HomeMy WebLinkAboutBeachcomber Motel (II) 1997Final
Environmental impact
Statement (FEIS)
BEACHCOMBER MODEL (II)
Hamlet of Cutchogue
Town of Southold
New York
Prepartd by:
Nelsoq Pope & Voorhis, LLC
Town of Southold Planning Board
Glen Spetta Associates
February, 1997
1050 SMITHTOWN AVENUE
P.O. BOX 94
BOHEMIA, NV 11716
(516) 567-5859
March 18, 1999
GLENN SPETTA ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND ANALYSES • COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS • AQUATIC AND BENTHIC SURVEYS
Town of Southold
Planning Board Office
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Attention: Robert Kassner
Site Plan Reviewer
Re: Beachcomber Motel II
Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue
SCTM# 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17
Dear Mr. Kassner:
In accordance with your request, enGosed please find twenty copies of the Final Environmental
Impact Statement prepared by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC for the referenced proposed
development. The copies are for distribution during the public comment period.
The FEIS has been slightly modified to address your comments of April 29, 1998 in which you
requested the addition of a letter from Mr. Robert Farmer, P.E. of the Suffolk County Department of
Health Services. His letter has been added as Attachment D.
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments in this regard.
Sincerely,
Glenn D. Spetta
GDS
cc: N. Aliano
P. Grosser
S. Hyman
H. Raynor
[gsa: beach:99-001 ~
Final
Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS)
BEACHCOMBER MOTEL (II)
Hamlet of Cutchogue
Town of Southold
New York
rrepa,tia ny:
Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC
Town of Southold Planning Board
Glen Spetta Associates
_~ .. a_ ~ _--°~ }~
t~ ,~,i
February, 1997 ~~J~,i~ FEB 14 ~!
~.,
Beachcomber Motel (In
Fiaal EIS
Final
Environmental Impact Statement
for
BEACHCOMBER MOTEL (In
Hamlet of Cutchogue
Town of Southold, New York
Lead Agency:
Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Contact: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner, 516-765-1938
Applicant:
Nicholas Aliano
Ashley Lane
Shoreham, N.Y. 11786
Draft EIS prepared by:
Glen Spetta Associates
1050 Smithtown Avenue
Bohemia, N.Y. 11716
516-567-5859
Final EIS prepared by
Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC.
Consultants to the Plamring Board
572 Walt Whitman Road
Melville, New York 11747
51627-5665
Town of Southold Planning Board
Glen Spetta Associates
Availability of Docu:~e:tt
This document, together with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement concerning this proposal, represents a
Final Environmental Impact Statemertt (FEIS). Copies are available for public review and comment at the
office of the Lead Agency. Comments on the FEIS should be submitted to the Lead Agency listed above by
to be included in the public record.
Date FEIS Accepted:
Page 1
Beachcoroher Motel lTn
Fiasl EIS
Final
Environmental Impact Statement
for
BEACHCOMBER MOTEL (II)
Hamlet of Cutchogue
Town of Southold, New York
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DRAFT EIS (Incorporated by Refere: ~ej
INTRODUCTION
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON iFE DRAFT EIS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
WATER RESOURCES
TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGI'
TRAFFIC
LAND USE
COMMUNITY SERVICES'
CULTURAL RESOURCES
GROWTH INDUCING IM?'~.CTS
REFERENCES
ATTACHMENTS
Page 3
Page 5
Page 7
Page 17
Page 19
Page 20
Page 23
Page 28
Page 30
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page Z
Beachcomber Motel (In
Fiaal EIS
Final
Environmental Impact Statement
for
BEACHCOMBER MOTEL (II)
Hamlet of Cutchogue
Towu of Southold, New York
INTRODUCTION
This document is a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed project
involving three single and separate tax parcels totaling 48.2 acres located north of Oregon Road and
east of Duck Pond Road in Cutchogue, Town of Southold. The proposed project involves expansion
of an existing 36 unit motel by an additional 46 units to a total of 82 units. The proposed expansion
will occur on the northern portion of the property, which contains the existing motel. This area is
currently zoned Resort/Residential (RR). The remainder of the property is zoned as an Agricultural
Conservation district (AC), and would remain undeveloped at this time.
The Town Planning Board of the Town of Southold becamA the lead agency with
responsibility to review the project as the decision making agency on the proposed site plan. As
required by law, the Town conducted a coordinated review with involved agencies, and subsequently
issued a Positive Declaration on October 30, 1992. A Draft EIS was prepared by Glenn Spetta
Associates, consultants to the applicant. After several revisions and a reduction in the requested
number of units, the Draft EIS was accepted by the Planning Board on A4arch 14, 1996, and a Notice
Of Completion was issued. The Draft EIS was then circulated for comrnert, and a Public Hearing
was held by the Town Planning Board to hear comments on April 8, 1996. The hearing was
continued until April 29, 1996, and the 30 day public comment period was held open until May 9,
1996.
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) has been prepared by Nelson, Pope &
Voorhis (NP&V) as consultant to the Planning Board in accordance ~v~th SEQRA [6 NYCRR Part
616.14(1)]. This document addresses all of the substantive comments received by the lead agency
during the comment period on the Draft EIS, which were forwarded to the applicant's consultant on
May 21, 1996 for response. The Town Planning Board then directed their consultants, Nelson, Pope
& Voorhis, to prepare a preliminary Firtal Enviromnental Impact Statement for the Beachcomber II
Page 3
Beachcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
project. As lead agency, the Town Planing Boazd is responsible for the contents of the Final EIS and
has reviewed and participated in the preparation of this document.
Nelson, Pope & Voorhis. (NP&V) is a professional environmental and planning consulting
firm with offices at 572 Walt Whitman Road, Melville, N.Y. 11747. NP&V has sought to provide the
Planning Board with an independent, objective response to each of the comments raised through
review of the Drag EIS. All substantive comments are included in the text of the revised Final EIS,
and are followed by an appropriate response. Comments are organized within the same general
outline as was used in the Draft EIS according to the section which they most closely address.
Several of the comments aze redundant, and in these cases only one comment is directly quoted, with
similar comments noted in parentheses. An appropriate response is provided in the document and
cross-referencing is used to direct the reader in cases of redundant comments.
This document fulfills the obligation of the Planning Board in completing a Final EIS based
upon Final EIS content requirements as outlined in 6 NYCRR Part 617.14. The Draft EIS is a part of
the EIS record and is incorporated by reference such that the combination of these documents
constitutes the Final EIS. The following section provides the Response to Comments on the Draft
EIS.
Pate 4
Beachcomber Motel (m
Final EIS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS
The following documentation provides a response to each comment received on the Draft EIS
for the Beachcomber II project. Each comment is stated or paraphrased and is followed by the
source of the comment which corresponds to the annotated letters reviewed in preparation of the
Final EIS. Several comments were redundant, and in such cases, only one of the sources is quoted,
with sources of similaz comments in parentheses. Each comment is followed by a response which is
intended to provide the information requested in the comment, as related to the required information
necessary for the lead agency and involved agencies to make informed decisions of specific impacts of
the project.
A total of eleven (11) sources of comments were received by the Town Planning Board. Of
these, there were three letters from private citizens, a petition from local residents and two letters
from the Planning Board. The remaining comments were made at the two public hearings, which
included comments by local residents, the North Fork Environmental Council and the Planning Board
Chairman. All of the letter writers also spoke at one or both of the public hearings.
Public comments received on the Draft EIS include oral testimony from the two public
hearings as well as three letters and a petition from a group of local residents. In addition to these
individual comments, Gerald Waltz of the North Fork Environmental Council read a statement into
the record at the April 8, 1996 hearing, and the Planning Boazd has offered both oral and written
comments. These comments are enumerated herein, and have been identified in the text with the
appropriate abbreviation. None of the comments were made to specific pages of the Draft EIS, thus
the comments have been discussed according to the general section of the Draft EIS to which they
refer. The comment letters and hearing transcripts are attached (Attachment A), and individual
comments from each source are numbered in the mazgin.
(PBI) Letter from the Planning Board to Glen Spetta of May 29,1996
(Note: This letter was written in response to a May 17,19961etter from Mr. Spetta to the
Planning Board, which discussed two issues raised by the Planning Board at the Public
Hearing of Apri129, 1996.)
(PB2) Letter from the Planning Board to Charles Voorhis and Associates of May 21,1996.
Letters from Private Citizens
(BRI) Barbara Ripel, 295 Vista Place, Cutchogue (May 3, 1996).
(RPSI) Richard and Patricia Spelhnan, 2600 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue (May 7, 1996).
(KTMI) Kathy and Tom Mangramele, 3180 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue (May 8, 1996).
(PET) Petition from Local Citizens (May 9, 1996).
April 29, 1996 Planning. Board Meeting
(PB3) Planning Board Comments -Richard Wazd, Chairman.
(KBI) Kip Bidell, 2420 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue.
(KTM2) Tom Mangramele, 3180 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue.
(BR2) Barbara ltipel, 295 Vista Place, Cutchogue.
Page 5
Beachcomber Motel (Il)
Final EIS
April 8, 1996 Planning Board Meeting
(BR3) Barbara Ripel, 295 Vista Place, Cutchogue.
(FS) Fran Slezak, Alvah Lane, Cutchogue.
(NFEC) North Fork Environmental Council -Gerald Waltz representative.
(KTM3) Tom Mangramele, 3180 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue.
(KB2) Kip Bidell, 2420 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue.
(RPS2) Richard Spellman, 2600 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue.
Page 6
Beachcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Comment 1: "The Board cannot understand haw this project can be done as three separate
holdtngs...l don't believe we can really approve a project without knowing that it's
under one ownership or one common ownership. " (PB3-2, see also PB2-1)
"The Board cannot agree to issue a negative declaration in return for agreement to
merge properties. " (PBI-1).
Response: The subject property consists of three single and separate tax pazcels, and the Town
has indicated that these parcels should be merged before the proposed project is
approved. This ,issue has been raised by the Town as well as in other public
comments. The subject property consists of the following pazcels:
Suffolk County Tax Pazcel (SCTP) 1000-083-2-1: Owned by Pond Enterprises,
which operates the existing motel and restaurant, which are located on the parcel.
Mr. Nicholas Aliano is President of the corporation. Total Area: 2.1 acres.
SCTP 1000-083-2-2: Owned by Patricia I{rupslu, Mr. AGano's daughter. Existing
pool and cabana are located on the property, and the remaining area is wooded.
Most of the proposed units will be located on the parcel. Total Area: 12.3 acres.
SCTP 100-083-2-17: Owned by Mr. Nicholas Aliano. The parcel is currently
rented as farmland. One of the proposed buildings will be located on the parcel, as
will the proposed wells and drainage azea. According to the Draft EIS, it is
unknown at this time whether the existing agricultural use will be discontinued.
Total Area: 33.8 acres.
In a May 17 letter, Mr. Spetta indicated that the applicant felt that a Negative
Declaration on the proposed project was necessary before he could proceed with
consolidation of the three properties. The applicant has agreed that merger of the
three properties will be necessary; however, if the proposed project is not approved,
the applicant wishes that the three parcels remain in separate ownership. In a more
recent letter to the Board (September 7, 1996), the applicant stated that he is willing
to agree to a merger of the properties in Covenants and Restrictions pending the
approval of the proposed project. As long as the merger is required as a condition of
final approval, the current separate status of the pazcels should not present an obstacle
to the conclusion of the SEQRA process, as long as the Environmental Impact
Statement evaluates the impacts to the combined parcels. It is reasonable to allow the
applicant to wait until the SEQRA process is complete before merging the parcels.
The Board should require consolidation of the parcels before final approval is granted
through use of Covenants and Restrictions on the proposed project. This will allow
for the parcels to be treated as a single parcel for the purposes of SEQRA review
without limiting the applicant if the proposed project is not approved.
Page 7
Beachcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
The SEQRA process will be concluded with a statement of Facts and Findings on the
EIS rather than a Negative Declaration. The Findings will balance environmental,
social and economic issues and will provide the basis for a decision on the project.
The Findings may contain mitigation measures and conditions which must be
implemented in order for the project to be approved. It would be appropriate to
include the merger of the three subject parcels as a condition within the Findings.
Comment 2: The "DEIS evaluates 3 separately awned parcels of land rather than one merged
tract of land..how will this impact future development of these parcels? What are the
implications beyond this project if the separate parcels are later sold off?" (NFEC-
I)
Response: Although the subject pazcels are currently separate, the Draft EIS examines the impact
of the proposed project on the overall property. As was discussed above, the merger
of the three pazcels can and should be required as a condition of final approval of the
project, however, it is not necessary at the current stage of the SEQRA process.
Under existing conditions, the combined acreage of the three parcels is necessary to
meet County Health Department requirements for sanitary flow for the proposed
project, and no further development would be permitted on any of the three parcels
whether or not they aze merged. If public water or sewage treatment was provided,
the southern portions of the site could be further developed as a residential subdivision
provided that Planning Board approval is received. This might be permitted under
future zoning regulations whether or not the parcels are combined. Such a residential
subdivision would require approval of all other appropriate agencies and would require
complete review of water supply, sewage disposal and zoning requirements.
The potential for further development will be discussed in more detail in the Iand.Use
section of this document, however, the actual yield permitted under zoning has been
found to be less than what was determined in the Draft EIS. Zoning will allow
construction only 42 additional units, rather that the 46 shown on the proposed site
plan. Additional development would not be allowed unless public water and/or
sanitary treatment were available on site.
Comment 3: The FEIS should address 'future use of the residential parcel to the south. [TheJ
DEIS indicated that this area will be left fallow to provide the project with an
adequate water supply. " (PBl-4)
Response: The Draft EIS is unclear about the applicants' future plans for the southern portion of
the site, which is zoned as an Agricultural Conservation District (AC). Although the
document suggests that the land remain fallow to m+n+rni~r. impacts to groundwater,
the applicant does not commit to this elsewhere in the document. The northern
portion of the site is zoned Resort Residential (RR). The proposed expansion will be
located on the RR zoned portion of the property with the exception of two wells,
Pace S
Beachcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
which will be located in the northernmost portion of the AC land. As was discussed in
the Draft EIS, the impact of the proposed project on groundwater will be significantly
reduced if the parcel remains fallow.
The Town may wish to covenant that the land either remain fallow or be used for
specific types of agricultural crops which require limited application of fertilizers.
