If you require any additional information, please contact Melissa Spiro
at this office.
cc: John M. Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Town Trustees ~
*John Holzapfel, Conservation Advisory council
*Town Board Members
Stephen Costa, Suffolk County Health Department
Mohabir Perseud, Department of State
David Morrell, N.Y.S.D.E.C. SUNY, Stony Brook
Thomas Jorling, N.Y.S.D.E.C. Albany
Vito Minei, Director, Office of Ecology, SCDHS
*Robert DeLuca, Office of Ecology, SCDHS
*Louise Harrison, Office of Ecology, SCDHS
Gerald W. Hickson, Greenport Public Utilities
Frank Dowling, Suffolk County Planning Commission.
Steven Colabufo, Suffolk County Water Authroity
* DEIS was not enclosed with original submission
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L Edwards
Telephone (516) 765-1938
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OFSOUTHOLD
Reviewing Agency
Southold Town Planning Board
January 15, 1991
Proposed Major Subdivision
Angel Shores, Southold Town
SCTM$ 1000-88-6-1,4,5
SCOTt L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
I 5
T ..... C;:~- , ,
Enclosed is a copy of the revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated
December 1990, for the proposed Angel Shores subdivision.
The Planning Board accepted the DEIS as complete for the purpose of public
and inter-agency review on January 14, 1991.
Your agency may have reviewed previous Draft Environmental Impact Statements
for this subdivision. The Board now requests your comments on the revised
document.
Please take note of the following dates:
The public comment period began on January 14, 1991;
The public comment period will end on February 13, 1991;
The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the DEIS on
February 4, 1991, at 7:45 in the meeting room at the Town Hall.
If you require any additional information, please contact Melissa Spire at
this office.
enc.
cc:
John M. Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Town Trustees
*John Holzapfel, Conservation Advisory Council
*Town Board Members
Stephen Costa, Suffolk County Health Department
Mohabir Perseud, Department of State
David Morrell, N.Y.S.D.E.C. SUNY, Stony Brook
Thomas Jorling, N.Y.S.D.E.C. Albany
Vito Minei, Director, Office of Ecology, SCDHS
*Robert DeLuca, Office of Ecology, SCDHS
*Louise Harrison, Office of Ecology,SCDHS
Gerald W. Hickson, Greenport Public Utilities
Frank Dowling, Suffolk County Planning Commission
* DEIS not enclosed - copy available at Planning Board Office
CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
May6,1990
Mr. Scott Harris, Supervisor
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Review and Comments on
Density and Sketch Plans of
Angel Shores Sections I & II
MAY t8 1990 i
TOWN OF Sou'rtr;OLD
Dear Mr. Harris:
We have conducted field inspections of the above referenced site and have reviewed
the sketch and density plans for Angel Shores I & II. We have reviewed the projects under
the assumption that Section I will yield a density based on 40,000 square foot lots and
Section II will yield a density based on 80,000 square foot lots. This review is also contingent
upon findings of the SEQR process - additional relevant information may be obtained as
result of this process, which may not be obvious at this time. The following are our findings
and comments.
DENSITY MAP:
Vegetation - Base map should show areas of existing vegetation. Section I is
heavily vegetated, but map only shows two (2) small vegetated areas around
wetlands.
Wetlands - Boundaries shown on map "appear" to be accurate. A few old flags
were found in the field that correspond to the boundaries. It is recognized that
the
Trustees agree with the boundaries as depicted.
Flags shouid be re-established in field from survey information, for
both Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands.
NYSDEC should be contacted to verify wetlands wetland boundaries
after flags are re-established -CVA will also re-verify at that time.
Wetlands located off site (within 100' of property line) should be placed
on the base map. Boundaries established from NYSDEC maps would
be sufficient. These would include areas east of Little Peconic Bay
Lane and Cedar Beach Road.
Drainage Facilities - No drainage facilities (recharge basins) are shown on
density map. Density should be based on what could be built on site based on
a "conventional" subdivision of 40,000 and 80,000 square foot lots. A
54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455
Page 1 of 3
Angel Shores Review
"conventional" subdivision would include recharge basins. Inclusion of feasible
recharge basins would reduce overall density.
Buildable Lots - All lots shown are greater than 40,000 and 80,000 for the
respective Sections, a total of fifty (50) are shown for both Sections. Those
lots which contain wetlands in Section I have upland areas (excluding
wetlands) greater than 40,000 square feet. In addition, lots are considered
'"ouildable" if a house can be located with a 75' setback from the wetlands in
conformance with all the yard setbacks established in Town Code. These
setbacks should be shown on the density map.
Several lots in Section I are considered very restricted, but buildable.
Lot # 11, Section I, is considered non-buildable, and should be
eliminated, thereby reducing the overall density.
SKETCH PLAN:
Buildable Lots - All lots are a minimum of 40,000 square feet, a total of fifty
(50) are shown for both Sections. Setbacks should be shown on map.
Lot 18, Section I, appears to be non-buildable considering the setback
from wetlands and other yard requirements.
Wetlands - As with density plan, NYSDEC should confirm wetland boundaries
and those off-site should be shown.
A minimum of 100' natural and undisturbed buffer should be
considered adjacent to all wetlands in order to protect wetlands through
clustering and project design.
Covenants should be considered to restrict the construction of
bulkheading, docks, etc. adjacent to the wetlands and bay. Low impact
access (wood chip trails, etc.) could be allowable.
Drainage Facilities - As with the density map, no drainage facilities (recharge
basins) are shown.
Vegetation - The sketch plan shows two desirable considerations for the
preservation of existing vegetation and habitats through the use of clustering.
These are: 1) preservation of a large area of "old field" adjacent to Main
Bayview Road, and 2) a "green-belt" corridor connecting the wetland areas.
These considerations should be maintained and enhanced on final map. The
following are some additional considerations:
Consideration of imposing covenants for lots
in Section I (#'s 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 & 18) which
would forbid clearing of vegetation adjacent to "green-belt" area. This
would increase the effective width of the natural area and its associated
CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS
Page 2 of 3
Angel Shores Review
value.
The "Green-Belt" corridor should be widened between lots 9 and 10, in
Section I.
All lot. s in t. he entire cluster, Sections I & II, should have clearine limits
e. stabhsh_ed to preserve natural vesetation and reduce the noten~al
threat of groundwater contamination from extensive are~s~f fertilizer
dependent landscaping.
Consideration should be given to the reduction of pavin~g width,
particularly in Section I, to preserve vegetation and habttat.
The cul-de-sac in the southwest comer of the site should be setback
further from the wetlands (recommend minimum of 100').
Consideration could be given to establishing the lots located in this area
as flag-lots.
Consideration should be [given to eliminating the tie-in of this
subdivision with the existing development to the west.
In conclusion, the plans submitted to date are considered unacceptable for the
reasons stated above. It is our suggestion that the applicant resubmit maps which
incorporate the above comments.
additioInfa}~rarmeatl}onYn qplUeea-'~ieC~leSelW~trehethtioS cCoCnrtraecStPOusl~.dence'or if we can
(~/~/l~omns W. Cramer, ASLA
CC:
Ben Orlowski, Chairman of the Planning Board
Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney
CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Page 3 of 3
TRUSTEES
John M. Bredemeyer, III, President
Henry P. Smith, Vice President
Alber~ J. Krupski, Jr.
John L. Bednoski, Jr.
John B. Tuthill
Telephone (516) 765-1892
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
scour L. HARRIS
Supervisor
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, blew York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1800
March 28, 1990
Charles Beckert
Henderson & Bodwell
120 Express Street
Plainview, NY 11803
RE: Angel Shores / SCTM #1000-88-6-1-,4,5
Dear Mr. Beckert:
Confirming our conversation this date, the Southold Town
Trustees' jurisdiction on the Angel Shores Project has not
changed since our February 17, 1988 inspection and flagging of
wetlands.
Activities more than 75' landward from that line are not in our
jurisdiction.
Sincerely,
John M. Bredemeyer, III
President, Board of Trustees
JMB:jb
cc: Planning Board
Town Attorney
Town H~ii, 53095 Main Ro~d
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
January 12, 1989
William Moore
Suite 3
P.O. Box 23
Clause Commons
Mattituck, NY 11952
RE:
Angel Shores
SCTM #1000-88-6-1,4,5
Dear Mr. Moore:
The following action was taken by the Southold Town
planning Board on Monday, January 9, 1989.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board deem the
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement incomplete.
Enclosed please find a report from the Department of State,
dated December 1, 1988 and a report from the Department of
Health, dated November 28, 1988.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact this office.
ruly yours,_~
BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR.
CHAI~
CC:
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
Judith Terry, Town Clerk
Board of Trustees ''
T. Laoudis
GAlL S. SHAFFER
SECRETARY OF STATE
STATE OF NEW YORk
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
AlbAnY. N.Y. 12231-0OO 1
December 1, 1988
Ms. Valerie Scopaz
Town of Southold
Planning Board
Main Street
Southold, NY 11791
Re:
S-88-046
Revised Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Angel
Shores
Town of Southold
Dear Ms. Scopaz:
Thank you for sending us a copy of the above-referenced document for our
review and comments. According to 6 NYCRR 617.9 (e) of the regulations which
implement the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the actions of
involved state agencies occurring in the State's coastal area must be
consistent with New York State's coastal policies. Because this proposal will
require approval(s) from a state agency and is located within the coastal
area, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) should, pursuant to 6
NYCRR 617.14(f) (10) of SEQRA, include the identification and analysis of
coastal policies which are applicable to this proposal. A copy of this
Department's regulations (19 NYCRR 600) containing these coastal policies is
enclosed for your information and use.
Based upon our review of the revised DEIS, the following policies are
applicable and should be addressed in this proposal's DEtS:
600.5 (aZ (2) -- Facilitate the siting of water-dependent uses and
faciliti6-s on or adjacent to coastal water~.
The construction of private residences on or adjacent to tidal wetlands
is not a water dependent activity; the DEIS should address this-conflict in
coastal area land use. Lots 20-23 (as shown on the preliminary plan) contain
tidal wetlands and are bounded for the most part on their southern borders by
the mean high water line of Little Peconic Bay. To ensure the integrity of
the wetlands and th~ shoreline, conservation easements, which at a minimum
encompass the wetlands, should be established.
600.5 (a) (5) -- Encouraqe the location of development in areas where
public services and facilities essential to such development ar~,
9dequate, except when such development has special functional
requirements or the characteristics which necessitate its location i.
other coastal areas.
Page 3-23 of the DEIS indicates that traffic increases on Main Bayville
Road will be within the structural capacities of the road. Nevertheless. the
approximately 80% increase in traffic is substantial and is likely to have
negative impacts on current residents of the area that use this road as well
as on the road itself during construction periods. These potential effects
should be discussed in the DEIS.
600.5 (b) (1) -- Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats, ah
identified on the coastal area map, shall be protected, preserved and,
where practical, restorea so as to maintain their viability a',_habitats.
The proposed development is located between the Corey Creek and Cedar
Beach Point designated significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats along
the north shore of Little Peconic Bay. The potential impacts of the Angel
Shores development on the viability of these habitat areas should be addressed
in the DEIS.
600.5 (e) (2) -- Access to the publicly owned foreshore and to land~
immediately adjacent to the foreshore or the water's edge that are
publicly owned shall be provided, and it should be provided in a manner
compatible with adjoining uses. Such lands shall be retained in pub!ir
ownership
It's stated in the DEIS (page 1-2) that a 0.6 acre park site adjacent to
the bay will be offered for dedication to the Town of Sou~hold. If the Town
declines, and an Angel Shores Homeowner's Association assumes ownership, what
will be the potential for general public access to Little Peconic Bay? Please
elaborate on how this association will manage and maintain the park site. The
Preliminary Plan dated 8/17/87 depicts several areas on the development
property that are to be designated as open space, totaling 32.8 acres. How
will these areas be managed and maintained? !.~ill a Homeowners Association be
established that will maintain these areas as open space in perpetuity? As an
alternative to conservation easements attached to the deeds of the four
shoreline lots, the dedication of a strip of land abutting the bay for general
public use should be investigated. These issues should be discussed in
greater detail in the DEIS.
600.5 (g) (1) -- Whenever possible. (!se nonstructural measures to
minimize~amage to natural resources and property From flooding and
erosion. . -
(i)
~ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Such measures shall include:
the setback of buildings and~sSructures;
the planting of vegetation and the installation of sand f~ncing
and drainage systems;
the reshaping of bluffs~ and
the floodrproofing of buildings or their elevation above che base
flood level. '
The DEIS should discuss the possibility of relocating the building
envelopes of lots 20-23 outside the lO0-year flood plain even if it requires a
reduction of lot sizes. This reduction would fit well with Alternative Plan
III.
600.5 (h) (5) -- Best management practices will be utilized to minimize
the non-point discharge of excess nutrients, organics and eroded soils
into coastal waters. '
It's stated on page 4-4 of the revised DEIS that an erosion and sediment
control plan will be implemented in order to protect wetlands and other areas
of the site. Adhering to this plan will be especially important in the
western section of the development where slopes are steepest. This plan, or
at least a preliminary form of this plan should be incorporated into the DEIS.
Regarding alternatives to the chosen plan, it would make more sense
environmentally to pursue Alternative iii because of the greater sensitivity
of tidal wetlands to lot development as opposed to the recently abandoned
farmland of the open space area in Section II. This alternative would allo~
for the establishment of an open space corridor between lots 17-20 and the
Little Peconic Bay shoreline.
The DEIS should give greater consideration to reduced density
alternatives. Have plans for a reduced number of lots on the property been
investigated?
The fertilization of lawns and non-native vegetation is the source of
large quantities of nitrogen and other nutrients ~n the soil and groundwater.
Native vegetation should be retained to the maximum extent possible and used
in landscaping plans for this development, and the use of fertilizers and
pesticides for lawn treatments should be prohibited. These restrictions
should be addressed further in the DEIS.
We have a comment concerning the discussion of page 4-1 of the 19.5 acres
of open space planned for the Main Bayview Road frontage. The farmland is
unlikely to remain in a meadow condition for long unless it is farmed or
maintained as such by artificial means. Because of natural plant succession,
the agricultural character of this open space area will not be retained.
We hope the above comments will be of assistance to the Town of Southold
and to involved state agencies in the review of this DEIS. If there are any
questions about these comments, please call me at (518) 474-3642.
Enclosure
MC:ng
cc:NYS DEC Region I - Robert Greene
Suffolk County De~rtment of
Sincerely,
Michael Corey -
Senior Environmental Analyst
Coastal Management Program
(with enclosure)
Health Services - Robert DeLuca (with enclosure)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
PATRICK G. HALPIN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
]40V 3 0
SOUTHOLD TOWN
PLANNING BOARD
DAVID HARRIS, M.D., M.P.H.
COMM~SS~ON£R
November 28,1988
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11791
RE:
Aneel Shores, Draft Envfl:onmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Revision of October 1988
SCTM #: 1000-88-06-1,4 & 5 ''
Dear Chairman Orlowski:
The Suffolk,.County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) has reviewed the above-
referenced DEIS revision. With the exception of the expanded Archeological Report, the
document appears to reflect few material changes and does not respond to many of the issues
raised previously in our conmnent letter of August 15, 1988.
· .As. a result, we remain concerned with the inability of the proposed action and alternatives to
mmumze potential adverse environmental impacts, and adequately protect the site's most
sensitive natural features.
Also, we continue to be concerned with the document's portrayal of pot.ential wildlife
impacts and mitigation measures to protect the site's wildlife resources·
An outline of the outstanding concerns and recommendations 6f our agency ,are provided
below. Additional details may be found in our original commment lette~ which is attached for
your convenience.
Letter tO Bennett Orlowski
November 28, 1988
Page 3
Re commendations
The document does not appear to address any of our agency's recommendations pertaining to
subdivision design and increased natural resources protection.
B. Assessment of Environmental Impacts
Wildlife
The document continues to suggest that the majority of wildlife species displaced by the
proposed action will return to the site after construction, and that the site's proposed open
space will provide enough habitat to accommodate the majority of displaced species (pp. 3-5,
4-1).
It remains our position that the proposed action will eliminate breeding opportunities for many
species found on-site and that surrounding areas are likely to be limited in their ability to
accept species displaced from the subject property.
C. _A~tematives ' ~'
We note that the cover letter attached to the DEIS indicated that no additional alternative
design information is addressed in the DEIS revision. We, therefore, cannot address this
section of the document at this time.
We continue to recommend, however, that the public acquisition and modified cluster
alternatives receive further discussion as requested in our original comment letter. All such
discussion should be in detail sufficient for comparative assessment.
- Iff.' S LPvlMARY
We believe the revised DEIS does not fully respond to the to the previously stated concerns
and recommendations of our agency.
As a result, we do not believe the current document provides information necessary to
develop a plan which minimizes potential environmental impa~ts t,o the greatest degree
practicable, as directed by SEQRA.
Letter to Bennett Orlowski
November 28, 1988
Page 2
I. SANITARy CODE
A. SCDHS Jurisdiction and Article VI Application Statu:;
Our agency has not received an application for realty development as required by the Suffolk
County Sanitary Code.
B. Comprehensive Review
The DEIS does not provide sufficient information
requirements of our agency for the subject action.
II. NATURAL RESOURCES
Wildlife Habitat
pertaining to the regulations and
TI~ DEIS does not discuss wildlife habitat fragmentation in relation to the proposed lot
configurations.
Wetlands and Slopes
The DEIS does not sufficiently address the issue of protecting sensitive natural resource areas
through the use of conservation easements, rather than maintaining such areas as dedicated
open space.
We believe that conservation easements are often difficult to enforce and that sensitive areas
are better protected through open space dedication.
Waterfront Lots
We note that several of the site's waterfront lots are largely within a designated flood hazard
area. We continue to stress that such areas are highly dynamic and subject to coastal erosion
hazards. Because such hazards can result in extensive damage to property from natural and
manmade forces, we remain concerned about the approval of' residential lots within such
areas.
Letter to Bennett Orlowski
November 28, 1988
Page 4
We appreciate the opportunity to review this project. Should you have any ftuestions of
concerns, please feel free to contact the Office of Ecology at 548-3060.
RSD/amf
cc: ¥ito Minei, P.E.
Louise Harrison
Stephen Costa, P.E.
Charles Lind, SC Planning Dept.
Robert Greene, NYSDEC
Charles Hamilton, NYSDEC
George Stafford, NYSDOS
attachment
Sincerely,
Robert S. DeLuca
Biologist
Office of Ecology
195 Midway
Southhld, NY 11971
December 5, 1988
Legislator Gregory
11 West 2nd Street
Riverhead, NY 11901
Blass
Dear Legislator Blass:
The planned Angel Shores development on Hog Neck in
Southold which will have a common water system with the
Cove condominiums 9ontinues to trouble me greatly.
It makes sense that continuous well drawing of large
amounts of ground water causes dislocations in the water
table and in low lying areas salt water can rush in and
take ~ts place. This has occured in ~lorida in the ~er-
glades, along the South Shore of Long Island, and perhaps
even in the Bay Haven development. A good well at the
home of Mr. George Dussol (deceased) on Bay Haven Lane was
"spoiled" by salt water. Residents of Terry Waters and
Bay Haven have legitimate fears of salt water intrusion..
The two wells at Angel Shores have the capacity to pump 60
gallons per minute of ground water for 83 units of neb
housing on Hog Neck, and the effect is not predictable.
More people living along the short stretch of road
from the Cove to Angel Shores must affect the ~ of
ground water. In periods of heavy rain, sewage, pesticides,
fertilizers, road run-off containing hydrocarbons and met-
talic materials could enter the a~uifer and eventually run
into Peconic Bay. Don't we have enough trouble with the ~
Bay ~ow?
The eco-system of Hog Neck is fragile, fluid, and
unpredictable. It seems obvious that the area from the
Cove to Angel Shores is one large water system and must be
managed as one for all residents of the community.
I urge you to recogn~ the continuous dsgradation
of the Long Island environment and to help us minimize the
development at Angel Shores.
Very truly yours,
DOt{OTHY A. PHILLIPS
Dorot'hy A. Phillips
195 Midwey
Soufhold, New York 1197]
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
RICHARD G. WARD
Chairman
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
]'OWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO:
Southold Town Trustees
FROM:
RE:
Melissa Spiro, Planner~
Angel Shores
SCTM# 1000-88-6-1, 4 & 5
DATE: June 27, 1996
! have reviewed the request from Robert Jenkins of Doroski's Nursery, in
regard to cleaning the under brush, vines, bramble bushes and dead
debris from the park area of the above mentioned subdivision.
I recommend that if the Trustees allow the developer to proceed with the
proposed work that such work be allowed to be done by hand only, and
not by tractor. In addition, as per the Declaration of Covenants and
Restrictions recorded as a condition of subdivision approval, there is to
be no clearing of trees or disturbance of natural soils within the park
area.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above.
cc: Bruce Loucka, CAC
Telephone
(516) 765-1801
Town Hall. 5309.5 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New York 11971
SOUTHOLD TOWN
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
At' the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held
MONDAY, JUNE 2q, 1996 the following recommendation was made:
WR-39
Moved by Allan Connell, seconded by Robert Keith, it was
RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees
DISAPPROVAL of the Waiver Request of Doroski Nursery for ANGEL SHORES
88-6-~ F. 13.1 to clear the underbrush, vines, bramble bushes and dead debris
from park area.