Such a restriction would minimi~P the groundwater impacts which would result from
the proposed project in combination with unrestricted agricultural use. This could be
accomplished through a covenant requiring the applicant to utilize a Soil Conservation
Management Plan for any agricultural use of the property in the future. The covenant
should stipulate that the plan be developed in consultation US Department of
Agriculture's the Soil Conservation Service, which regularly prepazes agricultural
management plans to mipimize soil loss as well as to limit the use of nitrogen and
pesticides. Mr. Al O'Connell of the Soil Conservation Service was contacted during
preparation of this document, and indicated that his office would be able to formulate
a site specific plan to limit use of nitrogen on the agricultural portion of the subject
property.
Comment 4: "The record of the original zone change, copy attached clearly shows it was Mr.
Aliano's and the Town Board's intention to relocate the motel away from the beach
due to the severe beach erosion taking place. " (PBI-3)
Response: Mr. Aliano applied for a change of zoning on a portion of the subject property in the
spring of 1978. At that time, it appeared that the existing building was in imminent
danger due to erosion of the beach face, and erosion had been particularly severe th
the winter of 1977-78. Since that time, erosion has been less severe and the buildings
are still in operable condition, although repairs to the foundation were necessary
following a severe storm in December of 1992. The storm undermined the seaward
foundation of the motel, and the owner made an application for emergency repairs
which were completed in May of 1993. It was suggested at that time by the Southold
Town Trustees that the applicant consider a "selective retreat" in order to properly
fortify the shoreline. They indicated that a storm of similar magnitude has the
potential to create the loss of nine or more units along with the restaurant fronting the
Long Island Sound.
The applicant intends to operate the existing units as long as they are safe, and feels
that a requirement to remove or relocate the units at this time would present an
economic hardship. The applicant has indicated that he will not operate unsafe units,
and is willing to move the units once they can no longer generate income; however, he
does not feel that this can be accomplished without additional rental income from the
new units.
Although Mr. Aliano did state the need to move the units as one reason for the
original change of zone, the record from the April 11, 1978 hearing indicates that he
Page 9
Beachcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
wished to expand whether or not the move was necessary (Attachment B). The
applicant believed at the time that the proposed construction would be a replacement
of the threatened units, but did not rule out an expansion. The Planning Board's stated
rationale for approving the change of zone was the ongoing erosion, however, they
were fully aware of the applicant's overall plan to expand the motel (see Attachment
B). In a letter of February 1978, the applicant wrote the following to the Town
Planning Board to be forwarded to the Suffolk County Department of Planning.
"We have outgrown our present facilities. We turn away hundreds of people
every summer - We are highly rated by Mobil Travel Guide, we accommodate
people who are sent to us by the Greenport Chamber of Commerce -also Local
peoples Friends and Relatives, Church Groups and retirement Groups in addition
to our regular following of family vacationers...This need for expansion is
compounded by the erosion of our beach front. Motel units are thereby in
eminent danger of being wiped out... We are a summer resort open May 1st to Oct.
1st and immediate plans are to Landscape, seed and build a golf course in the
center of the planned new construction which units would compliment tennis
courts, playgrounds etc. "
In a February 23, 1978 letter to the County Planning Department, Muriel Brush,
Planning Board Secretary, wrote:
"The recommendations of the Planning Board [to approve the change of zone)
have been submitted previously. There were no conditions established Anything
permitted in the Cade of the Town of Southold for that zoning section is
recommended to be allowed by the Board "
On March 13 of 1978 the Town Planning Board recommended an approval of the
petition of Nicholas Aliano and Patricia ICrupski, Case #238 for a change of zone
from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M-1" General Multiple Residence
District, "in view of the fact that it is apparent that the petitioner must move the motel
and facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through
erosion. The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance with the
development plan of the Town of Southold for this location." The only wndition of
the approval was that no buildings be conswcted within 200 feet of the western
boundary line of the property.
Thus, although the Board did state the potential loss of units in support of the change
of zone, relocation of the existing motel was never required as a condition of approval
of the change of zone. Relocation cannot be required retroactively, and there was no
previous commitment from the applicant to move the units. Furthermore, the original
change of zone did not place any limit on the total number of units, and additional
units are allowed under current zoning regulations.
Page 10
Beachcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
The Town can require relocation of any units which become unsafe due to erosion of
the beachfront, and potential locations for these units are discussed in the response to
Comment 6. In his written response to wmments on the Draft EIS, the Applicant has
stated that he is willing to agree to relocation of unsafe units in the Covenants and
Restrictions wiW regard to the proposed project. Once the units are removed, they
could be replaced by new units, as long as the total number of units does not exceed
the maximum yield allowed under current regulations.
Comment S: "[WeJ would like to cite Chapter 37 of Tawn Law, which gives the Southold (Town
Board) the responsibility to 'regulate, in coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and
erosion, land use and development activities so as to minimize and prevent damage
and destruction to property' In 1978 the Planning Board supported a change of zone
on Parce! 2 so that Mr. Aliano could 'move the motel and facilities back from the
Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion'... As recently as
4/23/92, the trustees have also advised that the existing mote! should be moved at
least SD feet back. As per Chapter 37 of Town Law, shouldn't Southold see to it that
this move of the existing motel be included in the Beachcomber project and thus
accounted for i» the DEIS?" (NFEC-S, see also PB3-1, BRI-6, BRI-10, PET-6,
RPSI-4, RPS2-2)
Response: The bluffs along Long Island's North Shore aze subject to ongoing erosion, and
location of new structures in areas which aze subject to flooding and erosion may
accelerate this process. Because of this ongoing sediment loss, greater setbacks would
probably be required for construction of a new motel under current regulations,
however, the motel is an ongoing, preexisting use. Although the Town does have the
responsibility to regulate land use in coastal azeas, this is tamed out through
restrictions on new development rather than through regulation of preexisting
development.
Relocation of the existing units was not made a condition of the original change of
zone by the Board. Thus, although it would be preferable to move the entire motel
landward and restore the beachfront, as seems to be implied in Comment 5, this cannot
be made a condition of the current application. The cost of moving the entire existing
motel is likely to be prohibitive, and the Town has no legislative basis to require
relocation. A selected removal of unsafe units could be required, and the applicant
should be required through a covenant to remove and relocate out of the hazard area
any units which become unsafe. The applicant can be required to consider the
potential location of any relocated units at this time so that an optimal design for the
future motel can be considered, and SEQRA law requves that all phases of a
multiphased project be evaluated. This issue is further discussed in the response to
Comment 6 below.
Comment 6: The FEIS should address "delineation of an area reserved for the future placement or
relocation of the existing motel back from the shoreline. This move was indicated as
Page 11
Beachcomber Motel (II)
Fiaal EIS
the reason for the original zone change. The current location is in the flood plain
and subject to severe beach erosion. " (PB2-2, See also PB3-1, PBl-2)
Response: The applicant has submitted an alternative site plan which presents a conceptual layout
for relocation of six units which are seawazd of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
boundary (Figure 1). The Hazard Area is determined by the Town in compliance with
NYS Environmental Conservation Law Article 34, and represents the area in which
erosion is likely to occur over a 45 year period based on shoreline recession analysis
and other relevant studies. The applicant believes that the six units may potentially
become unsafe due to erosion of the beachfront and are likely to require relocation.
The alternative plan shows these reconstructed units abutting the eastern wall of the
existing motel building. In addition, the existing restaurant is moved approximately 45
feet to the south. The relocated units would have a 6 foot setback from the Hazard
Area boundary, and the restaurant would have a 20 foot setback. This alternative
would remove the units from the Hazard Area with minimal impacts to the remainder
of the site; however, ongoing erosion of the shoreline may endanger the units and
restaurant in the future.
Town Code requires a 100 foot setback to the edge of a bluff for new construction.
Although the existing Beachcomber Motel is located within a flat azea between bluff
azeas to the east and west, and the beachfront would not be considered a bluff there
are slopes over 15 percent along much of the shoreline in front of the motel. As the
beachfront is expected to continue to recede (Figure 2)„ the Town may wish require
that the applicant consider a greater setback for the six reconstructed units than is
presented on the alternative plan.
A method to achieve this would be to locate a portion of the six units within the
footprint of the new buildings as shown on the original site plan. The proposed site
plan shows 46 units. As was noted above, the actual yield permitted under zoning has
been found to be less than was determined in the Draft EIS, and will allow
construction of only 42 units. Thus, four of the units shown on the current site plan
would not be allowed under zoning as interpreted in this Final EIS, and these units
could be used as new locations for the endangered units. The remaining two relocated
units could be added to the southernmost proposed building with minimal changes to
the current site plan. This alternative would be preferable to the alternative layout
suggested by the applicant. Impact to the remainder of the site would be similar to
those of the originally proposed plan, and the units would not be endangered by
ongoing erosion. Construction of these additional six units should not be allowed by
the Town until the existing units are removed and the restaurant is relocated. In
addition, the location of the units to the south of the existing motel should be
covenanted as a condition of the proposed project and cleazly shown on the final site
plan.
Page 12
FIGURE 1
Site Plan Showing Relocated Units
~~~;;~, ~1v '~ ,~`1
,~.1 .v11
3~~ \'\ \ , , \ ~v~..1
v 111 ~~
3ntlZ \\\ 11 \ \\ \\\
\ \ 11 1 I \~
1
/ \~-I \I \\\y~ \
m~ T/////'////////////// / AA 111 1.
n / / /////////////////// / / \\\I\ li
~ r / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / / / ~ / ~ \ 111 \ \\ 1
b of /////////////////// ~ / r 1\\1\
II/////////////l///l/ / / / \1\111
~_ i I// //// /////////// / / , \I1\1\1
VIII/////g~q///////// / / / / /~ 11V11
Ill 1/////)fr///////// / / / / / X11AV@
„~ 1 I I l / / / / / / / p / / / / / / / / / / / / ~ 'I I A 1 ~
1 I 1 / ~ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
11////w./////~/ //////l / / / / Ilb
// / /
/ /
///////F///// // // /// / /
i1~~/.~//~/a///////k'/////I / / / / / / ~~ I
/ii///////~~/i/// //// / / /~ / / I I
//i//iis//// ////~/ / i I X4.4
/i/
/.////iii/~/ ///// / / / ~ ~ 1 C/ / 4 w // ti
/~,~~/,/ii~~/~ ////ii iii / •/ / ~~/ +~` C°/ b.
l~i,//i///'~i ///iii /// % / / / / /~ ' +^C
/ //ll~i / / // //// l / /;P `~rp /'
/~.I~~~ll//ql //l/r/l1 l / ~.~ / /
/ /1ll l'1 l//Il/1// / A /
. l11 / II I / l / l / I / ~ 1 / .~' /i "~
l ~.l ~~ll~~ll ~ I lI I~ /ll j Lt ~/ ll ~ ~ ~~'1
I 111 I I I I I I I ( l l/ l ,/~ /'~ ~~i i-
~ ' 1 11 1 1 1 1 l i l l i~ l 1 l l/ /// / Y'i/~i
1 1 1 1 1 ' l l I I I 1/ / , $
11 '. ~', ~I1~\11111111 ~I II ~I /// /~<\~/ ~, /_~~_
1 \'; ~, 1\.1: ~1; ~I 1 1! 1 1 1 1 1/ 1 / l r o/ '! / /~ ~~.,
pE4 ~ '"
1~.A:A,A AA ASV AIV AI II 111111111/l/sn/// / ~B ~ ~~ ~.Ari__
AAA AA /~/ r
\ VAA\\\V1111111 I11~11111/ ,g/// ~ i / ~ /Nary -~
`~~~~\~~\\111111 I I/l // / i n/rByJ ab 01
~:.:v `AVM A1111 III II II ll/ >~& /' I / . ~~ us,.n
~~~;~~`~~1lii it u~l41ii1 /~ m // -~~////~' F
m ~ 111nj1111 OI~II~IV ~llll 111 / I / / op
•111• IIJ IYyII~^I InI/1 O / ~O/ `, [.vw
Beachcomber Motel (II)
Fiaal EIS
~~ ~ ~~
,~ y ;,~~
~/
\\~\\\
\\\\\\ \
\ \\\\\\~\ OI
1 \ \\11\\ n
I \ \\\\\\
\ \\\~\~\1~G{ >~~\
\ II \1 ~\' ll
V 1 ! 1 ~4
\ \ I I\ \ ` ~xy,\
.111~I1 \\\ W~'F
1 1p
`\ 1 \ ~
\` \ \ ^.I
v c~c-<~.`p~~~ ~~.
\ \ \ \ \ ~ U\3 31~y:\ ~~
\ \\\~R.U:~~~~
~ \\\\ \ \C\ bb`J `:
\ \ ~~
~~ v~~~~
I^~ \\\ \\
'~rR /
/ / / / // X1Y~}35 ON~jll/~g / y
,/ ~/ W[
/ ~ / ~ / /
j /
~~ ~~ ~/ l~//~~ ~ ~ w
/ / /
l.% /, ~~~~ ~ ~~
~~~~~~~./ / .8
~~ I ~
a 4
.°aoe
~~~~ ~~~_ _~ ~_~____ c~_
~I 1 ~ ~ / ~~ ~~- d
~~____
11111/1111l11lllllllllll ll IIII . //~ ~yy / A ~ +~ o
m/ p \, ~r
jlll4 ~ll111111111/I~lll 111/l1 / </w ~ . ,J
//l/l//1ll lllllll/11/ / / / FuFU ~ •1~~~.~_
6~
P~
b
L,~
W I ///'41bllll ~llllll1111 //IIII % /
o /' / /l., rlll lllllll 111
1/ill / ? Tj~ggggml ~
. /u m0 o1 ~~~
1
ti r l,/ / / . a. ~
/I F ~ ~~
/
N //1. i/// 1.l/l/i// 11111/I// / ~ / Y'
/
,
1
/
l
~
C ~a
'
l/1 I / /
;/ ~//
l
/IIII//I///
i ~
1
~1/lllll
11/~1/ ~
/
1
~~~
/ m
~ I
I
/
1
/
6 _
~
i
/ 1
/ 1. Jl/ll/1 ll /I / l / 1/ l
III// ll/ ~ / / /
/l//flIll %
// /
~ ^
I
l
l
/// /~//l~//lllllll;% I'1 it .1 \S ~ ^ ~1
" l
_
e I
~ a
'
/I~/~ol//a~~lll~,l1 ,~
1//Ill I l I
/~~
'~, s
~
,
.