The CAC recommends disapproval of the waiver request and suggest the
project go through the Wetland Application process and the an appropriate
description of the location be supplied.
Bayview Road, Southold
Vote of Council: Ayes: All
Motion carried.
DOROSKI NURSERY INC.
LANDSCAPE AND DESIGN
SEED, SOD AND NURSERY STOCK
NORTH ROAD AND ACKERLY POND LANE
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971
765-3672
Southold Town Board of
Main Road
Southold, N. Y. 11971
Dear Board Members;
Trustees
June
1996
This letter is in reference to the park area
at Angel Shores on Bayview Road, Southold, N. Y..
The developer would like to clean the under
brush, vines, bramble bushes and dead debris from
this area.
A small tractor would be used to perform this
work. This area is within 75' of the Bay. No
live trees, cedars or other desirable natural
vegetation will be disturbed.
Please consider this a request for permission
to do the work.
Contractors for:
/~espectfully su~bmitted,
Doroski's Nursery, Inc.
Theodore & Angela Laoudis
Main Bayview Road
Southold, N. Y. 11971
Identification Number 1-4738-00831/00'~01_0
Name of Action Angel Shores Subdivision
CERTIFICATION Of FINDINGS TO APPROVE/FUND/UNDERTAKE
Having considered the draft and Final ElS, and having considered the preceding written ;acts and
conctumons relied upon to meet the requirements of 6 NYCRR 517.9, this Statement of Findings
certifies that:
1. The.requirements of 8 NYCRR Part 517 have eeen met;
2. Consistent with the social, economic and other essential considerations from among the
reasona01e alternatives thereto, the action approved is one Which minimizes or avoids adverse
environmental effects to the maximum extent practica01e: including the effects disclosed in the
environmental impact statement, and
3. Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent
practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement
process will be minimized or avoided by incorborating as conditions to the decision those
mitigative measures which were identified as practicable.
4. (and. if applicable) Consistent with tt~e applicable policies of Article ,~2 of the Executive Law,
as implemented by 19 NYCRR 600.5, this action ,,viii act~ieve a balance between the protection
of the environment and the need to accommodate social and economic considerations.
NYSDEC
Environmental Analyst 2
N~$DEC Bldg. 40, SUNY Ston7 Brook,
David DeRidder
3/24/94
11790-2356
OR
CERTIFICATION OF FINDINGS TO DENY
Having considered the Draft and Final E~S, and having considered the preceding written facts and
conclusions relied upon to meet the requirements of 8 NYCRR 617.9, this Statement of Findings
certifies that:
1. The reduirements of 5 NYCRR Psrt 817 have not been met;
2. Consistent wit~ the soo;al, economic and other essential considerations from among the
reasona01e alternatives thereto, the action denied is one which fails to adeduately minimize
or avoid adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable; and/or
3. Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent
practicaPle, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement
process cannot be adeouately mmimized or avoided =y the mitigation measures identified
as practicable.
4. (and. if apoticabte) Consistent with the amolicaole ~ciicies of Article 4'2 of the Executive Law,
as imolemented by ~9 NYCRR 800.5. this action will not aceouately achieve a balance between
the protection of the environment amp the need to accommodate social and economic con-
siderations.
c: Other Involved Agenmes and the Aooticant
817.21
Appendix I
State Environmental Quality Review
FINDINGS STATEMENT
Pursuant :o Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act--SEQR) oI
Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617, the NYSDEC
as lead or involve(3 agency, makes the following findings.
Name of Action:
Angel Shores Subdivision, Sections I and II
Descdptlon of Action: Subdivision of 92.74 acres into 49 residential lots including
required roads, recharge facilities, 0.6 acre park site and incorporates retention
of open space (including wetlands and unique habitats) through clustering/lot size
reduction. The project utilizes a community water supply and on-site sanitary
disposal systems.
Location: (Include street address and the name ofthe municipality and count.)
South side of Main Bayview Road, west of Cedar Beach Road, on Hog Neck, Southold,
Suffolk County.
Agency Judsdlctlon($): Article 25: Tidal Wetlands
Article 24: Freshwater Wetlands
within
Date Final ElS Filed:
September 30, 1991
Facts and Conclusions in the EtS Retied UI3on to Support the Decision:
(Attach a~itional sheets, as necessa~)
Angel Shores Section t includes NYS regulated freshwater wetlands and tidal wetlands
With regard to lots 47 and 48, portions of which are within I00 feet of regulated
freshwater wetlands, the "limit of clearing" areas are at or greater than 100 feet
from the wetland which should provide the needed buffer to proeect the resource.
Any future activity, within 100 feet of the regulated freshwater wetland requires
individual filings for NYSDEC permits. This requirement also pertains to the 1.7
acre "Water Facility Site" which is within the freshwater wetland jurisdictional
area. With regard to Lots 41,42,43, 44~5 and 46, which are all within the NYSDEC
Tidal Wetlands jurisdiction, a permanent "Conservation Easement Limit Line" has
been established to ensure that no disturbance to natural vegetation is to take plat?
100 feet landward of the tidal wetland boundary. Ail development on these lots
requires individual filings for NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Permits and must meet
applicable development standards.
617.2.1
Appendtx {
State Environmental Quality Review
FINDINGS STATEMENT
Pursuant to Article 8 (Stats Environmental Quality Review Act--SEC
Conservation Law and 8 NYCRR Part 617, the NYSDEC
as lead or involvecl agency, makes the following findings.
Name of Action.'
Angel Shores Subdivision, Sections I and II
Descdptlon of Action: Subdivision of 92.74 acres into 49 residential lots including
required roads, recharge facilities, 0.6 acre park site and incorporates retention
of open space (including wetlands and unique habitats) through clustering/lot size
reduction. The project utilizes a community water supply and on-site sanitary
disposal systems.
Location: (Inctude street address and the name of the municipality and county.)
South side of Main Bayview Road, west of Cedar Beach Road, on Hog Neck, Southold,
Suffolk County.
Agan~fJudsdictton(s): Article 25: Tidal Wetlands
Article 24: Freshwater Wetlands
Date Final EtS Filed:
September 30, 1991
within
Facts and Conclusions in the ElS Relied Upon to Suppo~ the Decision:
(Attac~ additional s~eets, as necessary)
Angel Shores Section t includes NYS regulated freshwater wetlands and tidal wetlands!.
With regard to lots 47 and 48, portions of which are within ]00 feet of regulated :
freshwater wetlands, the "limit of clearing" areas are at or greater than 100 feet
from the wetland which should provide the needed buffer to proOect the resource.
Any future activity, within 100 feet of the regulated freshwater wetland requires
individual filings for NYSDEC permits. This requirement also pertains to the 1.7
acre "Water Facility Site" which is within the freshwater wetland jurisdictional
area. With regard to Lots 4],42,43, 44,~5 and 46, which are all within the NYSDEC
Tidal Wetlands jurisdiction, a permanent "Conservation Easement Limit Line" has
been established to ensure that no disturbance to natural vegetation is to take placb
100 feet landward of the tidal wetland boundary. Ail development on these lots
requires individual filings for NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Permits and must meet
applicable development standards.
Identification Number 1-4738-00831/00-0D.I-0
Name of Action Angel Shores Subdivision
CERTIFICATION OF FINDINGS TO APPROVE/FUND/UNDERTAKE
Having considered the Draft and Final ElS, and having considere -
oonc!usions relied upon to meet The r=,-,-;-~-- . ....... .idthefrecedmgwntten facts and
certifes that- . -.~-=-,ente of o l'~fL, dR o17.9, this S atement of Findings 1. The. ragu rements of 6 NYCRR Pat/ 817 have been met;
2. Consistent with the social, economic and other essential considerations from among the
reasonable alternatives thereto, the action approved is one Which minimizes or avoids adverse
environmenta effects to the maximum extent practicable; including the effects disclosed in the
environmental imbact statement, and
3. Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent
practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement
process will be minimized or avoided by incorporating as conditions to the decision those
mitigative measures which were identified as practicable.
4. (anq, if applicable) Consistent with the applicable policies of Article 42 of the Executive Law,
as implemented by lg NYCRR 600.5, this action will achieve a balance between the protection
of the environment and the need to accommodate social and economic considerations.
N¥SDEC
Environmental Analyst 2
David DeRidder
3/24/94
N~$DEC Bi~0, SUNY Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356
OR
CERTIFICATION OF FINDINGS TO DENY
Having considered the Draft and Final ElS, and having considered the preceding written facts and
conclusions relied upon to meet the reduirements of 6 NYCRR 617.9, this Statement of Findings
certifies that:
1. The requirements of 6 NYCRR Par~ 617 have not been met;
2. Consistent wit~ the soo;al, economic and other essential considerations from among the
reasonable alternatives thereto, the action denied is one which fails to adequately minimize
or avoid adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable; and/or
3. Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent
practicanie, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact Statement
process cannot be aCeouatety mmimized or avoided by the mitigation measures identified
as oracticanle.
4. (and. if aColicaDle) Consistent with the aooticable 2olicies of Article 42 of the Executive Law,
as ~mcleme, ,.~d by ;9 NYC~R 800.5, this action will not adequately achieve a balance between
the protection of the environment and the need .*o accommodate social and economic con-
siderat[ons.
c: Other Involved Agencies and t,~e Aooticant
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
George Ritchie Latham, Jr.
Richard G. Ward
Mark S. McDonald
Kenneth L. Edwards
Telephone (516) 765-1938
William D. Moore
Moore & Moore
P.O. Box 23
Mattituck, New York
T~lvn
r0WN OF SOUTHOL[
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
March 24, 1993
~TI'L. HARR1S
Supe~isor
I1, 53095 Main Road
'.O. Box 1179
d, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
11952
RE:
Major Subdivision
Angel Shores
SCTM~ 1000-88-6-1,
4 & 5
Dear Mr. Moore:
In confirmation of the discussion which took place at the
Planning Board's March 15, 1993 work session which was attended
by both Harvey Arnoff and yourself, please find the following:
Condition H(2) of the Planning Board's April 27, 1992
conditional preliminary approval states that "No
bulkheading shall be permitted on any shorefront
area."
It is not the Planning Board's intent to limit
bulkheading should a future emergency situation
occur requiring the installation of such protective
measures. In the event that such situation does occur
and there is good cause shown that there is a need for
bulkheading, the Planning Board and other permitting
agencies will entertain the appropriate application(s)
for such construction.
The Planning Board is not in favor of revising the
clearing restrictions contained in Condition E of the
conditional preliminary approval.
Upon compliance with the conditions
the Planning Board will proceed with the
subdivision review.
of preliminary approval
final stage of
Please contact this office if you have any questions
regarding the above.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Ward
Chairman
cc:l Harvey A. Arnoff, Town Attorney
~ John M. Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Trustees
September 28, 1988
Mr. Frank KuJawski, Jr., Deputy Supervisor
To~n of Southold
Town Hall, Main St.
~outhold, N.Y. 11971
Dear Mr. KuJawski:
As a resident, taxpayer and voter in the Town of Southold, I am seriously
concerned with the critical groundwater and environmental situation existing
in the Great Hog Neck area. At the present time, we are confronted wfth
the dangerous plan to pump water to the Cove Development as well as the
Angel Shores Development° This pumping is to be done from our already
fragile ground water aquifiero
The pumping station is located immediately to the East of c~r Terry Waters
community and abuts both fresh water and salt water wetlands.
We have had little or no opportunity to present our views on the permit
granted for this pumping station. It is imperative that our concerns be
given full and ~mmediate consideration by you.
Should the approval to pump water be granted, we must have guarantees in
the form of Surety Bonds to ensure that when this occurs we will have a
continued adequate and high quality supply of fresh water at no cost to USo
I will appreciate your immediate reply in connection ~th this matter.
Cor
Home Address:
405 Longview Lane
Southold, New York 11971
516-765-3406
Re. Angel Shores
and The Cove Development
As a resident, taxpayer and voter in gouthold Town, I am deeply
concerned with the critical groundwater and environmental situa-
tion throuhout the Great Hog Neck area. At present, we are confront-
ed with the dangerous plan to pump our watem to the Cove develop-.
ment and the proposed Angel Shores development from our already fragile
ground water aquifier.
The pumping station is located immediately to the East of our Terry
Waters community and abuts both fresh water and salt water wetlands.
We have had little or no opportunity to present our views on the permit
granted for this pumpin~ station. It is imperative that our concerns
be given full and immediate consideration by you.
Should the approval to punp the water be granted, we must have guaran-
tees in the form of surety bonds to ensure that when this occurs we
will have a continued adequate and high quality supply of'fresh water
at no cost to us.
I/We .await your i~medza~e reply.
Sincerely,
I am a citizen, living in the Ferry Water section of Great
l~3 ?~eck , and nm a~azed theft Tine Angel Shores Develop-
ment appears about to draw large amounts of water to
supply ~ts two sec%ions , and to supply The new Cove Develop-
m~nt; via an 8" waler ma~n to that site.
My house is next to ~ngel Shores, and I have Found that salt
wa~er intrusion is already occurring in some of the shore
properties around Angel Shore.
Please try to have this situation investigated , and see that
excessive water dra~vinO from Angel Shores does not effect the
water supply of my neighbors and myself.
Thank you,
Charles E. Rowan
740 Longwiew Lane
Southold~ N. Y. 11971
765-1022
Mr. and Mrs. John K.
]085 Rambler Road
Southold, N.Y. 11977
Co~mo~s
September o0, ~98~
Re: Angel Shores and The Cove Development
Mr. Frank Kujawski, Jr.
Southold Town Hall
Main
S~uthold, N.Y. ~197i
Deputy Supervisor
Dear Deputy Supervisor Kujawski, Jr.
As a resident taxpayer an~ voter in Southola To~'n, i am deeply
concerned with the critical groundwater end environmental situa-
tion throughout the Great Hog Neck area. At present, we ere confront-
e~ with the dangerous plan to pump our water to the Cove develop-
ment and the proposed Angel Shores ~evelopment from our already fragile
groun~ ,~eter a~uifier.
The pumping station is located immediately to the East of our Terry
Waters community end abuts both fresh water and salt water wetlands.
We have had little or no opportunity to present our views on the permit
granted for this pumping station. It is imperative that our concerns
be given full and immediste consideration by you.
Should the approval to pump the ~ater be granted, we must have guaran-
tees in the form of surety bonds to ensure that when this occurs we
will have a con'hued adeouate and high euality supply of fresh water
at no cost to us.
We await your immediate reply~
Very truly yours~
Gigi Spates
P.0. Box 786
Southold, New York 1'1971
OO.
David Stern
N.Y.S. Legislative Commission
on Water Resource Needs of Long Island
State Office Bldg.
Veterans Highway
Hauppauge, New York 17788 re.
to Southold Town Planning Board
et~h$1~T~ Board of Tru~o
Suffolk Co. Legislator Greg-
ory Blass
Angel Shores development
November 5, 1988 ......
Dear David:
Just to remind you, I met you at the Naturalists Gathering in September
at West Hills County Park. At that time, when I talked to you about a
development proposed in my neighborhood in Southold, you suggested that
I write to you wi~h the information to locate that property. I guess
the activist-polit{cal lobbying part of that Naturalist meeting finally
struck the right chord to do just that!
Though my own concern regarding this development is both broad and deep,
covering nearly every issue a development touches on, many of the people
in my community are particularly concerned about the effects of this
development on their well water. I would appreciate your checking into
the general water quality and quantity of the Hog Neck area and in parti-
cular of the large well site recently situated on this same development
property. The development is called Angel Shores, #1 and #2, Suffolk
County Tax Map #1000-88-6-1,4 & 5, and is situated on Main Bayview Road
between Rambler Road and Sunset Lane. Angel Shores includes 92.7 acres
in two sections, #1 to be one-acre zoned and #2 to be two-acre zoned.
(By the way, the well is meant to feed both the Angel Shores development
and the existing development called The Cove, which is a 33-unit condo-
minium also on Main Bayview Road but across from Cedar Road. The pipe
between the two properties has already been laid under the street.)
I would appreciate hearing from you when you have gathered information
on this matter, and of course also, if you have any questions. I can
be reached at the following numbers:
home .... 765-1436
store .... 765-2122, ask for my husband Don
or me
I remain very concerned that Long Island citizens protect their ground-
water for private well useage in hopes that many of us will not have to
await a future municipal water supply. Real protection of our sole source
aquifer means water pure enough not to need chlorine and the other chemi-
cals added by a municipality and a density of human population limited
enough to keep the water that way.
S~ncere~ly,
P.S. Your commission's address and telephone number are on a suggested
contact list circulated in our general community.
Mr. and Mrs. Emil Sbernini
1325 Rambler Road
Southold, NY 11971
September o0 ~98~
Mr. Frank Kujawski, Jr..
Southold Town Hall
Main Road
Scuthold, N.Y. 11971
Re: Angel Shores
Deputy Supervisor
and The
Cove Development
Dear Deputy Supervisor Kujawski, Jr.
As a resident taxpayer and voter in Southol~ To~,~, I am deeply
concerned with the critical groundwater and environmental situa-
tion throughout the Great Hog Neck area. At present, we are confront-
ed with the dangerous plan to pump our water to the Cove develop-
ment and the proposed Angel Shores Development from our already fragile
ground water aquifier.
The pumping station is located immediately to the East of our Terry
Waters community and abuts both fresh water and salt water wetlands.
We have had little or no opportunity to present our views on the permit
granted for this pumping station. It is imperative that our concerns
be given full and immediate consideration by you.
Should + =
~h~ approval to pump the :eater be granted, we must have guaran-
tees in the form of surety bonds to ensure that when this occurs we
will have a con6nued adeouate and .high eualit~ supply of fresh water
at no cost to us.
We await your immediste reply.
Very truly yours,
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
$outhold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(~16) 76~-193~
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE: November 16,
MEMORANDUM
Ail involved agnecies
The Planning Board
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Angel
Shores. SCTM #1000-88-6-1,4,5.
1988
The following action was taken by the Southold Town
Planning Board on Monday, November 14, 1988.
RESOLVED that the $outhold Town Planning Board take a
thirty (30) day extension for reviewing the Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Statement from December 2, 1988 to January
2, 1989.
A determination as to completeness will be made on
December 19, 1988 as this is the last meeting within the thirty
(30) days. Please respond before December 19, 1988 on the
completeness of this document or let this office know if you
need more time for review.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact this office.
Copies mailed to:
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
NYS Department of Environmental conservation
Thomas C. Jorling, DEC Commissioner
Board of Trustees~/~
David Emilita
Judith Terry, Town Clerk
March , 1992
Mr. John Bredemeyer
President
Southold Town Board of Trustees
Town Hall
Main Street
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Mr. Bredemeyer:
,I'OWN OF SOUTHOLD
Please accept the enclosed petition from Southold
relatively near the proposed "Angel Shores" development
project.
Those who signed the petition are extremely
concerned about their supply of fresh water.
We urge you and the other trustees to act favorably
on our concerns and add this petition to the official
records of the "Angel Shores" proposals.
Sincerely,
Property Owner
1715 Sunset Lane PO Box 882
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Dec 20, 1991
Board of Trustees
Town of Southold
Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971
REF: ANGEL SHORES DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Gentlemen:
We the undersigned request your attention to that segment of
the Angel Shores final DEIS dealing with the supply of drinking
intrusion into the wells of surrounding properties (or to the
South of the site). This concern is already part of the DEIS
but is dealt with in probabilities and possibilities.
Nowhere are there any absolutes when it comes to this question.
The State Environmental Agency says it is not likely,
but seemingly condradict themselves by stating, should this occur,
people who have lived here (on the bay) for 10, 20 or 30-years
without salt water instusion must prove to the state that is as a
result of excessive draw down rather then natural causes.
On page 26 of the DEIS report, in response to Comment 33,
it states, "Groundwater quantity according the NYSDEC study is
harder to define than water quality problems because there are
no numerical standards. However, significant changes to an area
such as over-pumping, or a low water table can cause saltwater
intrusion, the drying up of surrounding wetlands, impact to
private wells and the reduction of surface water."
On page 36 in response to Comment 5, it states: A change
in the elevation of the water table caused by natural or pumping
interface. This situation is not expected to occur as a result of
the water supply site at Angel Shores due to the minimal drawdown
however, excessive pumping at a high rate may cause upcoming of
salt water into the fresh water lense."
-1-
On page 30 it is further stated that freshwater reserves
on the Great Hog Neck area must be conserved due to the limited
supply as related to the elevation of grownwater above
sea level.
The claim to protect against excessive drawn down at peak
periods by mechanical means makes no allowance for human error,
mechanical failure, drought, etc. Nor does it define "excessive"
or "peak periods" What protection is there against continual non-
stop pumping? Rules and regulations to be imposed on the would
be home owners are probably unenforcable or does not allow
for capitulation by the town because of lawsuits or the fac~
that the property won't sell with such restrictions.
We feel it encumbent upon this town and its Board of Trustees
to guarantee continuing supply of non-salt water to the
taxpayers of long standing. The means for doing this is simple.
If as stated, it is not likely to occur, then the town should
be willing to offer this guarantee. Either pose a bond as has
been suggested, or if it occurs hook these people up to the
pumping station without charge.