~~~ ~///lu111111111111 : ~ll
~~
-/i/~~/Ill/11111111111 ~ I l
Il
1
1
1
1
/,.11
l lllj 1/11
1
1 I
11
1
~ / ',, llllrl / 11111 I I
1
I
I I
1 ~ 13toi
/ 1
//g
'
~ 1
1
1 1
/
/l/
llllllll~~Ilijl 1111 1
I I
~
,
'
~1
~/; 1/II~I~II111~~ 111
I
1
°
/
1
I A
/
'
Q pi
FSf
^rS
I
/1
I
III11j11
11j1
l
/,'\'l l~~~~~~ll l~~ 1~ I ~ i i ~
/
8~ // _
m~oi
F~
~~. ~~~{{{ 111111111111 11 I I I / / 1
xx~~
~>_III~IIII1 II 111 /
I I /
/ ~~`nFo
n¢F
1
[ 1. 1 ~ //1/11 /// -L
' UTw
,
_ ,.
__-_ _ *_____-__ ____ 3 _~_ __ _
I i I 2 I
1
I ~ I
' _rv I S~ /
I I ~ 1 1~ Q
1 /
\ Q
Y3bY ^ /~O
"' s y
Q
,3.mN a // 02
~~ _~ ~ j/ Q
V mEa~ /
mioWa ~' /
~ _2~3;':a 9 ~' ~ ~
03 :o- , a` JU
!~~ ~ / /k O
__'_-~__-' V
_____________~___ W` _. ~___~-______-_
__I -- ~_____~__~_~ boviB _`-~-'---_
.Cb ~, a ```` ~
4Nf10S ONt/lSl ~JNOI
/
//~
Scale: Not to Scale
Source: Site Plan prepazed by Barret, Bonacci, Hyman and Van Weele, 7/29/93
Page 13
b
A
ao ~
~m
~z
~~
~yo g
O y
'd ~,
C
~x
a
R
~o
e~
0
~D
y
r~
~D
A
~D
N
m
Q
e
e
~~
e
~~
Beachcomber Motel (In
Final E1S
The restaurant location shown on the plan is not ideal; however, potential locations for
this building are more constrained than for the six motel units. One of the attractions
of the establishment is the waterfront location, and moving the building to the interior
of the site would destroy these views and require relocation of other facilities. The
restaurant could be moved further southward than is shown on the plan, but the
waterfront location seems appropriate as the restaurant is an existing use and is
enhanced by its location. The restaurant shown on the alternative plan is 20 feet from
the hazard area boundary, which should provide adequate protection in the near
future. Other siting of the restaurant is constrained as noted above, and the 45 foot
relocation represents a significant improvement. In view of economic considerations,
siting constraints and the lack of significant erosion over the nearly 20-year period
since the original application, there is no compelling reason to further relocate the
restaurant beyond the recommended site 20 feet south of the coastal erosion hazard
area boundary.
Although the Town does not have a legal basis to require it at this time, the applicant
has agreed in his response to comments on the Draft EIS to a covenant requiring
relocation of the endangered units once the new units are providing sufficient income.
Relocation of these six units as well as the restaurant could be included as a condition
of the current project. The covenant should be clearly worded, setting a time limit for
the relocation of the units and specifying where the units will be located. It is
suggested that these units be demolished within one year of completion of the new
units. Construction of replacement units could then follow as desired by the applicant.
As was discussed above, removal of four of the units would be required before
construction if all 46 new units are to be built. The covenants and restrictions should
clearly delineate locations for relocation of any units which become unsafe.
Comment 7: The L?raft EIS mitigates a number of SEQRA issues (traffic, burden on community
services, etc.) by highlighting the 'seasonal' nature of the Beachcomber complex.
What safeguards are there ensuring that Beachcomber will remain seasonal? (What
isJ the Tawn's definition of 'seasonal'?" (NFEC-4)
Response: The applicant has indicated that he intends to continue to operate the motel as a
seasonal business (May 1st to October 1st); however, year round operation would be
permitted under Town Code. The Town's zoning code does not define "seasonal",
and does not provide any restrictions on seasonal operations. The Draft EIS indicates
that impacts such as increased traffic and contribution of nitrogen to groundwater will
be seasonal, which will help to mitigate the projected impacts. Tourism on Long
Island is highly seasonal, and thus it is likely that the motel will continue as a seasonal
use, but the projected impacts of the proposed project should. be evaluated as
potentially occurring year round. The Planning Board should consider the potential
impacts of year round use in making a determination on the proposed project, as has
been done in analysis contained in the Drag EIS. The Draft EIS concludes that the
Page 15
Beachcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
impacts of year-round use of the expanded motel will not be significant, although the
document states that seasonal use will offer further mitigation.
Comment 8: "We cannot understand why (the applicant) would want to expand the motel when it
does very little business during the summer." (KTMI-2, see also KTM2-1, PET-S,
RPS2-1, RPS3-1)
Response: The scoping letter for the Draft EIS did not require the applicant to perform a market
analysis for the proposed project; however, the applicant feels there is a demonstrated
need for additional motel units within the Town. According to the applicant, the motel
has recently picked up in business and the owner would like to further improve the
customer base of the business. The applicant indicates that the motel has been
selectively utilized during peak holidays, including Memorial Day, July 4th and Labor
Day. Regardless of the expected need for the project, the apphcant has the right to
expand the motel under current zoning. The completion of up-to-date units in a
pleasant beach-front area with a seasonal tourist base seems to be conducive to a
successful business. Recreational opportunities, a convenient restaurant and enhanced
on-site amenities all add to the potential success of the business.
SEQRA law requires that the Planning Board as lead agency weigh the potential
environmental impacts of a propsed project against the public need and potential
benefits of the project. If the Board finds that the proposed motel expansion will
result in significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated and feels that
public need for the project has not been justified, they should deny the project based
on SEQRA law.
Comment 9: "We are also concerned that in the future, the motel property may be sold and
converted into condominiums, time shares, or possibly a rehabilitation center. (R'e
are aware the zoning would have to be changed)" (PET-4, see also RPSI-2).
As was discussed above, the applicant believes that there is an increasing demand for
motel accommodations in the area. If the motel were to fail, arty uses allowed within
the Rural Residential (RR) zoning category could be constructed or retrofitted without
a change of zoning, although site plan review for the change of use could be required.
An application for a change of zoning would have to be made to the Town Board for
any uses which do not conform to existing zoning, and the application would be
subject to the SEQRA process. An application for a change of zone could be made
whether or not the proposed expansion is approved, and would be determined based
on the merits of the application.
Uses which aze permitted within the RR zoning district include motels and all uses
allowed within the Agricultural Conservation District zoning designation. These uses
are enumerated in Attachment C. Facilities for treatment of drug addiction are
specifically excluded within the AC zone, and therefore would not be permitted on
Page 16
Beachcomber Motel (In
Final EIS
site, although other health caze and religious institutions would be allowed.
Multifamily development, including condominiums, aze not permitted within the zone
as indicated in the Zoning Code included in Attachment C.
Comment 10: We request that at the time the plans are considered by the Board "protection be built
into those plans against a possible change from a Motel [useJ to a Time share or
Condominium use. " (RPSI-S).
Response: Although it would be possible to include this stipulation as a covenant on the subject
property, this protection atready appears to be in effect under the Town zoning code.
The code defines a resort motel as a facility available to "transients on a daily rental
basis or to vacationers or other persons on a weekly rental basis." Thus, a
condominium or time share, where units are owned by individual guests, does not
conform to the definition of a motel. As other multifamily units are not permitted
within the zone, a condominium use would not appeaz to be permitted. This wuld be
stated explicitly in the Covenants and Restriction associated with the proposed project.
Comment 11: "Given that the existing mote! is under utilized what is the justification for the
proposed expansion? Mr. Aliano has stated (at the 4/29/96 public hearing that his
reasons for expanding the motel are no one else's business, however, we strongly
disagree. "We believe that it is our business as adjacent property owners, tf his
intentions are other than he espouses to. " (RPSI-2, see also RPS2-3)
Response: The Applicant has stated that the Beachcomber Motel has been successfiil in the past,
and that he would like to continue with this success, realizing the fitll development
potential of the property and eventually passing this on to his family. The location is
conducive to a water enhanced motel and restaurant, and the proposed expansion is
allowed under zoning. If the applicant has plans other than those he has stated, such
plans would be regulated under zoning code, as was discussed above. The Planning
Bord must evaluate the project based on the current application. Also refer to
response to Comment 8.
WATER RESOURCES
Comment 12 "The fragile water supply will be affected.. [there has been) a new discovery of water
pollution leading north from Oregon Road affecting the Sound front properties. Who
will pay to protect local residents from pollution caused by an increased number of
visitors from other areas?" (BRI-S)
Response: The proposed expansion has been designed to meet Suffolk County Department of
Health Standazds for protecting groundwater. Water usage is regulated based on
year-round usage, and the proposed motel will not exceed these limits in the event that
the facility were to be utilized year round.
Page 17
Beachcomber Motet (II)
Final EIS
The Draft EIS fully discusses the projected impact of the proposed project upon water
supply quality in the area. The projected level of nitrogen in groundwater is 5.6 mg/I
while the motel is in operation, assuming the cultivation of the southern parcel is
discontinued. This is less than the 10.0 mg/1 NYS drinking water standard, and should
not result in significant impacts even if the motel were to be operated on a year round
basis. )f the applicant wishes to return the southern portion of the property to
cultivation, a management plan can be required to reduce fertilizer use as was
discussed previously.
Groundwater flow in the area of the site is toward Long Island Sound. Thus, sanitary
waste recharged at the site will move away from, not toward, neighboring wells.
Groundwater contamination has occurred along Oregon Road to the north of the
Town of Southold landfill, and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services has
begun testing and restriction of water use downgradient from the landfill. The site and
surrounding residences are outside of the area of potential contamination as defined by
the Town, although testing of wells in the area, including the applicant's, may be
advisable. Based on currently available information, the proposed project is not
expected to be affected by this pollution source, nor is it expected to contribute to it.
Comment 13: "..One of our major concerns is the possible negative impact on the limited water
supply. It appears that the intended wells will draw from the same aquifer as the
adjacent properties. We would like to know how the logistical location of the wells is
determined? Is (the IocationJ based upon expected usage? If so, what happens if the
usage were to change to... a Time Share or Condominium (useJ in the future? How
are property owners in the area protected?" (RPSI-1)
Response: The location of the wells was determined in conformance to both Suffolk County
Department of Health requirements and New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation water supply and well permit regulations, which are
designed to protect wells on adjacent properties. The Draft EIS discusses water
quantity issues in detail, including the potential for drawdown at the property ,and no
significant impact is expected. Groundwater quality is also discussed fully in the Draft
EIS. Health Department standards are based on daily use throughout the year, and
thus no significant impact to adjacent wells would be expected if the property were to
change to year round occupation. This is unlikely due to the seasonal nature of the
business as was discussed previously.
Suffolk County Health Department regulatory standards limit the water usage from a
site on a per acre basis regardless of the use. Any future uses would have to conform
the same standards for overall water use and sanitary flow. The location of wells is
evaluated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in
addition to the SCDHS, and considers both water quality and potential drawdown and
saltwater intrusion to adjacent properties. Once the SEQRA process is complete each
agency is in a position to complete review of the water supply design for conformance
Page 18
Beachcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
with work permit requirements. Suffolk County Department of Health Services and
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation review must ensure that
adequate potable water supply can be supplied to the site. Design review may include
additional water quality testing, pump tests, drawdown projections and complete
design and permitting of the water supply system. Water supply and wastewater
disposal systems must be sized properly for the density of proposed development. The
Town can assist by requiring and reviewing floor plans to ensure that unit size is
consistent with the bedroom count and therefore the design flow used for impact
analysis in the Draft EIS. The zoning and additional covenants and restrictions to
motel use will assist in this regazd.
TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
Comment 14: The Planning Board or previous approval bureau did great damage to the area by
allowing the natural habitat of the birds to be damaged They should now amend this
error by protecting both the natural environment and local population by refusing to
allow the expansion of the motel " (BRI-9)
Response: The existing motel is apre-existing use which was constructed in the late 1960's. The
pond on site was filled in the 1950's, before wetlands were regulated in the State, and
a permit was not required. Although current land use regulations would not allow a
similaz motel to be constructed today, the Planning Board must assess the impacts of
the current project. The fact that the site is already developed and was partially
cleazed prior to implementation of restrictive zoning does decease the sensitivity of
the site to the proposed expansion. The Planning Bord is responsible for determining
if the projected impacts aze significant, and, if so, that any impacts are mitigated to the
maximum extent possible. The Planning Boazd cannot deny a project based on past
impacts. Approval must be granted if a project complies with local zoning and is not
shown to have significant environmental impacts. The purpose of the Draft and Final
EIS is to assess potential impacts of the proposed project and to provide mitigation of
potential impacts. The Draft and Final EIS fulfill this requirement.
Comment 1 S: The area was known as Duck Pond Point and was home to marry birds. "Someone...
stupidly filled in the Duck Pond and put the motel there and now we're faced with
increased [destruction] of the environment ". (BRI-I)
Response: The history of the pond on site is discussed in detail in the archaeological report
attached to the Draft EIS. The pond appears to have been undergoing natural
succession through the eazly 1900's, and was nearly dry due to filling by blown sand
and growth of woody species by the 1950's. It is unlikely that waterfowl utilized the
pond at that time, although they may have been present during the 1800's.
Page 19
Beachcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
The pond was filled by a previous owner in the late 1950's, and now is the site of a
small drainage area. It was not filled by the current owner or in conjunction with the
motel construction as suggested in the comment. The drainage area now has minimal
value as a wetland, and is vegetated by non-native species. The proposed expansion
will continue to utilize this area for drainage. Regarding will be necessary enlarge the
drainage area to receive additional run-off from the new roofs and pavement. As was
discussed in the Draft EIS, this will require removal of large area of common reed,
which is an invasive species that will recolonize readily. Thus the project does not
represent a significant loss of vegetation.
In fact, the proposed project provides an opportunity to improve the quality of the
drainage area for local vegetation and wildlife. The Town may wish to require that the
applicant revegetate this area with native wetland species such as rushes, sedges,
baybeny and sweet pepperbush. This would result in an net improvemem to this
habitat at minimal cost to the applicant, as the area will already be regraded. This
should be required as part of a site landscape plan as part of an amended site plan
required to conform to EIS Endings.
As is discussed in the Draft EIS, it is not expected that the natural environmem will be
"destroyed" by the addition of motel units to the existing Beachcomber motel.
Relatively little clearing is proposed, as the proposed buildings will be located in an
area which is already cleazed, and the extensive area of steep slopes will not be
developed. The large agricultural property will also remain, and agricultural use is
encouraged in consideration of a soil. conservation management plan which minimizes
use of nitrogen fertilizer.
TRAFFIC
Comment 16 : [The FEIS should address) the "adequacy of existing roads to handle anticipated
traffic. " (PB2-3, see also KBI-1).
Response: The traffic conditions expected as a result of the proposed action were analyzed in the
DEIS and were reassessed for this Final EIS. Table 1 presents a more detailed
calculation of the projected trip generation which is likely to result from the project as
proposed, which was derived using "Trip Generation, 5th Edition, with Februazy 1995
Update" which is published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Page 20
Beachcomber Mote1(In
Final EIS
TABLE 1
Projected Trip Generation
As the motel facility is presently a seasonal business, operating from Memorial Day
to mid-October, and is consistent with the tourism industry intrinsic to the area,
inspection of the above trip generation numbers suggest that there is not likely to
be a significant adverse impact as a result of the proposed addition. The new trips
will occur throughout the day, with minimal impact during peak hours.
Although impacts are expected to be minimal, mitigation measures are
recommended to facilitate traffic flow and to improve safety conditions. The Draft
EIS suggested mitigation at the intersection of Duck Pond Road and Vista Place
and Birch Lane. Duck Pond Lane makes a sharp right turn at this intersection,
continuing down grade to the motel. A stop sign controlling northbound traffic is
recommended, which would complement the southbound stop sign on vista Place
and would present a more conventional arrangement. Additionally, the brush on
the southeast corner of the intersection should be trimmed back and the grade
leveled out to improve sight distance across that corner to view vehicles
proceeding up the grade on Duck Pond Road leaving the motel. In addition to
these mitigation measures suggested by the Draft EIS, pruning of the large
evergreen on the northeast comer of Duck Pond Road and Oregon Road is
recommended to increase visibility of southbound traffic. Some of the branches
are very close to the edge of the roadway and present a minor sight distance
restriction for southbound vehicles stopped at the stop sign at Oregon Road and
who are looking easterly before proceeding into the intersection
In summary, the proposed addition of 46 units to the Beachcomber Motel is not likely
to have a significant impact to the surrounding community with the minor remediation
measures recommended above. As has been discussed previously, the total number of
additional units which will be allowed under zoning is 42, which will result in a slight
decrease in the projected number of trips generated by the proposed project.
PsPe 21
]ieachcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
Comment 17.• "Motel visitors speed through the narrow road and dangerous corner leading down to
the motel. Pets have been killed and children have barely avoided being run clown.
An increased motel population could only explode these problems into tragedies. "
(BRI-3, see also BR2-2, KB1-2, PET-2).
Response: The proposed stop sign should help mitigate the problem of cars traveling at high
speeds along the road, however, it is unlikely that the motel is the primary cause, as
Duck Pond Road is also utilized by traffic to the beach at the road end. The proposed
project is unlikely to generate significant Vaffic problems, as was discussed above.
Comment 18: "We use the beach by the motel quite frequently, and use the road leading to the
Beachcomber to walk our 2 small children to the beach. That would no longer be
possible [f the motel is expcmdedJ (KTMI-1, PET-3)"
Response: It is expected that local residents will continue to be able to be able to use the road
leading to the Beachcomber motel to walk to the beach. With the added traffic
improvements mentioned there should be no significant impact to the existing traffic in
the area. Traffic will be slowed by the proposed stop signs, and sight distances at the
comer of Duck Pond Road and Vista Lane will be improved.
Comment 19: Are "there any other kind of alterations [in addition to the proposed stop signs), that
are going to be made to the roads? There are no shoulders on the roads going down
[to the beach/motel entrmrceJ... and if a car comes, there is very little room. " (KTM3-
3)
Response: There are no plans at present to widen Duck Pond Road. Analysis in the Draft and
Final EIS suggests that the proposed project does not warrant extensive road
improvement except for mitigation at the intersection. If Duck Pond Road is
widened, the existing topography would present constraints. There is no compelling
reason to explore further mitigation at this time. Although the Town might consider
widening the road or creating a footpath or sidewallc, there is no basis to require this
as a part of the proposed project.
Comment 20: "Local people can't get down [to the Town property at the end of Duck Pond Road)
because [non-resident) cis are parked along the roam not in the motel... There's not
even a sign there that says 'Town of Southold" sticker. Is that because the motel is
there?" (FS-2).
Response: Extensive parking and illegal use of Town beaches and road ends by non-residents is a
problem throughout the Town. It is unlikely that these problems are due to the
presence of the motel, as guests park on the motel property, which has an adequate
parking area. The area should be posted for Town residents only, although the
absence of a sign is not due to the motel. The comment should be directed to the
Town of Southold.
Page 22
Beachcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
Comment 21: As the applicant owns property to Oregon Road, if the project is to be considered by
the Board there should be a private road to the motel from Oregon Roac1 This
would eliminate traffic problems on Duck Pond Road which is a dead end street.
(KB2-1)
Response: The Draft EIS concludes that traffic impacts will be minimal. Although any minimal
traffic impacts would be reduced by this alternative, an access road from Oregon Road
would cause Beater natural impacts. A large area of native vegetation would have to
be cleared, as the road would cross an area of steep slopes. This would alter the
existing drainage Swale, creating potential erosion problems. The road would also
create a significant impervious area which would generate stormwater and require
recharge. In addition, the cost of constructing a road would likely be prohibitive, as it
would be approximately 3,000 feet in length. Such an access would be more feasible if
the southern parcel were developed, which would require that the site be provided
with public water as will be discussed below. As this is unlikely to occur in the neaz
future, access from Oregon Road does not appeaz to be a viable option at this time.
LAND USE
Comment 22: "The existing 36 motel units are presently located on Parcel I consisting of 2.1 acres.
The normal allowable density for this parcel, however, would be 14.5 units. If the
three parcels are not merged is the Beachcomber complex, in effect, getting an extra
20 units? In other words, should public water later become available and/or further
down the road yet another expcuzrion is planned for parcel 2 or parcel 3, would
parcel one's 36 units be factored into the whole picture?" (IVFEC-3, see also KTM3-
2)
Response: Although the three subject parcels are not legally merged at this time, the Draft EIS
addresses development on the combined parcels. All three parcels are necessary in
order for the applicant to obtain the desired yield at this time, and the applicant has
ageed to merge the parcels as a condition of final approval of the project. The
existing units have been included in the calculation of the yield of the combined
parcels.
A clarification of the current and future development potential of the project site does
appear to be necessary, particularly since it appears as though the Draft EIS overstated
the yield of the parcel. The maximum development allowed on a parcel of land is
regulated by both Town zoning regulations and County Health Department Standards,
and the most restrictive regulations apply on any particular property.
According to the Draft EIS, the maximum yield of the combined parcels is limited by
the County Health Department standards, which are generally more restrictive than
PaEe 23
Beachcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
zoning regulations in unsewered areas. On the subject site, however, zoning
regulations are more restrictive than County Health Department standards, and the
Draft EIS is incorrect in it's determination of the full yield of the property. The
maximum yield allowed by zoning on a parcel of land is based on overall acreage of
the site, but is typically decreased if there are sensitive environmental areas on site.
The RR zoned portion of the site contains both waterfront property and areas of steep
slopes, and the full yield under zoning would not be permitted. The Draft EIS did not
consider the areas of steep slopes and the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area on site with
regard to yield. Further analysis Ends that the yield of 46 units proposed in the Draft
EIS would not be permitted. The following is an updated determination of the
development potential of the property.
Zoning regulations limit development within RR zoned districts to one unit per 6,000
s.f. if the site is unsewered, and one unit per 4,000 s.f. if the site is sewered and has
public water. Although the total area of RR zoned land on site is 16.5 acres, the areas
with slopes over 15 percent and the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area cannot be
considered buildable land under Town Code. Figure 2 shows these areas, which total
4.8 acres, and thus, the total buildable area of the site is 11.7 acres. A buildable area
of 11.7 acres would normally allow a maximum yield of 85 hotel units under current
conditions, however, the yield calculations must also consider the existing
development on site, including the three apartment units and restaurant. The
apartments and existing units can be directly subtracted from the overall yield,
however, the restaurant is a preexisting, non-conforming use which is not discussed
under the zoning code. The minimum lot size on which a restaurant would be allowed
is 20,000 s.f. in a Hamlet Business district. Thus, it is reasonable to subtract 20,000
s.f. from the buildable land to allow for the restaurant, which would result in a total of
11.3 acres of buildable land on site. Based on this figure, the total number of units
allowed on site would be 81. As there are currently 36 units and three apartments on
site, therefore the total number of additional units which would be allowed is 42.
There are 46 additional units proposed on the current site plan, and thus four (4) of the
proposed units must be removed from the site plan.
The preceding discusses only the 16.5 acre RR zoned portion of the site. The
remaining 31.7 acres of the site is zoned AC, which would allow subdivision of the
property into 80,000 s.f. residential lots. This would permit approximately 12 new
homes on the southern portion of the site, assuming 20 percent of the site is used for
roads and a rechazge basin. Although this yield would be permitted under the Zoning
Code, County Health Department standards are more restrictive, as will be discussed
in the following paragraph.
County Health Department standards limit the total wastewater dischazge on a site to
300 gallons per day (gpd) per acre in areas without public water and sewage
treatment. As the site is 48.2 acres and has neither public water or sewers, the total
flow permitted on the parcels at this time is 14,460 gallons per day (gpd). The
Page Z4
` Beachcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
combined acreage of all three parcels is necessary to obtain this total allowed flow. As
calculated in the Draft EIS, the proposed project would result in a total flow of
14,425 gpd, which would not allow development of the remaining AC portion of the
site, however, subtraction of four units as discussed above would reduce this flow by
150 gpd per unit, or 600 gpd. This would allow construction of two single family
homes on the AC portion of the site. Thus, under existing conditions, the maximum
yield permitted on site would be 42 additional motel units and two new single family
homes.
The development potential of the property would increase if public water and/or
sewage treatment were available on site. County Health Department standazds increase
the maximum sanitary flow allowed on a property to 600 gpd per acre in an area with
public water, and sanitary flow is not limited if both sewage treatment and public
water are provided. Zoning regulations require that both public water and sewage
treatment be provided before the yield is increased within the RR zoning district,
allowing one unit per 4,000 s.f. of buildable land rather than one unit per 6,000 s.f..
Within the AC zoning district, the development potential is the same whether or not
sewage treatment or public water are provided.
Thus, if only public water were provided on site, the yield on the RR portion of the
site would not change. The zoning code is more restrictive than County Health
Department standazds and would allow only the 42 additional units. The yield of the
AC portion of the site would change, as the combined acreage of the throe parcels
would no longer be necessary to meet County Health Department standards. Thus, in
the event that public water is provided at the site, the maximum yield on site would be
42 additional units and 12 single family homes. If both public water and sewage
treatment were provided, the yield on the RR zoned portion of the property would
increase to one unit per 4,000 s.>; which would allow a total. of 83 additional units.
Thus, the maximum development potential on the subject property under any
conditions is 83 additional motel units and 12 single family homes. This would require
that the applicant construct a sewage treatment plant, as it is unlikely that public
sewers would be extended to the azea.
In summary, the Draft EIS overstated the development potential of the site, as it did
not account for areas of steep slopes and the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area on the
property The maximum development which will be allowed under existing conditions
is 42 additional motel units and two single family homes, and thus four units must be
removed from the site plan. If public water were available on site, 12 single family
homes would be allowed, but there would be no increase in the number of motel units.
If both public water and sewage treatment were provided, the maximum yield would
be 83 new motel units and 12 single family homes. in the event that the proposed
project is approved, the Board should incorporate this derivation of yield within the
Findings establishing the basis for approval and providing a means to limit fluther
development of the site.
Page 25
Beachcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
Comment 23: "Parcel #3 includes almost 30 acres presently zoned Agricultural Conservation.
Without Covenants and Restrictions, does leaving this land dormant increase the
likelihood of it being re-zoned for development at some future date?" (NFEC-2)
Response: The AC zoned portion of the project site is currently farmed. It has been suggested
that the Town require that the land lie fallow in order to reduce the goundwater
impacts of the proposed project. The resulting loss in rental income to the project
sponsor might provide some added incentive to develop the remainder of the site;
however, development would provide a significant economic advantage even if the
property is farmed.
Although the applicant does not have plans to rezone the parcel, a request for a
change of zone could be made in the future. Any change of zone application would
require approval from the Town, and would be decided based on the merits of the
proposal and detailed environmental review. The existing AC zoning designation
does not preclude development as is suggested in this comment, and rezoning would
not be necessary before the site is developed. In fact, it is more likely that the AC land
will be developed if the project is not approved, as the proposed project will limit the
development potential of the AC lands to two single family homes unless public water
is provided at the site, as was discussed above.
Comment 24: "This is a residential setting and therefore no place for an expmided motel. "(PET-I)
Response: It is acknowledged that the location of the motel and restaurant within a residential
area does present land use conflicts. Although this spot zoning would be unlikely to
be approved under existing land use regulations, the facility has been located in the
area since 1970 and constitutes a preexisting use. As the proposed project conforms
to the zoning code, the Board has no basis to deny the application.
Comment 25: "It is clear that the life styles and needs of the majority of the local residents would
be adversely affected by the expansion of the motel. We have no confidence that our
awn investments in our homes would not be adversely affected by the expmxsion of the
motel. " (BRI-7, see also BR3-1)
Response: It is not expected that property values will decrease significantly as a result of the
proposed expansion, as the motel was present when most residents moved into the
neighborhood. Although local residents will be aware of an increase in traffic and in
the number of people using the shore during peak occupancy, the impact of the
proposed project will be minimal throughout much of the year. The lifestyle of local
residents is not expected to be significantly altered. Seasonal increase in human
activity already occurs in the area, due to both the motel and the public beach at the
end of Duck Pond Road.
Page 26
BeacLcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
Although there are a few homes which currently have views of the motel in the winter,
perspectives from most of the adjacent properties aze screened as is discussed in the
Draft EIS. The proposed construction will require minimal clearing, and will not
remove the vegetation which currently screens views of the site. The applicant has
indicated that the proposed motel will be designed to be an attractive, high quality
business oriented toward families. The addition of units to the site is not expected to
significantly change the character of the existing neighborhood, and use of landscape
improvements, architectural control and site plan design can be exercised by the Town
to m;n;m;~e impacts. These measures can be ensured during the site plan review
through the required resubmission of a site plan consistent with the statement of
findings and facts on the Final EIS.