We the under signed property ownere request your urgent
attention to this matter.
Regards,
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
August 16, 1988
Theodore Laoudis
226 Getty Avenue
Patterson, NJ 0750'3
RE: Angel Shores
SCTM g1000-88~6-1,4,5
Dear Mr. Laoudis:
The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning
Board on Monday, August 15, 1988.
The Planning Board reviewed the proposed Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the project'referenced above. It was
determined that the document is incomplete, and therefore,
unacceptable for public review and comments.
Please correct the insufficiencies in the draft that are
noted in the enclosed letters and memoranda from David Emilita,
the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Town
Planner.
If you hav~ any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
this office.
Enc:
cc: Board of Trustees
jt
Suffolk County Dept. Health Services
NYS DEC - Stony Brook & Albany
David Emilita
Moore & Moore, Esq.
Charles Beckert
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Planning Board
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
August 15, 1988
Review of Angel Shores DEIS
Page 1-1
Page 2-22
Page2-27
Page 2-33
Page 2-56
The DEIS states that the proposal is preserving much
of the environmentally sensitive areas of the parcel.
The layout proposed shows most of the open space as
being contained in Section 2, which is not as
environmentally sensitive as the area within Section 1.
Is the~proposed plan indeed preserving as much of the
environmentally sensitive areas as it could?
Freshwater wetlands are under the jurisdiction of the
NYSDEC. DEIS states that they are only under the
jurisdiction of the Town.
A map showing the exact location of the wells must be
included to correctly identify the area to be protected
as required by the Health Department.
The water supply is provided for the use of 210 people
at 84 units. This is 2.5 people per unit. Is this a
realistic figure? How does this compare with the data
on page 3-25, for 3 and 4 bedroom houses that is used
to calculate potential'number of school age children
that may be generated by this subdivision?
The Archaeological Project concludes that the site
is in a potentially sensitive area. They recommend that
a Stage 1 analysis be performed. This needs to be done
before the DEIS is deemed complete.
The DEIS does ~6t discuss the traffic impact that will be
caused by using the connector streets (Rambler Road, Little
Peconic Bay Lane).
The DEIS does not address the zone of influence of the proposed
wells for the Cove and Angel Shores and their potential for
impact on the adjoining private wells of lots in Cedar Beach
(along Peconic Bay) and the subdivision next door~ What
mitigation measures are proposed in the event these wells are
impacted?
Road access for Lots 29, 30, and 31 ~s over a private
right-of-way. Each of these lots fronts on this private
right-of-way. No evidence was presented as to whether the
applicant has a legal right to use this right-of-way.
SCDHS August 15, 1988 report
Fin~ document incomplete
David Emilita, SAI August 11,
1988 repor~
Fin~ document incomplete
Joe Hall, DEC, July 19, 1988 report
Asks for additional information
Trustees July 27, 1988 report
Stat~ that the Third alternative would be the best besides
the no action alternative.
Frank Panak, DEC-Stony Brook July 28, 1988 report
Comments
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & PLANNERS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Southold Town Planning Board
David~.Emilita, Szepatowski Associates,
Angel Shores DEIS
August 11, 1988
Inc.
We have reviewed the DEIS for the Angel Shores subdivision
proposal dated May 1988 and find that it is not acceptable for
review due to the lack of information on the archaeological
resources that may be present on the site. This was an item
listed on the scoping checklist and the explanation of lack of
information on pages 2 - 56 of the DEIS is not sufficient to'
begin review of the draft.
Three additional concerns arise that are basic to establishing'--
the overall yield of the project, initially in Section I. The
first is an accurate depiction of mean high water on Peconic Bay
for its entire frontage including the out parcel N/F Vanderbeek.
An "approximate high waterline" is unacceptable. Land below mean
high water cannot contribute to lot yield. Reference to the 1929
NGVD is a requirement for topographic flood analysis on this
site. The'FEMA flood zones should also .be superimposed on all
subdivision alternatives for flooding evaluation.
Secondly, the area containing the water supply well, described as
Lots 1 and 2 in the text, needs to be shown on the yield plan
(Alternate II Sketch Plan). A site plan, the one shown on page
3b of Appendix A of the DEIS would be acceptable if drawn
clearly, should be placed on the appropriat~ location on the
subdivision plan. This would place the proper perspective on.the
amount of land, structure, and site improvement being devoted to
water supply in the subdivision. We do not note any action taken
under SEQR for the community well or distribution system. This
also needs to be included in the DEIS before it can be deemed
complete.
23 Narragansett Ave. .Jamestown, RI 02835 (401) 423-0430
Thirdly, neither wetlands nor open water are calculable as
contributing to yield, nor can these areas contribute to the
minimum lot area required under zoning or subdivision control in
Southold. Alternate II Sketch Plan, being the yield map, needs
to be re-drawn with no wetlands or open water contributing to
minimum lot area.
We would advise the Board not to accept the submitted DEIS, but
transmit these findings to the applicant and request that either
a newly completed draft or an addendum be submitted containing
the information requested above. We can then assess the
submission for completion. We will wish to make substantive
comments on the accepted DEIS.
If Section'II is still intended to be a spoils deposition site
for dredge material as stated in Trustees Application ~621, then
this needs to be included in the DEIS. It was not mentioned in
the submitted draft. Coordination with the Board of Trustees is
needed on this point. If this is still contemplated, an
additional scoping meeting will be needed to define the issues to
be addressed in an expanded DEIS. We have been verbally advised
by the applicant's engineer that spoils deposition has been
abandoned but to dispel any confusion, a statement needs to be
made for the record.
SZEPATOwSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & PLANNERS
NEW YORK STATE DEPART~NT OF EN¥1£~'NMENTAL CONSERVA
CE SPEED MEMO
' FOR UNOFFICIAL
=SPONDENCE)
DATE RETURNED:
REPLY AT BOTTO~ OF THIS FORM
TOWN OF SO~I1OLD
Town tlall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
To:
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
From:
Frank A. Kujawski, Jr., President
Town Trustees
Re:
Angel Shores & Marina Bay Club
Date: July 27, 1988
MARINA BAY CLUB - Investigate providing a portion of the project
for Marine Commercial and/or Fishing Industry consistent with
State Grant of underwater land on the site.
ANGEL SHORES - The Third alternative would be the best besides
the no action alternative.
KF
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Building 40--SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11794
(516) 751-7900
Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
Southold, NY 3~9~1
R__E: DEIS for-~Angel Shores
Dear Mr. Orlows~i:
July 28, 1988
$OUTHOLD TOY.~N
PI-ANNING
Thomas C. Jorli
Commissioner
The natural resources staff of the Department of Environmental
Conservation has reviewed the above referenced project and has the
following comments.
1)
It is incorrectly stated on pg. 2-22 that the two (2)
· freshwater wetlands on the property are only under the
jurisdiction of the So[ithold Trustees. Both wetlands
appear on the department,s tentative freshwater wetland
map for Suffolk Cottnty and consequently regulated by
the State. Any development occurring within 100 ft. of
the wetland boundary will require a permit from this
agency. The developer ~hould contact the Bureal~ of
Environmental Protection ~o arrange
and bozndary delineation.
for a field inspection
2)
It appears that the northern wetland does not lie wholly
within the open space as stated on pg. 3-5. The western
boundary of this wetland extends ~nto lot #3 and the
eastern boundary abuts lot #2. The 75 ft. undisttlrbed
natural buffer discussed oil pg. 3-1 should be maintained
around all wetlands. A temporary snow fence should be
erected at the landward edge of the b~lffer to prevent
intrusion of construction equipment and debris into
the wetland.
3)
There are ~1o species of endangered or threatened
wildlife regulated by the department pursuant to 6NYCR'R'
Part 182 on the project site. The two avian species of
endangered wildlife nesting on the nearby beaches will not
be affected by the project. The closest nesting site for
the terns (Sterna antillarum) and plovers (Charadrius
melo~us) is 2500 ft. east of the project.
·
Bennett Orlowski~ ~r.
5)
Similarly, the nesting
at Cedar Beach 3000 ft.
affected·
site for osprey (Pandion haliaecus)
to the east, should not be
On page 2-21, the applicant notes that white-tailed deer
(Odocoilel~s virginianus) frequents tile site but is
prest:med not to live oil the property. There is nc basis
for th£8_ d_eterminatlon. The area may well provide
habitat critical for maintenance of the local population.
The department is concerned that oD%Il space
is prcposed for the least environmentally sensitive
1~,~ cn ~he prcject site. Sectlon I lots near the po/ids
and between the ~'
~ld~l wetlands should be removed to the
opel1 space section 2 We reco~]mend *~ *
· ~..a~ Lots ;2, =o and
#17 be relocated. The developer shc'dl~ prepare all
alternative providing preservatio~l of open space in
Section i.
FMF: rr
cc: Paul Carella, FWL
Joe Hall, DRA
Lo~_~isa Harrison, SCDHS
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
PATRICK G. HAt. PIN
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DAVID HARRIS, M.D., M,P.H.
CO~.~SS~ONE.
August 15, 1988
Mr. Bennett Orlow~k~,"-C3~man
Town of Southold-Planning Board
53095 Ma~n Road
Southold, New York 11791
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
The Suffolk County Department of Health - ·
the above-referenced DEIS =~,~ ~-'--~ £= ~ ~e .r~ces S~CDHS) has reviewed
. . ~.~ ~ Lne aocument /~leter and therefore,
inappropriate for the purposes of decision making. As w~ uDderstand it, the
DEIS was suk~itted as part of the preliminary application, and may not hav~
received a Positiv~ Declaration pursuant to the State En%-ironmental Quality
Review Act (SEQRA) . We believe the potential negative ernriror~ental impacts
are of a sufficient magnitude to re.quire a positive determination of
significance, and recommend such a determination if it has not yet been
We are concerned primarily with the inability of the proposed action
and alternatives to minimize potential adverse ehvironmental impacts, and
adequately protect the site's most ensltlve natural ,fgatures.
We also are concerned with the document,s assumptions about impacts
on and mitigation measures to protect the site's resident and transitory
wildlife.
The specific concerns and recc~nendations of our department regarding
the requirements of the Suffolk County Sanitary Cod~ *(SCSC) and our
environmental review of the proposed action are provided below.
I. SANITAR~ CODE
A. SCDHS Jurisdiction and Article VI Appli~tion Statu:~
The SCDHS maintains jurisdiction over the final location of sanitary
disposal and water supply distribution systems. The applicant, therefore,
should not undertake the construction of or connection to .either system
without Health Department approval. ~.~.
Letter to Bennett Orlowski
August 15, 1988
Page 2
Our agency has not received an application for realty development
appro%-al as required by Article VI of the SCSC. It is impossible, therefore,
to provide technical c~l,~nts regardLng the proposed action.