Comment 26: "If such an expansion would be approvecr; we would seriously consider selling our
home. We bought in this area for privacy, quiet, serenity, and not to look at an
expanded motel. " (KTMI-3)
Response: As was discussed above, it is not expected that the proposed expansion will
significantly alter the character of the neighborhood. The property has been used as a
resort for tourists since at least 1970. The motel is a preexisting use and residents
were aware of it when they made the decision to move into the azea. Landscaping can
be utilized where necessary and can be required as part of the revised site plan.
Comment 27: "I think this is very damaging to our environment and where we live. It is a family
community, and to open it up to 46 more units of a motel brings a lot of danger to all
Response: The comment does not support the contention that the proposed motel expansion will
be dangerous to the community. No significant health or safety impact to local
residents was identified during prepazation of the Draft EIS. The Draft and Final EIS
also suggest that the environmental impacts will be minimal.
Comment 28: "The rezoning [of the property) might lead to other types of development in the area
which would totally destroy its rural residential character. " (BRI-8)
Response: The proposed project is not a request for a change of zone as suggested in the
comment. The motel expansion is an allowed special exception use in an area zoned
for this type of development, and the application is for the necessary site plan
approval. Thus, the project is not expected to result in rezoning for non-residential
uses on surrounding lands, which are currently zoned for residential development or
agricultural conservation. The rural nature of the area will be protected by the existing
surrounding zoning. Furthermore, any future request for zoning changes would
require approval from the Town Boazd and other involved agencies, and would be
subject to the SEQRA process and public comment.
Page 27
Beachcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
Comment 29: "I think it is a waste of everyone's effort to even consider the proposal" (BR3-3)
Response: The Planning Board does not have the option to refuse to entertain a proposal which is
a reasonable request in accordance with existing zoning.
COMMUNTI'Y SERVICES
Comment 30: "A larger motel will strain local resources. Fire protectio» would have to be
increased.. and more Police protection would have to be provided Both these
additions would mean local residents will have to pay more taxes which would benefit
nonresidents. " (BRI -4, see also BR2-3)
The Draft EIS shows that there will be no strain on local police and fire departments.
The Southold Police Department was contacted, and responded with a letter stating
that they would be able to provide Police protection to accommodate the expansion
(Appendix D-56 of the Draft EIS). The Cutchogue Fire Department expressed some
concerns concerning their capability to respond to fires (Appendix D-57 of the Draft
EIS). The site plan was modified in response to these concerns, and the applicant will
install a 400 gpm fire well on the property.
Even if there were an increase in demand for these community services, the comment
is incorrect in the conclusion that taxes would be increased for local residents. As
with almost all commercial development, the proposed project will result in an increase
in local tax revenues. Commercial and industrial development are the major sowce of
tax revenue for most municipalities, while residential development represents a net loss
in tax revenues. This is because of the higher valuation of commercial and industrial
properties as well as the generation of school children by residential development.
Thus, the proposed project will increase tax revenues, allowing a decrease in the
proportion of taxes paid by local residents.
The Draft EIS did not calculate the tax revenue which will be generated by the
proposed project. The applicant currently pays over $47,000 each year, of which
approximately $27,000 goes to the local school district. The cost of the new building
was estimated in the Draft EIS to be approximately $2,000,000, which will
significantly increase both the assessed value of the property and the taxes generated
on site.
Comment 31: At present, the motel is not well utilized.. although even on that level, customers
intrude on the privacy and safety of the residential communities of Birch Hills and
Vista Bluff. Motel visitors roam the neighborhood leaving litter, pet waste, a»d
wander through private property (BRI-2, see also BR2-4, BR3-2).
Page 28
Beachcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
Response: While it is possible that at least some motel guests violate the property rights of local
residents, the end of Duck Pond Road allows access to the general public. Day
trippers and Town residents both use the road for access to the beach and Long Island
Sound, and aze probably partially responsible for the problems presented in this
comment.
Trespassers should be informed that they aze on private property, and can be reported
to the police by local residents. Littering should also be reported to the police. The
Town could require that the applicant clearly mark the boundaries of the motel
property and inform guests of the rights of local property owners, which might help to
reduce any trespassing by motel guests.
The applicant has stated that to his knowledge the motel guests are not inconsiderate.
He has not been informed of any instance of guests leaving garbage or allowing their
children or pets roam in the neighborhood. He asks that such instances be reported to
himself or to the Police. If a motel guest is responsible, the applicant has indicated
that he will be happy to remind them of their obligations to be considerate of the
neighbors and to keep the Town of Southold clean.
Comment 32: This is a lengthy comment discussing various concerns relating to public use of the
beach at the end of Duck Pond Road and surrounding area. These concerns include
beach erosion due to illegal launching of jet skis, illegal hunting on the motel
property, extensive parking along the road and edge of the Beachcomber property by
non-residents, littering and dumping of garbage and illegal use of motorcycles on the
beach. The comment suggests that the motel attracts residents to the area, who then
return, contributing to these problems. (FS-I).
Response: Mr. Richard Wazd, prior Chairman of the Town Planning Board, responded to this
comment at the time it was made, stating that the Town had similar problems at other
road ends throughout the Town during the warmer months. While it is possible that
some motel guests contribute to these problems, the primary attraction is the public
beach. Both residents and non-residents may be responsible for the illegal activities
which occur in the azea. The presence of the motel is likely to be a minor factor, as
these activities also occur in areas without the presence of a motel. In particular, it is
unlikely that motel guests pazk illegally along the road, as they can park at the motel.
As was discussed above, these problems should be reported to the Town of Southold,
and it is acknowledged that code enforcement could be improved to address these
problems. The applicant has stated that he informs all motel guests to follow local
regulations, and that he picks up garbage when it comes onto his property. To his
knowledge none of the motel guests have launched jet skis at the beach. He does not
allow hunting on the property and has posted signs warning that there is no hunting or
trespassing allowed.
Pate 29
Beachcomber Motel (IT)
Final EIS
CULTURAL
Comment 33.• The existing motel "needs a paint job, the curtains are ripped [andJ you can see it
from the street". (KTMl-2, see also RPS2-4)
Response: It is possible to view the motel from the end of Duck Pond Road, and the new units
will be partially visible. The applicant argues that painting and maintenance is typically
performed during the winter and spring prior to opening. The Town may wish to
require mitigation measures such as additional landscaping to improve the visual
quality of the site, which would benefit from aesthetic improvement as suggested in
the comment.
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
Comment 34: The board needs to consider the benefits such an expcnuion would have on the
community. The proposers would argue that a certain rmmber of jobs and peripheral
sales would result and that there would be low emiromnental impact. This argument
is filled with weaknesses and deceptions (BRI-I).
Response: It is true that the Board must consider the potential benefits of the project as well as
the potential negative impacts. The creation of jobs and peripheral sales are expected
to be a real benefit of the proposed project, as with most commercial development.
The Draft EIS discusses this issue in Section 9, Growth Inducing Aspects, and, while
this section could be more clearly presented, it appears to be factual. The Draft EIS
acknowledges some potential impacts, and the overall assessment of the significance of
these impacts is the responsibility of the Board.
Page 30
Beachcomber Motel (ln
Final EIS
REFERENCES
Spetta, Glen; 1996. Draft Errvironmental Impact Statement for Beachcomber Mote/ II, Cutchogrre,
Suffolk County, New York, Township of Southold Glen Spetta Associates, Bohemia,
N.Y.
Page 31
Beachcomber Motel (In
Final EIS
ATTACHMENT A
Written Comments and Oral Testimony
on the Draft EIS
Attachments
ra:~-
PLANNING 130ARD Ml;MH7;RS
RICHARD G. WARD
Chnirmnn
GEORGE RI'I'CHIE LATHAM, .iR.
BENNETT ORLOW3ICI, JR.
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
((~~o~SUFPOLk~OG_
~.
~~ y..Z ~ 1
C/J Z~
ff~
2~~~0 ~ ~ao~~tfi
.,,_ ..UI
Town Hall, 63095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New Ynrk 11971
Fex(516)765-313G
Telephone (516) 765-193tS
PLANNING BOARD OFFICIs'
TOWN OF SOCJTIIOLD
May 29, 1996
Glenn Spetta Associates
1050 Smithtown Avenue
Bohemia, NY 11716
RE: Beachcomber II Motel
Cutchogue, NY
SCTM# 1000-83-2-1 , 2 & 17
Dear Mr. Spetta,
The Planning Board leas received your letter of May 17, 1996.
pCi9:1- I The Board cannot agree to issue a negative declaration in return for your
agreement to merge the properties.
Further, the Board will require an area be designated on the plan for the
,~1 ~ I future location of the existing motel as it is presently located in the
flood plain, and as you indicate in your letter, there is potential for
future loss due to beach erosion.
The record of the original zone change copy attached, clearly shows it
'Q~'l: ~j was Mr. Aliano's and the Town Boards intention to relocate the motel
away from the beach due to the severe beach erosion taking place.
The above comments should be addressed along with other issues brought
up at the public hearing as part of your response for the FEIS.
~ c~.~-.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sinc r y,
~~, ~/
is i~rd G . Ward
Chairman
/.
/~/ 'lam
L '~.
);ncls .
cc: Charles J. Voorhis
rp ~.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
RICHARD G. WARD
Chairmen
GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR.
BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR.
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
~~gUFFO(,f-~O
OHO Gy~
0
N =
~ •
~°y~,,! ~ ~ao~
Town Hal], 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516)765-3136
Telephone (516) 765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
May 21, 1996
Charles Voorhis & Associates. Inc.
Environmental and Planning Consultants
54 North Country Road, Suite 2
Miller Place, NY 11764
RE: Beachcomber II Motel
Cutchogue, NY
SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17
Dear Mr. Voorhis,
The public comment period on the Draft DEIS ended May 10, 1996.
The minutes of the verbal comments ere enclosed along with copies of the
written comments for your information.
Please address the following concerns in preparing the FEIS:
-P6Z_) I The merger of the (3) three parcels that comprise this project.
Delineation of an area reserved for the future placement or
relocation of the existing motel back from the shoreline.
~BZ-Z This move was indicated as the reason for the original zone change.
The current location is in the flood plain and subject to severe
beach erosion.
~Z 3 I• Adequacy of existing roads to handle anticipated traffic.
Future use of residential parcel to the south. DEIS indicates
~Z- that this area will be left fallow to provide the project with an
I adequate water supply.
The Board would like you to particularly review the comments of the North
Folk Environmental Council as they encapsulate the Boards concerns.
Please contact me if you have any questions, or require further
information .
inc r ,
.~s~/ ~ ~~
e t ~• Kassner
Site Plan Reviewer
Encl.
~ *~-
295 Vista Place
Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935
May 3, 1996
Southold Town Planning Board
Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Dear Planning Board:
As a specialist in American Democracy, I have a good understanding
of the concept of representative democracy. A small group of
people try to represent and effect the best policies on behalf of
the whole society. Such is the job of the Planning Board of
Southold Town.
I In the particular instance of the petition for expanding the
Beachcomber Motel, the board needs to consider the benefits such an
expansion would have to the community. The proposers would argue
"~~~~ that a certain number of jobs and peripheral sales would result and
that there would be a low environmental impact to the neighborhood.
This argument is filled with weaknesses and perhaps even
deceptions.
At present the motel is not well utilized. The summer trade is
} minimal although even on that level, customers intrude on the
=,~-Z privacy and safety of the residential communities of Birch Hills
and Vista Bluff; motel visitors roam the neighborhood, leaving
litter, pet waste, and wander through private property. Motel
visitors speed through the narrow road and dangerous corner leading
~ down to the motel. We have suffered a number of pet deaths and
~`_3 (children have barely avoided being run down. An increased motel
~" population could only explode these problems into tragedies.
IA larger motel presence would strain local resources. Fire
protection would have to be increased (there are few hydrants); and
more Police protection would have to be provided. Both these
additions would mean local residents would have to pay more taxes
which would benefit nonresidents. The fragile water supply would
be affected: please note the new discovery of water pollution
heading north from Oregon Road and affecting the Sound front
1 properties. Who would pay to protect the local residents from
pollution caused by an increased number of visitors from other
^reas?
~ some of the discussions about the Motel expansion, I noted
~•eral comments that previous rulings about moving existing motel
is have not been complied with in over 10 years. This provides
confidence that future restrictions on the use and care of the
^rty would be obeyed.
~E
PC
R'
'$RI
Basically it is clear that the life styles and needs of the
-g¢,~-1 majority of the local residents would be adversely affected by the
expansion of the motel. We have no confidence that our own
investments in our homes would not be seriously damaged by this
plan. We believe the re2oning might lead to other types of
'~'gldevelopment of the area which would totally destroy its rural
residental character. Previously, the Planning Board or previous
approval bureau did great damage to the area by allowing the
(natural habitat of the birds to be damaged. They should now amend
~~ this error by protecting both the natural environment and the local
population by refusing to allow the expansion of the motel. Zt
~_~ should, on this occasion, make sure that previous rulings are
obeyed. Perhaps fines are due for the lack of compliance.
I would be happy to discuss my strong opposition to the petition to
expand the Beachcomber Motel with the Board if they so desire.
Sincerely,
/ ) _
Barbara D. Ripel, Ph.D.
RP51
R
N[ay 7, 1996
Southold Town Planning Board
Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman
53095 Main Road
Southold, N. Y. 11971
Dear Mr. Ward,
'I~' ~~'~..` __. ...
~~ ~~J HAY 9 ~s _•
I am writing this letter on behalf of my wife and I, to express our concerns with the application by
the Beachcomber Motel to expand it's facility's. I verbally expressed our concerns at two public
meetings held by the Board as a part of the review process. This letter is meant to formalize those
concerns.
As a property owner of an adjoining lot to the Beachcomber property which is to be utilized as a
part of the expansion, one of our major concerns is the possible negative impact on the limited
~PS1d water supply. It appears that the intended wells will draw from the same aquifer as the adjacent
properties. We would like to know how the logistical location of the wells is determined? Is it
based on expected usage ? If so, what happens if that usage were to change, to say a Time Share
or a Condominium type of set up in the future? How are we protected against that? Is the owner
willing to stipulate that he has no intentions of changing this property from a seasonal to year
. 1~' round usage in the future?
We have heard Mr.Aliano state that it's no one else's business but his as to his reason's for
,t.3 expanding what appeazs to be an unprofitable business by over twice it's current capacity, but we
strongly disagree with his opinion, we feel it is our business, as adjacent property owners, if his
intentions are other than those he currently espouses to.
~ As a point of fact and record, Mr.Aliano's record of following through on his expressed plans
does not give me a great deal of confidence in his currently expressed plans. The point we allude
I t o is his lack of follow up on his last expansion, a part of which was the relocation of the existing
•, its. We feel that if Mr.Aliano is not required to fulfill his commitments to the board he will
.. ttinue to flout his responsibility's, and do as he pleases, utilizing his version of what he has
of miffed to.
c fore we request that he be directed to fulfill his current commitments before any new plans
:~ ~.sidered. Then at the time the new plans are to be considered, protection be built into those
gainst a possible change from Motel type of setup to a Time Share or Condominium type
t ~. If these points aze not addressed by Mr.Aliano, to the board's satisfaction, we urge you
~ this request for any further expansion.
~V
~/ Spellman ~ ~
~-
Mrs. Patricia S ellman
~~ ~-= ~~
KTWII ~~
F
------ --- - --- - - --rn'~~ -----
~~ ~-~.~2-c~ ~i-u~vl ~i-~
MaY ~ .-
.~__.._
f 3 u 9 ~ 1~'~~
_f~ u-I-i~ Yl ~~
~~- - - --
--~-tcf,.~ -rte _ _.c~.~~s_~,___A,c.~m~~_~ ~_
~Q ~ ,
-- - - ' I -- ....------
` ___.._
.. _. ~~p-~v,o
`mud ~ ;,~,~„~ - ;,
1 ~~ Q _ _ ~/(~_ _. ~
_ - '^'~
- - --rVw~. _ V - - T - ~ - "- o --1- _ Q - ---- --
-'~-o ~.~~ - - - -
V
~H1~i , .. ,,,.,
- --;~
~~i.,'' i "dAY 9 i~ i~
PETITION ~. _,
We, the undersigned, are strongly opposed to thb'expansion-ofthe---~-
Beachcomber Motel (Beachcomber II), for the following reasons:
.; 11. .This is a residential setting and therefore is no place for an expanded
~j motel.
N 2. The narrow, steep road leading down to the motel cannot
accomodate the increased traffic. There will also be increased traffic
on Duck Pond Road. There are many young children in this area
whose lives maybe in danger.
ro 3. The people in the neighborhood will not be able to walk/bicycle down
rl to the beach due to the increased traffic.
a
~ 4. We are also concerned that in the future, the hotel property may be
al sold and converted into condominiums, timeshares, or possibly a
rehabilitation center (we are aware the Zoning would have to be
~ changed).
CIS. Why expand a motel that does very little business and~had the option
~Iof being moved back as per a 1978 ruling to avoid the erosion?
CC~ev~B~~-te= C- F-r4~cli„c~j
~ F~~ ,edoer
,,, c v-~,
row ~~.~..~
~e'~ ~~
"r~~c.C~? -i~
fro u Q~~~ F~~ R~~p
~c f ~ Jac c P~..~m ~.
3 ~ f-a rS.~ ~~ -f''~_C~ !~'
I
of ~ D ~ lrC '~J'~Lt r
_~ 4;
/~C ''~~
!/~'STT n
~L~~.d' ~T~nCy:n
/c c
'v, f~c, n
~ j ~
~ • ~ h~ t.C
ame
~~~Iz -~ ~~~~
~~~ ~~ y~~~~~s
~ r /' ~ Ce/ ~y: 9 / ~
(,`l, c~- ~' ;fir- ~~~
~`
~~r~
~~
',j/~
ress
~~Z~L v-~S{Ti
~~~~U
~~ n
f4 L2
1 ~ ~~-
~~~ ~ ~
N~w~~„1( ~~~~~
~~C~~~.
~J~
~~IS~A a~ ~~ ~~ iyv~i•~ L1 ~ ~
ck~ ~ c -~
~, //''
wC.1.c eC. ~L ~i~ "~ L~,
_ -.-- P .
Southold Town Planning Board
April B, 199~~~
Mr. Ward: Beachcomber Motel II -This proposed site plan is for the expansion of an
existing motel through the addition of 46 more units in four new buildings. The
project is located on Duck Pond Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & p/o
17. We have a problem, I believe, with the posting on this particular site and I'd like
to enter a resolution that the Southold Town Planning Board keep the hearing held
open until the next public meeting on April 29, 1996 pending further notification of
property owners.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor?
Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward
Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Also, be it further resolved that the public
comment period will be held open until May 9, 1996.
Mr. Cremers: Second.
Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor?
Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward
Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. There are some of you that did come tonight
and what I'd like to do is give you a chance to go on record if you have any
comments regarding the Beachcomber proposal. You're welcome to do that tonight
and you're also welcome to do that on the 29th when we have the next meeting.
Barbara Rickel: I'm Barbara Rickel, Vista Place. My concern is that, I flipped through
~ that huge report and there seem to be serious environmental concerns. It was Duck
r•1 Pond Point. It is the home of the birds and someone, in my opinion, stupidly filled in
P~ the Duck Pond and put the motel there and now we're faced with increased
destroying of the environment.
I secondly want to make sure that everyone realizes that the environment is beyond
~ the birds and the people. That is a very dangerous corner. Increased traffic will
cause...we've had several dogs killed, I'd hate to think about children being killed on
p that corner. What about the increased pressure on our homes, valuewise, and also
,~ people from the motel tend to roam around our neighborhood. What is the Town
~~ willing to promise us in police support, fire protection, all those kinds of things.
? I Lister increases during the summer because people wander around our
a neighborhood, and I think that although Mr. Aliano has the right to develop his
(~
Southold Town Planning Board 2 April 8, 1996 ~7RZ
F S~
N property, we have a right to protect our investments and I think this is very damaging
~- I to our environment and where we live. It is a family community, and to open it up to
°~ 46 more units of a motel brings a lot of danger to all of us. Thank you.
Fran Slezak: Hi, my name is Fran Slezak. I live on Alvah's Lane in Cutchogue. I walk
the beach in that area. I was not notified of this because I'm not in the immediate
area, but I did see the sign and I felt compelled to come here tonight because I too
am very concerned about the environment, t he beach erosion. In the summer time I
have called the police department and the highway department 3 or 4 times, because
cars have pulled trailers with jetskis onto the beach there. These were people who
maybe were staying at the motel, or not staying at the motel, I don't know. But I was
concerned that they were there.
1 have seen when the motel was closed, hunters with beagles on the grounds,
shooting rabbits with homes in the neighboring area. That concerned me greatly.
There is no place for the people who live in the area, when we go down there in the
summer time to walk along the beach, the non-residents cars are parked all the way
along that road, all the way up to Duck Pond. I think it's invasion of a community. I
think that you really have to consider the people who live there.
The dirt that's left on the side...there's a road that comes from Duck Pond down to
the water and it's the edge of the Beachcomber...the filth that s left there. I have
seen the feet of deer left there in the fall when the motel is closed. I'm not blaming
the motel, but I'm saying a lot of people come there, there aware that it's a dead
end area, they leave things there, and it's just disgusting. I can't tell you how many
times the barrier there has been pushed down by people because the barrier was
there they couldn't drive their car on the beach to get to jetski so they moved it over
and they carried the jetski there. I couldn't believe it with my eyes. These are non-
residents.
So, I'm very concerned about what's going to happen when you increase it to 46
units. I'm already upset with seeing the changes that have happened. The dirt, the
garbage, the food left on the beach. If you walk on the beach a mile down in either
direction, the people have left. Who is going to go and pick that stuff up? I have
picked it up. I've called the Town to say, hey there's stuff here. Very often the water
just naturally comes up very high on the sand. The natural erosion is not...l mean if
you put more people, more boats...l've seen motorcycles riding on the beach. Who's
going to monitor this.
When I called the police department one time because somebody had come with a
jetski and...when the jetski people come, they come with one jetski and there are five
carloads of people, and they all take their turn and ride the jetski. I've seen the jetski
with nobody on it going in circles because they fell off. I thought it was supposed to
Southold Town Planning Board 3 April 8, 1996 pSI
NFEG
close off automatically? It didn't. Well, that frightened me because there were people
and children in the water. And it's a limited beach area because of all the natural
rocks and all the natural stones that are there that when these other people are there
who are with the motel or not with the motel, I'm just saying that a lot of people come
to the motel that are familiar with the area, then they come back. And the local
people can't even get down there because all their cars are parked along the road,
''not in the motel, in those places. So, how are we going to monitor this. How are we
going to...when I called the police one time they said, well, we'll try to get down there
but we have a lot of other areas. Their hands are tied. They've got a lot of places to
go. I think it's a major concern and I think we really have to look at it because it's a
community there and I think the Town people are concerned about it. And I just
happened to see the sign because I walk the beach every day. Thank you.
1V1r. Ward: We have a lot of street ends and we have similar problems really all over
the Town during the spring, summer and fall. The issue that will be before us though
on the 29th will be directly related to the Beachcomber proposed expansion. What
we will do is take these comments and make sure that the Town Board and police
department at least are aware of these concerns.
Ms. Slezak: There's not even a sign there that says only for Town residents. Is that
because the motel is there? Almost every other dead end street in Southold has a
sign that says parking for Town residents. This does not even have that. It does not
even have a sign there.
Mr. Ward: Which maybe means there is no parking, but I don't know the situation.
rJ
Ms. Slezak: No, it says no parking hours between 10 and 10, but I'm saying every
other place you go down it says Town of Southold sticker. And I think there is a
direct correlation between what's happening there with the expansion. I think there's
going to be more people, more cars traveling down there. I'm very concerned about
it. Thank you.
Gerald Walts: My name is Gerald Walts. I'm here on behalf of the North Fork
Environmental Council. We do have some concerns concerning this project and I'm
here to read a statement. The DEIS for the Beachcomber expansion evaluates the
project as existing on three separately owned parcels of land rather than on one
i merged tract of land. The North Fork Environmental Council is concerned about how
~ this approach may or may not impact future development of these parcels beyond
W the proposed Beachcomber II project. Since part of the SEQRA review calls for an
2 anticipation of a project's possible impact on future development, we fee! that a
number of questions should be addressed.
1. What are the implications beyond this project if the separate parcels are later sole
Southold Town Planning Board
~ off?
q April 8, 1996 ~1 `J ..
KTMt
2. Parcel #3 includes almost 30 acres presently zoned Agricultural-Conservation.
According to the DEIS, this land would no longer be farmed but instead would be left
~~~~ fallow in order to provide the project with an adequate water supply. Without
u~. Covenants and Restrictions, does leaving this land dormant increase the likelihood of
Z it being re-zoned for development at some future date? .
3. The existing 36 motel units are presently located on Parcel 1 consisting of 2.1
,~ I acres. The normal allowable density for this parcel, however, would be 14.5 units. If
the three parcels are not merged, is the Beachcomber complex, in effect, getting an
~ extra 20 units? In other words, should public water later become available and/or
W
a further down the road yet another expansion is planned for parce! 2 or parcel 3,
s would parcel one's 36 units be factored into the whole picture?
4. The Beachcomber DEIS mitigates a number of SEORA issues (traffic, burden on
~i community services, etc.) by highlighting the "seasonal" nature of the Beachcomber
complex. What safeguards are there ensuring that Beachcomber will remain
a seasonal? For that matter (given the recent confusion over the definition of a "parking
Z~ space") how exacting is the Town's definition of "seasonal"?
Lastly, the NFEC would like to cite Chapter 37 of Town Law which gives the Southold
Town the responsibility to "regulate in coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and
erosion, land use and development activities so as to minimize or prevent damage
and destruction to property." In keeping with this law, in 1978 the Planning Board
,~ supported a change of zone on Parcel 2 so that Mr. Aliano could "move the motel and
i facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through
W erosion." However, although presumably the change of zone was granted for this
u- purpose, this move has never taken place. As recently as April 23, 1992 the
~ Trustees have also advised that the existing motel should be moved at least fifty feet
beck. As per Chapter 37 of Town Law, shouldn't Southold see to it that this move of
the existing motel be included in the Beachcomber project and thus accounted for in
the DEIS? Thank you.
Ms. Scopaz: Could we have a copy of your comments?
Mr. Watts: Yes.
Mr. Ward: Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board this evening?
Tom Mangimele: I'm Tom Mangimele, I live on Duck Pond Rd. My piece of property is
on the bluff that overlooks the Beachcomber. On the busiest week-end in the
~, summer, Memorial Day, there's not more than six cars in that parking lot. What's the
~~~
Southold Town Planning Board 5 April 8, 1996 K~1
RPSCI.
need for the expansion? Whats the need? My concern is whaCs going to happen
(further on down the road? It doesn't look like the motel business is making it there.
'~ The place needs a paint job, the curtains are ripped, you can see it from the street.
I What's going to happen in the future? Can it be turned into a rehab center? That's my
concern. Thank you.
Mr. Ward: Anyone else? Yes sir.
Kip Bedell: I live on Duck Pond Rd. We've lived there three years now and we moved
into what is essentially a dead end street, there's no outlet. And we felt that it would
be a pretty quiet road down there and we were very surprised actually with how much
traffic is really there.
~As Tom mentioned, there really are not a lot of cars usually at the Beachcomber
Motel, but certainly it does increase the traffic in the summer time when there are
~ people there and also people that use the beach, there are fishermen that use the
m beach. I can't even imagine the increase of 46 units, which means at least one car,
~ meaning at least once a day they're going to be going somewhere and coming back.
And more than likely they're going to be going multiple times leaving the mote! to do
something and come back again. And every time, they have to come up and down
Duck Pond Rd.
it We did have a cat killed right in front of our house and I just can't imagine on this
Y 1 dead end road that increase in the traffic that much. I think it would be very bad.
I Thank you.
Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board this evening?
Rich Spellman: I live on Duck Pond Rd. I have an adjacent piece of property right in
_ back of Tom, in between Kip and Tom. My concerns are from a business
~/ perspective. It's the same question that Tom has asked. What do they justify
~ creating 46 units to a business that on face value does not seem to have more than
10°~ of those units at any given time, filled now. And if they were going to be
N required to move those units back, and you can see what the erosion has done, they
~ put the cement wall up there, why didn't they do that before considering this other
(~ move?
1 only received my notice Saturday so I really didn't have a chance, I will go and look
at the library, I understand there's a binder with all the information. But I thought
there was something like 130 on the sound, maybe I'm wrong. I didn't know there
were just 30. I heard 30 quoted but I thought there were more than that because
there are about three buildings there. The total units that are at the existing
Beachcomber Motel?