Based on the 1/mlted information nrovided it
confoxm to the ~-:~-- ' - = , =Fp=~ ~ pro]ec~ can
~=~uy requirements of t_he SCSC. We rec~,L~_nd, however, that
the project sponsor submit a application to our agency's Bureau of
Wastewater Management at the earliest possible date so a technical
evaluation can be undertaken.
The DEIS oontm~n~, limited information pertaining to the regulations and
appzuval authority of the SCDHS. As an involved agency, we believe the
omission of our requirements limits the opportunity for comprehensive
assessment of the Overall action as directed by SEQRA.
We encourage the Town to request specific discussion of the regulations
and c<~91ianoe recf,~ ~ments of our agency and other involved agencies as
part of the subject DEIS, and as part of the general scoping outline for
future proposals in the Town. A brief discussion of required approvals is
not sufficient for co~prehensive e%-aluation.
II. NA_9/3RAL AI~ CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Design and Layout
The detailed site plans provided ~th the document were helpful to our
review. We believe, however, that the proposed action and develc~m~nt
alternatives presented in the DEIS, do .not afford adequate protection of the
site's natural resources. We object to the desired lot configuration because
it prcvldes the greatest amount of contiguous open space protection for the
site's ecologically least significant area.
Wildlife Habitat
As designed, the desired action will fragment the site's most
significant upland habitat and eliminate a valuable wildlife corridor which
extends from natural areas north of M~4n Bayview Road, across the site to
the-Peconic Bay wetlands~- Field inspections by our.staff .indicate the
presence of several "deer trails "between the site's wetlands which would
be eliminated by the construction of kagoon Court and proposed lots in its
vic/nity. .
Wetlands and Slopes
Several of the lots in Section I appear to contain steep slopes and
natural drainage channels which may be subject to erosion as a result of
clearing and development. We are encouraged that many of the steepest slopes
surrounding w~tlands are proposed for conservation easement dedication. It
is our opinion, however, that such easements are often diffi~.t to enforce
and do not always assure adequate resource protection.
Letter to Bennett Orlowski
15, 1988
Page 3
Waterfront Lots
We object to the inclusion of low-lying beach areas within the
.. desig~ated.prop~_rty, b~n ~daries. of- lots 20.. through. 23... ~uc-h ar~as, are highly
dynamic and subject to coastal erosion hazards as a result of natural and
mar~aade forces. Such erosion can result in extensive d~mage to property and
natural resources. Inclusion of such areas within delineated property
boundaries often encourages structural development, which may needlessly
cc~xmand natural resource impacts and property loss due to coastal erosion.
Rec~L,~ndations
We believe 'the-proposed action should be redesigned to maximize
~esidential use ef the site's northeastern open space (Section II) and
minimize development and habitat fragmentation of the site's western half
(Section I).
Absent the opportunity for complete reconfiguration, we believe that
additional protection of the site's most sensitive natural areas could be
achieved by excluding such areas frc~a within residential lot boun~ies. We
recc~end, therefore, that at a rain/mum, all areas proposed for conservation
easement (adjacent to slopes or wetlands) be excluded frcm proposed lot
boundaries and included in the project's dedicated open space.
In addition, we recommend that boundaries for lots 20 through 23 be
redesigned to exclude ~reas seaward of the 6-foot contour line, and that
lots 2,3, 10 & 11 be considered for r~. location in an effort to maintain the
site's wildlife corridor.
B. Existin~ Envlrorm~ntal Conditions
Wildlife ' '
The document states that "the deer on-site probably don't live on the
property" (p. 2-21). We disagree. The site provides abundant food, cover,
and access to fr~sh'%rater. Although the site may se3rve ,as a single part of a
larger hc~e range, we find no reason to suspect that deer would not breed
on the subject property. In addition, the site's dense cover, southern
exposure, abundant browse material, and well worn trails suggest that the
site may be especially valuable during winter months when deer tend to
congregate in desirable habitats.
It should be pointed out that deer do not re~i~y leave chosen
wintering areas.and can be stressed significantly by loss of wintering
habitat. In addition, the conversion of chosen wintering habitat to
residential development, without protection of sufficient natural
vegetation, can present nuisancewildlif~ problems for property ownerswhose
landscaping Plants areeatenbywinteringdeer.
Vegetation
The v~getation map provided in the document provides v~u~ble natural
resource data and was helpful to our review. In addition to the species
mentioned in the document, we wish to add that a small but dense stand of
Letter to Bennett-Orlowski
August 15, 1988
Page 4
conifers (primarily Norw ...... .
northeastern ~rim~k-_~ .... ~3.?.p, ruce, Picea ab~es) exists a
~ ~,~u=~ u~ one s~e ~ ~+~ _~ ~ long the
- "~~u z~t~ ~nd.
~ a~tion to ~s ~d's S~c ~, it P~s ~e site
~ ~ed diversity of wil~ife h~itat. Dense conifer st~ often
P~ ~le ~t~ ~ for song b~ ~d ~y ~ 1~ razors
~ ~ ~ls. ~ n~e ~t lo~ ~si~ts have reposed the presence of
~ls ~ ~e ~ty of ~s p~y.
C. ~ses~t of ~ro~t~ ~a~s
Wil~ife
~ ~ ~ates ~t "~e ~jority of ~e bird s~cies presently
using the site ~ ~te a~le ~d ~ tr~i~ ~sitors o~y" ~. 3-
4). ~ ~li~ ~s ~at~t ~s ~ifi~tion.
~though ~y of the song bir~ identified on-site are season~ly
~ato~, ~ ~j~ pr~y ~estion~ly pr~s si~fi~t b~g
~itat for a ~iety of ~es. ~e site's ~e ~r, ~ of f~t
prong plus, ~d a~ss to f~sh ~ter provides si~ific~t bree~ng
~d ~t~g. habitat for bi~. ~rsion of ~s p~y to
~l~t wmll ~tu~ly el~ate ~ of ~e site's ~t~ ~si~ti~
and extirpate native birds which depend upon this ' , ~dersto~
Site s vegetative
~ties. ~st affe~ ~11 ~ ~y ~ea-s~siti~ ~cies ~ re~ire
1~ tra~s of l~d for t~ito~ e~li~t ~d b~g.
~ ~li~ ~e do~t's asses~t of fo~ ~d ~ a~l~ility
the nearby ~a ~i~s cl~ifi~tion ~. 3-4). ~e ~t ~e~s ~t
~e p~s~ of ~it~le fo~ ~d C~r ~. nearby areas will reduce long-
te~ ~pa~s to birds displaced from the s~ject property but d~s not
a~ss ~t~ti~ ~s on b~g ~ities.
~e d~t ~o~d ~fle~ ~e fa~ ~t ~si~ti~ ~l~t ~11
eliminate- breeding oP~iti~s- for ~splaced species. Other
~ltats, regar~ess of avail~le food ~d corem, .acco~odate ~f~
te~itories of s~cies-t~es found on the s~ject property, ~d in all
l~el~, ~ at ~eir ~t~ ~ ~pacities. We ~li~, ~e~fo~,
~t ~ "ne~,, ~eas are largely a~ted in their ~ility to accept
additional individuals displaced from ~ ever-increasing n~er of
~l~t p o3e~s'
Cultural Resources
The document's information pertaining to the preliminary evaluation of
the site's potential archeological significance is helpful to our
assessment. We support the findings c>f-t~e Long Island Archeologlcal
Project, which recommends a Stage I (reconnaissance and subsurface testing)
evaluation of the subject property.
We do not believe that further archeological reconna/ssance should be
conducted after project app~ ["prior to construction,, (~.~.-23) ] . Stage
I evaluations are co~,~nly requested as part of the DEIS pr~s and should
be conducted prior to any approvals. Failure to conduct a more complete
Letter to Bennett Orlowski
August 15, 1988
Page 5
sur~ey prior to approval could result in otherwise avoidable delays and
significant design alterations at the final stages of review or after
p=eliminary approval.
D. Alternatives
No Action
We believe Section I of the subject property contains numerous
sensitive natural features including diverse wetlands, wildlife habitat
c.o. rri..dors, steep slop.es, and, according to the D ·
likelihood of a~cheologlcal signlfiomn~ ~.~ = .... EIS, has the highest
--~- ,,= ~ that the natural resources
and possible cultural values of this portion of the site extend beyond the
strict property boundaries, and may be significantly reduced by the desired
action. We, therefore, would support public acquisition or significant
dedication of this portion of the site.
We encourage the Town to request that discussion of the no action
alternative be expanded to explore public acquisition or dedication for
preservation of Section I of the site.
Such a discussion should address public benefits (i.e. parkland, beach
access, open space, wildlife habitat protection, water quality benefits,
etc. ), municipal and local interest, a_nd possible funding sources to be
c~'~lete.
Full Develot~nent
The full dev~lo~_nt alternativ~ provides inadequate protection of the
site's natural resources and offers.~no.mitigation to minimize potential
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. We find this
alternative inco~'L~atible with the objectives of SEQRA and mnappropr~ate for
the subject property. '
Cluster Devel olm~ent
The proposed cluster alternative, in concept, partially addresses the
type of development design which we believe would be most appropriate for
this site. We do not believe, however, that the three lots proposed for
relocation provide sufficient mitigation to minimize the most significant
potential negativ~ environmental impacts associated with site dev~lofm~_nt'
We encourage the applicant to consider inCreasing the number of lots to
be relocated to Section II, including those outlined in 'the "Design and
Layout" section of this letter. Absent the opportunity for acquisition, ~e'
believe a clustered development design which axmmlzes use of the site's
least sensitive upland can provide far more environmental impact protection
than the desired action.
E. Additional bfiti~ation ~easure.~
a~:I_n_ a.d.dition to the above-stated concerns, we recomm
F~uanE ~ncorporate the followin~ addi~' ........ end th. at the
~ ~ m~gat~on measures into the
design of the project. Such measures should be incorporated in~'an addendum
to the DEIS and reviewed fully through appropriate SEQRA procedures.
Letter to Bennet~t Orlowskl ....
August 15, 1988
Page 6
1. A detailed landscaping plan which provides for the use of low-
maintenance and native vegetation should be prepared by the
applicant. Nativ~ species are well suited to on-site soils and can
provide valuable mitigation for project-related impacts on natum--ul
c~,~unities.
2. Ail stormwater should be m~ntained and recharged on site without
any direct discharge to surface W~ters or wetlands.
3. Conditions of Open space deal/cation should state clearly that such
areas are to remain in their undisturbed natural state and that no
clearing, filling, grading or construction shall be permitted.
We find the DEIS for the proposed action incomplete for the purpose of
infora~=d decision making and encourage the Town to request information from
the applicant which responds to the above-stated concerns of our department.