Southold Town Planning Board
6 April 8, 1996
fiPbz
Ms. Scopaz: There's 36 units and three apartments existing on the site and they are
proposing to add an additional 46.
Mr. Spellman: Alright, then I'm incorrect. So, there's about 40 some odd units there
,~ now and they're going to add another 46, so they're essentially doubling the size of
;~ the units. I can't help but ask myself is there a hidden agenda here? There are 46
/~ units that are not filled, I would be willing to bet you if you look at their books, not
more than 25% of those units during the summer time are filled at any given night.
Why do they need 46 more units? And especially when the place itself is
deteriorated. I've been there nine years now and it has deteriorated significantly over
~ the time I've been there, the maintenance. So those are just the questions I ask.
(Y Thank you.
Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board? If not, this hearing will be continued
on the 29th and you're certainly welcome to come back. I'm sure the applicant, at
that particular time will have some responses to some of these questions and the
Board also has some concerns that we'tl like to have addressed. So, we thank you
for coming.
MINUTES
April 29, 1996
Present were: Richard G. Ward, Chairman
Bennett Orlowski, Jr.
G. Ritchie Latham
Kenneth Edwards
William Cremers
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
Melissa Spiro, Planner
Absent: Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer
Martha Jones, Secretary
Mr. Ward: Goad evening. I'd like to call the April 29, 1996 Southold Town Planning
Board meeting to order. The first order of business is the setting of the next Planning
Board meeting. Board to set Monday, May 20, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at Southold Town
Hall, Main Rd., Southold as the time and place for the next regular Planning Board
meeting.
Mr. Cremers: So moved.
Mr. Latham: Second.
Mr. Ward: Moved and seconded. All in favor?
Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward
Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried.
Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings
Mr. Ward: Beachcomber Motel II -This proposed site plan is for the expansion of an
existing motel through the addition of 46 more units in four new buildings. The
project is located on Duck Pond Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & p/o
Southold Town Planning Board 2 April 29, 1996
17. I see that the applicant is here, if they would like to address the Board at this
time.
Henry Raynor: Good evening Mr. Ward, gentlemen. My name is Henry Raynor, as
agent for the Beachcomber. We're here tonight, here is Mr. Glenn Spaetta, of Glenn
Spaetta Associates, who had prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) which you have been studying before you and if the Board is amenable he has
a synopsis that he'd like to present to you this evening and if there are any questions
he'd be more than happy to answer those, if you'd like to have the hearing proceed in
that manner.
Mr. Ward: That's fine
Glenn Spaetta: Good evening. As you can see we have an aerial photo of the
property with some overlays of different scenarios for development. As Henry said,
I'm an environmental consultant. I've been in the field for over 15 years preparing
environmental impact statements for various projects, including residential homes
and large developments, commercial property as well as for the proposed action.
The project originally consisted of 86 units proposed for development to expand the
existing motel complex. That was several years ago. A scoping meeting was held.
At subsequent discussions after that meeting the project was significantly downsized
to include 46 units. These units are four separate buildings and are pictured on the
site plan on the aerial photo here.
The project involves three separate tax map parcels. One of them is owned by Pond
Enterprises, Inc. and that's 2.1 acres, that includes where the existing motel is. The
second one is owned by Patricia Krupski and that's 12.3 acres and includes where
the cabana and a lot of the cleared area is as well as part of the woods on the
property, and the third lot is owned by Nicholas Aliano and is 33.8 acres of which 32
is farm and approximately 1.8 is wooded. For the purposes of the project the lots
have been combined together and will have to be, at a later date, merged together
for the project.
As part of the DEIS process, significant beneficial and adverse facts were discussed.
Potential negative impacts of the project were some of the steeper sloped areas on
the property and are located on the east of the clearing as well as on the south side
of the clearing. Potential nitrogen loading into the Sound was a concern. Water
usage, loss of some vegetation on the site, as well as traffic concems and
archeological concerns.
Potential beneficial impacts to the project were an increase to local economic
Southold Town Planning Board 3 April 29, 1996
concerns, increased tax revenue, approximately S48,000 per year. There will be
more jobs created, short term, during construction, as well as an increase in future
spending if additional people come to stay at the hotel and spend money in the Town
of Southold when they visit wineries as part of tourism and into the local community.
Also, the project will retain open space on approximately 43 of the 48 acres, as
proposed. The development is concentrated in the resort residential portion of the
property; it's broken into resort residential and agricultural conservation. You see the
white line that runs through the middle of the property.
Mitigating measures were utilized to minimize a potential impact of the project that
might have been detrimental. As far as erosion control, the buildings have been re-
arranged from the original proposal out of steep sloped areas so that they're in flat
cleared portions of the property. The set backs of the buildings, the closest new one
proposed is 110 feet from the bluff and we've avoided with the design of the
proposed action, we avoided disrupting natural drainage swales and utilize some of
the natural areas to retain the existing drainage patterns on site.
The applicant will follow all erosion control guidelines and an erosion control plan will
be submitted as part of this project. We've kept the buildings in the vacant cleared
areas, as we've said before, that you see on the property. A lot of that is currently
mowed and there's a cabana and kind of an open field there right now and it s just
north of the woods.
Water demands for the project have been investigated and the project was downsized
as we've said before, from 86 units to 46 units, and that meets all Suffolk County
Department of Health requirements allowable for the 48.2 acres which are being
included for this property. The requirement is 14,460 gallons per day and the total
project will be at 14,425 gallons per day, so it will meet both New York State DEC as
well as Suffolk County Department of Health standards for water demands.
The sanitary system will consist of conventional sanitary sewage disposal, septic
tanks and leaching pools and will also comply with all Suffolk County Department of
Health Article 6 requirements.
The applicant investigated salt water intrusion as a potential negative impact and has
located the water supply wells back...you'll see two blue spots there near the resort
residential and agricultural conservation district line and the wells will be located in
that portion of the property and in that way they will not adversely mitigate
groundwater supply or create the potential for saltwater intrusion.
There will be a very small amount of vegetation lost as a result of the project on the
Southold Town Planning Board 4 April 29, 1996
eastern side of the property where some of the portions of the property would be
cleared just slightly for the expansion of the units.
Traffic impacts -approximately 33 trips per hour during the peak traffic hour and that
amounts to about one car every two minutes on a Saturday afternoon in that peak
hour and the total for the day on a typical Saturday, as a result of the project would
probably be about an extra 100 trips per day. What the applicant is proposing is the
addition of two stop signs, one at the top of the hill and...that s further to the left
Garrett, on Duck Pond Rd., to the left of the red line, further to the left, there's a stop
sign at the top of the hill so that when people have to turn right and go down to the
beach they'll come to a complete halt. And also at the intersection of Vista Place and
Birch Lane, so that they'll be traffic control in both of those directions.
The Cutchogue Fire Department has requested that the applicant put in a 400 gallon
per minute firewell on the property and the applicant has located that on the east side
of the property and that meets with their requirements. Several alternatives to the
project were investigated and the first one would be no action. No action would be as
the site is now, with just the motel units and cabanas there. A second alternative was
looked at, this was considered alternative B which also clustered units on the
property, but left two units back on the farmed portion of the property but within the
resort residential zoning. And you can see approximately the way that would look.
That was alternative B that was investigated and the applicant feels that the proposed
alternative is better than that one.
The third alternative looked at in addition to no action and that one you just saw, was
clustering the units in a U-shaped formation in that cleared portion of the property -
and you see the way that looks. And again, you can see by these overlays that most
of the property is again staying vacant and clear and all of the development really
takes place in the cleared portion of the property as it exists now. And again, this is
an alternative that was proposed and not preferred by the applicant.
Matters to be decided, as far as the Town of Southold, before the project can
proceed, a denial of the project has to be given by the Building Department in order
to be considered for special exception by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning
Board of Appeals would then have to make a decision as to whether or not to allow
the resort residential zoning by special exception. The code permits each unit, 6,000
square feet, to be constructed. And so it allows for 6,000 square foot units by
special exception.
The Planning Board would also have to approve the site plan prior to it going forward.
The Building Department would have to approve the design and finally the Highway
Department would have to approve the stop signs that would go into place.
Southold Town Planning Board 5
April 29, 1996 ~~~
Suffolk County Department of Health Services would also have to review the water
supply and approve the system as well as the waste water for the project. New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation would also have to approve the well
permit and also the applicant would need to receive a non~urisdiction letter for the
tidal wetlands because it is close to it but it is outside the wetlands area.
So, as you can see, an extensive review has been prepared and a DEIS has
addressed concerns and issues of not only the Board but of other agencies as well
that were involved in the comment period. At this point in time the applicant feels that
the proposed action will have the most value not only to the Town of Southold but as
well as makes the most economic sense for him at this time. With that, we'd be
happy to open up for any questions that you might have.
Mr. Ward: The Planning Board has two major concerns. One, is that the applicant
going back a number of years, when he got a zone change, requested the zone
change to move the existing motel back because the shoreline conditions kept
~ undermining the motel and that the whole rationale for giving the zone change was to
fD move the existing motel back so it would be out of the tidal and wave action along the
(L shoreline. That alternative has not been addressed. That has to be addressed in this
determination on your SEQRA review here.
Secondly, the Board cannot understand how this project can be done as three
separate holdings. They all work with one another. I don't believe we can really
~ approve a project without knowing that it's under one ownership or one common
~ ownership. Those are our two major concerns today. There have been other
~ concerns raised by the community, but those are two major things we'd like to see
addressed in detail in the environmental impact statement.
Mr. Spaetta: We agree with you on the combining of the parcels, and that needs to be
done. Right now they're all individual parcels. We mentioned up front that that needs
to be done in order for the project to proceed. I'm sure that the applicant is willing to
do that. It requires some additional steps that need to be taken.
As far as the removal of the existing units, that does create some economic hardship
since the units are currently operating and are viable and that was addressed in the
environmental impact statement as to remove the units now while they're still
operating and still able to generate income, does create some difficulty for the
applicant. We would be happy though to expand on that and address that further.
Mr. Ward: Yes, we're requesting that. Are there any questions? Anybody here that
would like to address the Board on this particular project at this time, you can do that
if you wish. I know some of you were here at the last hearing.
Southold Town Planning Board 6 April 29, 1996 R~~~
KdZ
Rich Spellman: At the last hearing, I asked the question, having lived here not a
tremendous amount of time, about nine years. To my recollection, and other people
can speak for this too, I don't think I've ever seen at any given time any more than
i ' 25% of those units ever filled. And my question is, and I still don't understand it, if
m there's no more than 25% of those units filled, why double the number of units?
n That's the basic question and I haven't heard that explained. Maybe it doesn't have to
~ be addressed at this point, I don't know, but it's a common sense question and I'd just
like to get some sort of an answer to that question.
Mr. Ward: Would the applicant like to address that?
Nick Aliano: My name is Nick Aliano. I'm the owner of Pond Enterprises, the Krupski
parcel, which is my daughters, and the Aliano parcel, so that's the three parcels. As
far as what the business has been doing, or not doing, I don't think that's anybody
else's business but mine. I have reasons why iYs not doing well now. The water
comes up to the motel units now. And one more big storm and I'll get wiped out
altogether. And my main purpose 10 years ago when I made this application, was to
be protected that if it does hit, I can build right away. I won't have to go through 10
years of this nonsense that we're going through now. So, the fact that it's not doing
well has nothing to do with anybody else but me. And I have plans for this property. I
wouldn't be here spending money for 10 years if I didn't. That s all I have to say
about it.
Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board this evening?
Kip Bedell: I live on Duck Pond Rd. I just have a question. Does the applicant own the
property all the way to Oregon Rd.?
Mr. Aliano: I do own property to Oregon Rd.
Mr. Bedell: Again, I'm very concerned about the traffic on Duck Pond Rd. This
gentleman mentioned that there's going to be a car every minute, or something like
that, in the season and this is a dead end road, it's a residential area...
~ Mr. Aliano: I'm there 25 years, and I feel like aJohnny-come-lately. I'm there 26 years
~ to be exact. And the fact that I have property on Oregon Road and I have frontage on
~j Oregon Road ...
Mr. Bedell: What I'm saying is that I feel that this project is going to create far too
much traffic on a dead end residential road and I think that if this should even be
considered by the Board, there should be a private road that runs up to this motel
and by-pass Duck Pond Road altogether.
Southold Town Planning Board 7 April 29, 1996 1~+TM~
8Rb
Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board this evening?
Tom Menginele: I also live on Duck Pond Road. My concern is what can happen in the
future to where this site is going to be. Lets say it sells, can it become something
else, maybe ahalf-way house or a rehabilitation center? Because you know it is in a
residential area, and thaYs my concern.
i
Mr. Aliano: Well, now we've got it going for what we want to use it far. If other uses
that you're talking about would be something else I'd have to go into. That would be
a whole new ball game.
I Mr. Menginele: Well, let's just say it sold, would this have to come before the Zoning
Board again?
Mr. Ward: Well, it would depend on what it was, but normally if it's a use thaYs not
allowed within the zone, it would have to go for either a zone change, which would be
the Town Board, or a special exception which would be the Zoning Board of Appeals.
~ There would be other hearings, it wouldn't just happen.
t
[r1 Mr. Menginele: And the way the zoning is right now for building, if in effect these
buildings do get erected, can there be an add on? Or the way the .zoning is right now
is it certain buildings per amount of acreage?
Mr. Ward: It sounds like right now the controlling factor happened to be the Health
Department. I guess they had an application in for more units. Based on the amount
of property that's here they would be allowed to build more units under the zoning
category here, but at this particular junction they're going along, I guess, with what
Health Services will allow in terms of their capacity.
Mr. Menginele: And also, just one other point. Outside of the stop signs, because I
~ 'did see that in the environmental impact, is there any other kind of alterations that are
t going to be made to the roads or...because right now you have. no shoulder on those
rA roads going down there. You go two feet off the road, you're either in a gully or into
~ a tree. During the season, we do use the beaches out in front there and if a car
y comes, there's very little room. I was just wondering if that's being taken into
consideration or even thought about?
Mr. Ward: It will be looked at. Anyone else?