We appreciate the oDDortunit~7
· to review this project, Should you have
any questzons, please 'feel fre~ to contact the Office of Ecology at 548-
3060.
RSD/amf
Vito Minei, P.E.
Stephen Costa, P.E.
Charles Lind, SC Planning Department
Charles Hamilton, NYSDEC
George Stafford, NYSDOS
Sincerely,
R~bert S. DeLuca
Biologist
Louise W. Harrison
Supervisor
Bureau of Envirorm~ntal
Management
Office of Ecology
FRANK A. KUJAWSKI, JR., President
ALBERT J. KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President
JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III
JOHN L. BEDNOSKI, JR.
HENRY P. SMITH
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1892
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
Frank A. Kujawski, Jr., President
Town Trustees
Angel Shores & Marina Bay Club
July 27, 1988
MARINA BAY CLUB - Investigate providing a portion of the project
for Marine Commercial and/or Fishing Industry consistent with
State Grant of underwater land on the site.
ANGEL SHORES - The Third alternative would be the best besides
the no action alternative.
KF
FRANK A. KUJAWSKI, JR., President
ALBERT J. KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President
JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III
JOttN L. BEDNOSKI, JR.
HENRY P. SbllTH
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
To:
Bennett Orlowski, Chairman
Planning Board
From: Town Trustees
Re: Angel Shores D.E.I.S.
Date: June 27, 1988
TELEPHONE
(516) 765-1892
This office respectfully requests an additional 30 day extension,
regarding the D.E.I.S. for the Angel Shores project, for the
purpose of reviewing this document.
FK:ip
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
D
June 23, 1988
Southold Town Trustees
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Trustee Members:
Enclosed please find the proposed Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Angel Shores.
Your determination is needed as to whether this document
should be deemed complete and acceptable for review and public
comment. Please notify this office by July 8th as to your
position on whether the Planning Board, as lead agent, should
accept this document. If a thirty day extension of time is
needed for your determination, also inform this office by July
8th.
You will be notified in writing of the Planning Board's
decision, the acceptance date and the conclusion date of the
comment period.
CHAIRMAN
jd
WILLIAM O. MOORE
PATRICIA C. MOORE
MOOre & MOORE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
{516) 298-5674
Southold Town Trustees
Southold Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971
June 9, 1988
Re: Dredging Permit Applications/Cedar Beach,Southold
Dear Town Trustees:
We represent Mr. Theodore Laoudis who is'the project sponsor of
the proposed subdivision known as Angel Shores. Mr. Laoudis has
elected not to allow his property to be used for the deposit of
spoils from the dredging proposed by the Cedar Beach property
owners.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Vqry ~ ~r~
W~'~am~.Moore
WDM/er
cc: Theodore Laoudis
Henderson & Bodwell
Souuhold Town Planning Board
Glenn Just
DocId:060988.11
Ltd.
[NVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & PI_ANN[RS
June 6, 1988
Mr. Bennett Orlowski
Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Angel Shores Spoils Deposition
Dear Ben,
As per Val's request, we have reviewed the application before the
Board of Trustees to deposit spoil on a portion of the site of
the proposed Angel Shores subdivision. We find that the Planning
Board should be an involved agency under SEQR for this action.
We also recommend that the Board express its concern to the
Trustees that although the project (dredge spoil deposition) is
unlisted under SEQR, it would likely have a significant adverse
environmental impact, and that a Positive Declaration should be
issued by the Board of Trustees.
I have relayed this information to Val and Melissa on
have prepared a draft reply to the Trustees, attached.
contact us if you need further information.
6 June and
Please
Sincerely,
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES,
David J.S. Emilita
Principal Planner
INC.
DJSE/kb
Enclosure
423-0430
June 6, 1988
Mr. Frank A. Kujawski
Board of Trustees
David J.S. Emilita
RE: Application # 621 Cedar Beach Park
We are writing to inform you that the pending application before
the Trustees which includes spoils deposition on land of Theodore
Laoudes requires coordination with another project by Mr. Laoudes
on this same site. The other project, "Angel Shores", comprises
some 29 building lots and 19.5 a acre open space reserve. It is
also the subject of a pending EIS, which has been scoped but
which has not included a spoils deposition option.
Thus, while the Planning Board is Lead Agency on "Angel Shores",
it wishes to be an Involved Agency on Application 621. The case
vice versa would also be appropriate in our view. In its role as
an Involved Agency, the Planning Board requests that the action
before you, although unlisted under SEQR, is likely to have a
significant adverse environmental impact, and that a Positive
Declaration be prepared by your Board.
We trust this information has been conveyed to you in time for
your meeting of June 8. We are available for assistance at any
time.
Bennett Orlowski
Southold, N.Y. 11971
(516) 765-1938
June 7, 1988
Frank Kujawski,Jr. President
Board of Trudtees
RE:
Trustee Application 9621
Cedar Beach Park Association
Angel Shores Subdivision
Proposal
SCTM ~1000-88-6-4,5 and 13.6
Dear Mr. Kujawski:
The following action was taken by the $outhold Town
Planning Board on Monday, June 6, 1988.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board make a
recommendation to the Trustees regarding coordinated review of
Trustees application No. 621.
The Planning Board wishes to have a coordinated review of
the portion of Application 9621 that pertains to the deposition
of dredge spoil onto SCTM ~1000-88-6-4. The proposed location of
the deposition of dredge spoil lies within the proposed
subdivision of Angel Shores. The Planning Board, as lead agent
determined that the project would have a significant effect on
the environment on October 19, 1987. A scoping session was held
on November 9th, 1987. To date, the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement has not been submitted for review.
At the time of the scoping session for the subdivision, no
mention was made of the proposed use of a portion of the spoil
itself is an unlisted action, but one that is likely to have a
significant impact. Therefore, the Planning Board's
recommendation is that a positve Declaration be made by the
Trustees. This Board would then like to be involved in your
review under SEQRA.
Main Office:
120 EXPRESS STREET
PLAINVIEW. NEW YORK 11803 e~l~~
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
RLJSSEL
JOHN J ~~-~
STEVEN L SAMET
HALL CLARKE
JAMES DELAND
ASSOCIATES:
PALJL H ULATOWSKI
ROBERT B MEREDITH
HENDERSON AND BODWELL 120 EXPRESS STREET, PLAINVIEW, NEW YORK 11803
March 18, 1988
516-935 8870
NY FAX: 516-935-8760
N.J FAX: 201-563-1169
OH FAX: 513-398-8611
iL FAX: 312-834 0329
Mr. John M. Bredemeyer, III
President
Board of Town Trustees
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re: ~ngel Shores
Dear John:
Enclosed please find three (3) coFies of the Preliminary Plan
for Angel Shores as revised on March 16, 1988. In response
to your corresponSence of February 19, 1988 the area of Tidal
Wetlands on Lot 19 has been re-flagged, surveyed, and added
to the Map. In addition, the Freshwater Wetland Areas have
been surveyed and included on the Preliminary Plan. I would
like to reiterate our client's intent to respect the 75 foot
setback from these wetland lines.
I trust that the enclosed plans satisfy your requests during
our field inspection of 2-17-88 and your subsequent
correspondence on 2-19-88. If you need additional copies of
this plan or have any comments, please don't hesitate to
contact me.
Very truly yours,
Charles tR. Beckert, R.L.A.
CRB:hw
cc: R.S. Bodwell
T. Laoudis
Melissa Spire/Planning Board
D. Emilita/Szepatowski Assoc.
W. Moore w/Enc.
w/Enc.
w/Enc.
W4A-48 3:88
Branch Offices:
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
ELMHURST, ILLINOIS
SOMERSET, NEW JERSEY
MASON, OHIO
Main Office:
120 EXPRESS STREET
PLAINVIEW, NEW YORK 11803
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Partiers?'~l/ I,~/'~ ~
RUS~JELE S
JOHNJ PRICE
STEVEN L. SAMET
HALL CLARKE
JAMES DELAND
ASSOCIATES:
PAULH ULATOWSKI
ROBERTB MEREDITH
HENDERSON AND BODWELL 120 EXPRESS STREET, PLAINVIEW, NEW YORK 11803
February 26, 1988
Mr. John M. Bredemeyer,
President
Board of Town Trustees
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
III
516-935 8870
N.Y. FAX: 516-935-8760
NJ. FAX: 201 563-1169
OH FAX: 513-398 8611
IL FAX: 312-834-0329
Re: Angel Shores
Dear John,
In regard to the closing comment of your February 19,1988
letter, I wish to clarify several issues.
First, I would like to point out that the standard single
family sanitary system design, as per the Suffolk County
Health Department, requires that the final disposal pool be
set a minimum of two feet above the water table. Based upon
test well data performed on the site, the clay barrier
separating the fresh water lense from the salt water is some
fifty feet be]ow the top of the water table. Therefore, it
would be impossible for the sanitary system installation to
break through the clay barrier and allow salt water
intrusion. In addition, the flow of the groundwater on this
site is from the north to the south. Therefore, any
sanitary effluent from Lots 10-12 would flow away from the
public wells. The Suffolk County Health Department has also
required us to employ a 200 foot radius, sanitary disposal
restriction around the community water plant. This
restriction means that there can be no subsurface discharge
of either sanitary effluent or storm drainage within this
zone.
Based upon past experience, our firm believes that a
communal sewage system would concentrate nitrogen loading
over a much smaller discharge zone, which could prove to be
more of a threat to neighboring wells than if an individual
sanitary system was employed on each of the proposed lots.
Additionally, the Suffolk County Health Department tends to
frown on such communal sanitary systems because the problem
of maintenance always arises.
HENDERSON AND BODWELL
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1988
PAGE: 2 OF 2
TO: JOHN M. ~REDEMEYER, III, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF TOWN
TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RE: ANGEL SHORES
It is their contention that an individual sanitary system
with an individual owner is much easier to deal with than
being involved in tracking down and dealing with a
Homeowner's Association.
I trust this letter will help to alleviate your concerDs.
If you have any questions, or comments in regard to this
matter~ plesse do not hesitate to call me.
Very truly yours,
Charles R. Beckert, R.L.A.
CRB/jw
cc: M. Spiro/Planning Board
W. Moore
T. Laoudis
R. S. Bodwell
4A-4-2/88
ELMHURST, ILLINOIS
SOMERSET, NEW JERSEY
MASON, OHIO
Main Office:
~ 20 EXPRESS STREET
PLAINVIEW, NEW YO~K 1 ~803
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
RUSSELL S BODWELL
JOHN J PRICE
STEVEN L SAMET
HALL CLARKE
JAMES DELAND
ASSOCIATES
PAUL H ULATOWSKI
ROBERT B MEREDITH
HENDERSON AND BODWELL 120 EXPRESS STREET, PLAINVlEW, NEW YORK 11803
February 26, 1988
516 935-8870
NY FAX: 516 935-8760
NJ FAX: 201-563-1169
OH FAX: 513-398 8611
IL FAX: 312-834-0329
Mr. John M. Hredemeyer,
President
Board of Town Trustees
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
III
Re: Angel Shores
Dear John,
In regard to the closing comment of your February 19,1988
letter, I wish to clarify several issues.
First, I would like to point out that the standard single
family sanitary system design, as per the Suffolk County
Health Department, requires that the final disposal pool be
set a minimum of two feet above the water table. Based upon
test well data performed on the site, the clay barrier
separating the fresh water lense from the salt water is some
fifty feet below the top of the water table. Therefore, it
would be impossible for the sanitary system installation to
break through the clay barrier and allow salt water
intrusion. In addition, the flow of the groundwater on this
site is from the north to the south. Therefore, any
sanitary effluent from Lots 10-12 would flow away from the
public wells. The Suffolk County Health Department has also
required us to employ a 200 foot radius, sanitary disposal
restriction around the community water plant. This
restriction means that there can be no subsurface discharge
of either sanitary effluent or storm drainage within this
zone.
Based upon past experience, our firm believes that a
communal sewage system would concentrate nitrogen loading
over a much smaller discharge zone, which could prove to be
more of a threat to neighboring wells than if an individual
sanitary system was employed on each of the proposed lots.
Additionally, the Suffolk County Health Department tends to
frown on such communal sanitary systems because the problem
HENDERSON AND BODWELL
DATE:
PAGE:
TO: JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III, PRESIDENT,
TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RE: ANGEL SHORES
FEBRUARY 25, 1988
2 OF 2
BOARD OF TOWN
It is their contention that an individual sanitary system
with an individual owner is much easier to deal with than
being involved in tracking down and dealing with a
Homeowner's Association.
I trust this letter will help to alleviate your concerns.
If you have any questions, or comments in regard to this
matter, please do not hesitate to call me.
Very truly yours,
Charles R. Beckert, R.L.A.
CRB/jw
cc: M. Spiro/PleDning Board
W. Moore
T. Laoudis
R. S. Bodwell
4A-4-2/88
- /7
Branch Offices:
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
ELMRURST, ILLINOIS
SOMERSET, NEW JERSEY
MASON, OHIO
Main Office:
120 EXPRESS STREET
PLAINVIEW, NEW YORK 11803
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
JOHN J PRICE
,' STEVEN L. SAMET
....... : ':' HALL CLARKE
JAMES DELAND
ASSOCIATES:
PAUL H. ULATOWSKI
ROBERT B MEREDITH
HENDERSON AND BODWELL 120 EXPRESS STREET, PLAINVIEW, NEW YORK 11803
February 9, 1988
51 6-935-8870
N.Y. FAX: 51 6-935-8760
N.J, FAX: 201-563-1169
OH FAX: 513-398-8611
IL FAX: 312-834-0329
Ms. I]ene pfifferling
Clerk to Board of TrusteeS
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southol~, NY 11971
Be:
Angle Shores
Tidal Wetland
Line
Dear Ms. pfifferling:
Enclosed please find five (5) copies of the Proposed
Preliminary Plan for Angel ShoreS, as you requested. The
Tidal Wetland Limits shown on the Plan are as delineated by
Mr. Joseph Enrico of the N.Y.S.D.E.C. on January 29, 1988 and
located by our surveyors on that day, and February 2, 1988.
I trust that this is sufficient for initial review. I look
forward to meeting with the TrusteeS on February 17, 1988.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
Charles R. Beckert
CRB/jw
Encl.
cc: J. Enrico
W. Moore
R. S. Bodwell
3A-21-2/88
HENRY P. SMITH
JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, III, President
John Bednoski, Jr.
ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
TELEPHONE
(5161 765-1892
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
Mr. Charles R. Beckert, R.L.A. ~ ':.
John M. Bredemeyer, III, Pres., SoutholdT~rustees
Field Inspection for undated Henderson & Bodwell survey of "Preliminary
Plan of Angel Shores, Section I & II, received by Trustees 2-11-88".-
February 19, 1988
This is to confirm our field inspection of 2-17-88 wherein we agreed in principal to
the N;Y;S. D.E.C. Tidal Wetlands Line as presented with the following additions:
1. 'Please restake and survey those Tidal Wetlands on Lot no. 19 which we
iB,elieve are in our jurisdiction so that we may confirm them for their planned
protection.
2. ·Should any change occur to the open space areas south of Lot no. 8, we may
request a similar review as above.
3. Please survey your staked Freshwater Wetland areas of concern which we
will confirm .and nominate for inclusion on the N.Y.S.D.E.G. Freshwater
Wetlands map.
One closing comment which comes to mind as I look at your map is this: Do you not
risk Salt Water intrusion for your pnblic water supply with sanitary system installations
breaking clay barriers on Lots 10 thru 127 Would not this area be better set aside for
a Wildlife Corridor contiguous with the pond as well as water shed protection? I
seriously doubt if test wells could fully describe possible clay piping in what I suspect
is a Hydro-geologically diverse area. Would not a more remotely located communal
sewage ~ystem better serve this section given the potentially large demands for this
multiple use well site and its proximity to high qnality wetlands? Additionally, such
protection would permit the White-tailed deer herd in the area greater use of the
conservafion areas for the enjoyment of the residents. [Hopefully not their automobiles!
CC:
Melisga Spiro/Planning Board
Moore & Moore, Attorneys
HENRY P. SMITH
JOHN M. BREDEMEYER , III, President
John Bednoski, Ji~.
ALBERT KRUPSKI, JR., Vice-President
TELEPHONE
(516) 765q892
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
February 2~ 1988
Mr. Charles R. Beckert
tlenderson and Bodwell
120 Express Street
Plainview, New York 11803
Re: Angel Shores
Main Bayview Road, Southold
Dear Mr. Beckert:
This letter is to confirm our conversation of February 1, i988 regarding
the above captioned matter.
Please be advised that February 17, I988, 9:15 a.m. is the date and time
that the Board will meet you on the site for inspection. Kindly forward five
maps of the proposal for the Board to review.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. We look forward to
meeting with you on the 17th.
Very truly yours,
Ilene Pfifferling
Clerk to Board of Trustees
cc: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
file
SCM ' ~ ~ ~ JOHN J PRICE
MASON, OHIO ~e~ ~~ HALL CLARKE
PLA NVIEW, NEW YORK 11803 ~' ~ ~~-- PAUL H. ULATOWSKI
~00~' ROBERT B MEREDITH
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
HENDERSON AND BODWELL 120 EXPRESS STREET, PLAINVIEW, NEW YORK 11803
516-935-8870
N.Y. FAX: 516-935-8760
N.J. FAX: 201-563-1169
OH FAX: 513-398-8611
IL FAX: 312-834-0329
January 7, 1988
New York State D.E.C.
State University of New York, Building 40
Stony Brook, NY 11794
Attention: Mr. Joseph Enrico
Re: Angel Shores Wetlands
Dear Mr. Enrico:
This letter is to confirm our conversation of January 6,
1988 relating to the Angel Shores project, located on Main
Bayview Road, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
It is my understanding that at your earliest convenience,
you will meet me at the project site to establish the limits
of the Tidal Wetlands.
Attached please find a copy of the Preliminary Plan for the
subject parcel, which includes a Key Map for your use in
locating the site. Note that the wetland limits shown on
the enclosed Plan were taken, from the best of my knowledge,
from the Tidal Wetland Maps and were not established
on-site.
I will make every effort to have our survey crew present to
locate the wetland boundary that is established. In this
regard, it would be appreciated, that several days lead-time
be given to me as to the date and time of the inspection.
HENDERSON AND BODWELL
DATE: JANUARY 7, 2987
PAGE: 2 OF 2
TO: JOSEPH ENRICO, NEW YORK STATE D.E.C.
RE: ANGEL SHORES WETLANDS
I appreciate your cooperation on this project and look
forward to our on-site meeting. If you have any questions
or need any additional information, please do not hesitate
to call me at the above number.
CRB/jw
Encl.
cc:
Very truly yours,
Charles R. Beckert
R. S.Bodwell
T. Laoudis
C. Hamilton/NYS DEC
D. Schultze/Southold Planning Board Secretary
H. Smith/President Southold Trustees~/
V. Scopaz/Southold Town Planner
D. Emilita/Szepatowski Associates
1A-22-1/88
FROM:
L//~, . TO: .
Dear John,
CHARLIE BECKER-
John M. Bredemeyer, III
February 29, 1988
Please accept our apologies for the deletion of
the last line of our letter dated February 26th
re: Angel Shores.
Apparently, a malfunction of our printer, caused
the last line to be deleted.
Attached is a corrected letter.
Sincerely,
Charlie
\
}~
/
/
I
~
/~ ~ , /do
Z 0C.4 TIOA/,4d~~
NOTES'
\~'
/%0
CONTOUR LINES ARE REFERENCED TO APPROX. MEAN :SEA
LEVEL DATUM.
TOTAL AREA 92.74
SECTION 1 - 42.8 + AC
SECTION 2 - 49.9 T AC
--
3. NUMBER OF LOTS - 53
4. LOTS DIMENSIONS AND AREAS ARE APPRoxIMATE
5. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 5
6. TAX MAP 1000-88-06-1, 4 & 5
7. ZONED 'A' RESIDENTIAL - MINIMUM 40,000 S.F. LOTS
CLUSTERED
8. SANITARY DISPosAL - INDIvIDuAL SEPTIC TANKS AND
LEACHING POOLS "'
9. WATER SUPPLY AND SANITARY DISPosAL SHALL COMPLY
WITH SUFFOLK COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT STANDARDS
AND REGuLATIoNS
10. LOTS 1 & 2 ARE PROPosED WELL SITE - SHOULD WELL
NOT BE REQUIRED LOTS TO BE DEVELOPED
11. LAND WITHIN CONsERvATIoN EASEMENT TO REMAIN
NATURAL
CONS
TOTA
CONS
(85.
TOTAL AREA
ROADS
REMAINING
OPEN SPACE
SECT. I 1
SE CT. 2 1
3
ERVATIoN EAS
L OPEN SPACE
ERVATION EAS
6_+Ac..~ 39.1
92.74Ac.
7. l+_Ac.
85.6+Ac.
3.3+Ac.
9.5_+Ac.
2.8_+Ac.
EHENT 6.3Ac.
AND
EMENT 39.1Ac.
Ac. : 45.7%)
/X
/) //!/I
/
/~: T)"PIO,4L PZOTPL.4A/
\__ ~'c.d~ ~'.' / ';-/oo '
P, eE~/M/AI, ZlPY PLzIAI