Barbara Rickel: I live on Vsta Place. I've lived there for 20 some odd years. I'm
sorry, I just came in. I teach at the community college and we had a late meeting, so
I don't know exactly what's been said but I want just to put on record that I'm totally
Southold Town Planning Board 8 April 29, 1996 ~~
1
I opposed to this expansion. I think it's detrimental to our neighborhood. It's
~ detrimental to the environment. It doesn't consider the needs of the people in the
area and I see no reason for it. There's not a lot of use of that area, and when people
nl do come, there is no policing in how they walk through our neighborhood, leave
rn garbage and are inconsiderate. They let their dogs and their children roam all over
~ our yards. I have found motel people using my swing set. I don't understand that.
We need to be protected. I think that is a waste of everyone's effort to even consider
the proposal. Thank you.
M
Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board? Does the applicant have anything
else further that they would like to present?
Mr. Aliano: I don't have anything else to say except that the Town itself saw fit to add,
- before I made an application, to add about six or seven acres to the back of my
motel, just like that, without me going to the Town, it was just re-zoned for six or
seven more acres. Now, I ask just another six acres and all this fuss...well, I got the
other six acres, but, I have nothing else to say, unless you have another question.
Mr. Ward: Anyone else on the Board? If not, all in order to close the hearing.
Mr. Cremers: So moved.
Mr. Orlowski: Second.
Mr. Ward: Moved and seconded. All in favor?
Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward.
Mr. Ward: Opposed? Carried. Just a note that the public comment period will run
until May 9, 1996, and the Board may make a decision at the May 20 meeting
whether to accept the DEIS or require a Final Environmental Impact Statement. So,
those that are interested in following this, May 20 would be a meeting then that you
may like to attend. Thank you all for coming.
Beachcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
ATTACHMENT B
Public Hearing Transcript
April 11, 1978
Attachments
~ ~ ~ ~.
PUBLIC HEARING April 11, 1978
CHe\NGE OF ZONE APPLICATION 4p238 - NICHOLAS ALIANO ~ PATRICIA KRUPSKI
;~ ,
A public hearing was held by the Southold Town Board at the
- Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York at 8:00 P.M.,
Tuesday, on April 11, 1978 on the application of Nicholas Aliano
& Patricia Krupski for a change of zone from "A" Residential and
Agricultural to "M-1" Multiple Residence District on property
located at Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, New York.'
Present at the hearing were:
Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia
Councilman James Homan
Councilman Henry W. Drum
Justice Martin Suter
Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker
Town Clerk Judith T. Terry
Absent: Councilman William R. Pe 11, 3rd and Justice Francis T. Doyen
Councilman Drum read the notice of hearing as follows;
Pursuant to Section 265 of the Torun Lacu and requirements of the
Building Zone Ordinance of the Torun of Southold, Suffolk County,
New York, public hearings will be held by the Southold Town Board
at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road,~Southol3, New York, in said
Town on the 11th day of April, 1978, on the following proposal
to amend the Building Zone Ordinance (including the Building Zone
Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York:
8:00 P.M. by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural
District to "M-1" Multiple Residence District the property of
Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski, situated at Cutchogue, New
York, and more particularly bounded and described as. follows:
BEGINNING at a monument at the intersection of the easterly line
of Duck Pond Road and the southerly line of Duck Pond~Road which
monument is distant North 29° 50' S0" East 213.08 feet from the
north~aesterly corner of lands of N. Aliano;. thence from said point
of beginning running North 52° 31' 10" East partly through lands
of N. Aliano and Patricia Krupski to lands of R. Hammel; thence
along said lands of R. Hammel and J. Zuhoski the following two (2)
courses and distances: (1) South 45° 52' 40" East 39.06 feet; and
(2) South 46° 17' S0" East 367.21 feet; thence from said point
running along lands of Aliano et ano. South 43° 42' 10" West
946.44 feet to lands of Fellinger-Ihar; thence along said last
mentioned lands North 42° O1' 40" idest 465.90 feet to the southerly
side of Duck Pond Road; thence along the southerly side of Duck
Pond Road North 29° 50' S0" East 213/08 feet to the monument at
the point or place of beginning.
Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed
amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified.
DATED; t4arch 14, 1978 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK
COUNCILMAN DRUM:
PUBLIC
HEARING ~
~ ( ~
April 11,
197E
CHANGE OF ZONE r1PPLICATION'p 238 - NICHOLAS ALIANO & YATRICIA KRUPSKI
J/. COUNCILMAN DRUM: We have proof of notice of publication from the
Suffolk Weekly Times, notarized March 24, 1978, and proof of notice
of publication from the Long Island Traveler Watchman, notarized
March 24, 1978. We have an affidavit from Judith T. Terry, Town
Clerk that this has been posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board
at the Town Clerk's Office, Main Road, Southold, New York. We have
received a letter from the Planning Board, Town-of Southold, dated
March 13, 1978, to the Southold Town Board:
Gentlemen:
The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board
at a regular meeting held on January 30, 1978:
RESOLVED .to recommend to the Southold Town Board approval of the
petition of Nicholas Aliano & Patricia Krupski, Case No. 238 for
a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to
"TI-1" General Multiple Residence District on property located at
Cutchogue, New York in view of the fact that it is apparent that
the etitioner must move the motel and facilities back from the
Soup as a resu t o su stantial loss of beach through erosion.
The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance
with the development plan of the Town of Southold for this location.
/s/ Muriel Brush, Secretary
We have received a letter from the Suffolk County Department of
Planning„ dated March 1, 1978 to the Southold Town Board: On the
petitioner Aliano vs. Krupski.
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk
County Charter, the above captioned application which has been
referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission i.s considered
to be a matter for local determination. The decision of local
determination should not be construed as either an approval or
disapproval.
/s/ Lee Koppelman
Director of Planning
SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: I would like to make a correction of the
preceding letter. I believe you indicated that the petitioner
was Aliano vs. Krupski. It is Aliano and Krupski.
COUNCILMAN DRUM: Did I say that? Excuse me, the petitioner is
Aliano and Krupski.
SUPERVISOR MART~CCHIA: Councilman Drum has read the legal notice
on petition of Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski, Case No. 238
requesting a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural
to '°M-1" General Multiple Residence. The subject matter has been
advertised in both of the local papers and .notarized as such, it
has been posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, and we have
the recommendations and comments of the Southold Town Planning
Board recommending approval and the Suffolk County Department of
Planning has left it to local determination. At this time, I
would like to open up the hearing to anyone who wishes to speak
in behalf of the applicants.
rUttLIC HEARING ~ ~ ( ~..pril 11, 1978
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLi~ATION ;238 - NICHOLAS ALI iv0 & YATRICIA KRUPSKI
NICHOLAS ALIANO: I am Nick Aliano owner of the Beachcomber
-Motel which is the concern of this petition. What I would like
to do first of all is give you an idea of what the motel looked
like. This is what the beach looked like prior to the last storm.
~~ (Pir. Aliano presented photographs.) And this is a pciture of
what it looks like now. Originally, I had about 150 to 200 feet
of beachfront.about 8 years ago. Since that time, especially this
•.'~; last winter, not only have I lost all of the beach, but I have lost
some of the sidewalk and it is already eroding the building. I
have had the local sand & gravel man dump about 10 truck loads of
sand in to shore up against my buildings and sidewalk. I have a
photo here to show that even that sand was washed away after the
next storm. So there is no question, that I am in emminent danger
of losing my whole business. I bought as'much property behind me
and surrounding me that I could afford to move the location back.
The local farmers in the area es t at it not ing more than
shrubs, sand, and scrub oak where I want to put the expansion or
what have you, behind the motel. There is about three-quarters
of an acre of farmland that this involves. My intention is to put
tennis courts and a golf course and situate the expansion along
the perimeter of the cliff, it will be westerly, It is up to you
gentlemen as to whether of not I stay in business. Without this
expansion, I cannot stay in business. I think that my reputation
of cleaning up the place, when I bought it 8 years ago it was a
sore eye to the community and I think anyone in town will tell
you that what I have done here is a credit. So now, I am asking
your consideration of this extension.
SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Is there a map?
PIR. ALIANO: The property west of me is owned by my family, that's
across from Depot Lane. The property is east of me, my line is on
the middle of a cliff; so that I couldn't do anything about that.
The property south of me is owned by myself.
SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: This request that you are making for "M-1"
zoning involves how much property?
~ow /1F•1~Cr15
PIR. ALIANO: It's about 9. acres.. I have "M-1" zoning now, but
of course that map shows before the beach ereoded and that's
about 12 acre you can take out of there. Business has improved
and I must have room for expansion anyway. Even if this had not
happened, I have need for the tennis court and golf course. I
have already put a swimming pool in. We are off the beaten-track
too far away from everything, and you have to give people some-
thing to do while they are at a motel on vacation. I think I
bring a lot of business to the town. It's a family-run operation.
Thereare ten people in my family and we run a motel and restaruant.
This is a picture from the L.I. Traveler Mattituck Watchman. It
shows the erosion and it also states that a"matter or fact the
Town Hall has a copy of the erosion situation.
SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: We have had a very bad winter along the
Sound.
MR. ALIANO: Yes, as I said, I put in 8-10 truckloads of sand and
gravel mixture and that has all been washed away. I showed you
runLiL tiC.Ax1NG ( < ( l April 11, 1978
' CHANGE OF ZONE APPLLCATION ;k 23g - NICHOLAS AL1AN0 & PATRICIA KRUPSKI
the photographs of before and after. It's:all been washed away,
and I can't-keep doinguthis. `"'`' -~- .
JUSTICE MARTIN SUTER: Was it your intention to move the building
back?
MR. ALIANO: No, I can't move the building back. Originally, when
I filed the application, my intention was to expand because the
business had increased that much. But since this erosion it won't
really be an expansion, it's just a question of re-building.
JUSTICE SUTER: So what does that mean? You plan to re-build and
phase this out?
MR. ALIANO: Yes that's correct to re-build and make it nice
with the tennis court and gold course, the pool is already there.
COUNCILMAN DRUM: On the bluff?
FIR. ALIANO: No, not on the bluff, it will have to be below or in
the middle.
SUPERVISOR F4ART000HIA: Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Aliano,
is there something you are not clear about? Does anyone else wish
to speak in behalf of the application?
LOUIS EDSON, Maple Lane, Southold: I have known Nick Aliano for
about g years when -;1 was: working back in MacDonalds, we had some
business transactions.•"We have remained friends ever since. I'
have seen some other projects that he has done and done well. I
sata this place when he first took it over, it certainly wasn't
anything very attractive. He has spent a lot of money and time
down there and it shows. I think when people do this, it calls
for some type of encouragement. The .Town Board should encourage
the growth of the Tocan. I recommend the approval of his application.
SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone else wish to speak in behalf
of this application?
(There was no response.)
SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone wish to speak in opposition?
JOHN & OLZVIA FELLINGFR-IEIAR: I would like to ask you, where will
the new buildings or additions be located?
SUPERVISOR MARTOCCiiIA: The Town Board is concerned with the change
of zone. The Planning Board would be concerned with the site plans,
etc.
JOHN FELLINGER-IHAR: I have a map here. See, we are the neighbors
to the proposed 10 acre parcel. We would be concerned only if the
motel is put up next to us. We would be concerned only if the motel
would be extended next to us approximately east of us 2~ acres, 105
feet east of us and goes down 460 We are concerned about the
PUBLIC HEARING { ~ ~ r'~.ril 11, 1978
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLi~ATION ~p 238 - NICHOLAS ALIANO & PATRICIA KRUPSKI
density and population because we have a house here. We sympathize
very much with Mr. Aliano, he is an excellent man and we like him
very much and we know what happened on the beach and we hope there
is somesolution for him. We are just concerned that next to us.
SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHLA: Will he have to go under the site plan?
TOIJN ATTORNEY ROBERT W. TASKER: I think he wil•1 probably have to
have a site plan with specified setbacks.
MR. FELLINGER-IHAR: It is about 2~ acres east of us that we are
concerned with right next to our residence. I' was told that eventually
a house would be built there by Mr. Aliano. y
SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone else wish to speak in opposition
to this application?
BILL WILHELi4, President of the Birch Hills Property Owners Association:
I would just like to know a little more about what is involved. For
example, if there is a real motive involved here to protect the real
estate, why was not bulkheading considered. My other point is the
concern about expansion of the property with the additional buildings.
In regards to health, we had some difficulty when we were building
there and also some warnings. In fact we had to sign a waiver
regarding, pollutants in the soil. For example, our nitrate levels
are very high there. If there is indication that a significant
expansion of that kind of thing would aggrevate the nitrate level,
etc. Pfr. Calvin Smith of the Suffolk County Health Department is
in charge of that. So .even though I have no objections, I have
some concerns. I question whether the solving of the problem could
be done in other ways rather than in expansion.
JUSTICE P'lARTIN SUTER: We have no control over the Health Department.
He must meet all of their requirements the same as you did.
PIR. WILHELM: Well, It turned out that we couldn't meet them and
we had to sign a waiver.
JUSTICE SUTER: This is up to the Health Department.
MARK BRIAN: I have a question regarding the expansion. I live in
the general area. I am interested in discovering whether or not
anybody has information as to the proposed expansion of the motel.
It is a substantial number of extra units or is it just a replacement
on a 1-1 basis of what is already there? If it is a replacement on
a 1-1 basis certainly there would be no objection. on my part. However
if it is expanded, I am wondering if that particular area is a desirably
area in view of the rather .limited road access and particularly the
problems we have been having with the drainage area near the intersectic
of Duck Pond Road, whether or not the motel would be appropriate until
this problem is resolved. I understand there is supposed to be some
resolution of this drainage problem in the area, but in any case the
road is breaking up rather badly in certain areas and whether the
additional traffic due to the motel would increase the number of
residents would necessarily be desirable from the standpoint of the
road and the residents who already live in the area. Since I don't
PUBLIC HEARING ~ ~ ~ ~ April 11, 1978
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION X6238 - NICHOLAS AL1AN0 & PATRICIA KRUPSKI
know what the plans are, I can't say that I am against it, I have
no objection at this point. But, could elaborate as to what the
particular plans are.
SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: To my knowledge, none have been submitted
that I know of. The Planning Board would approve the site plan.
MR. ALIANO: I have already told the Planning Board what my
intention was. I originally wanted to expand what I had. But
since I made application I am in danger of losing what I have,
so it would wind up a 1-1 but I am not going to guarantee that
all of a sudden that the sand is going to come back again. I
plan to expand as needed. It is strictly a seasonal motel type
of~operation. I am only open in the summer. I don't get that
winter business that breaks up the road. I am not going, to deal
with that problem, that is up on Oregon Road, no wheres near me.
D1R. BRIAN: Basically, what I was interested in was this expansion
or whether it was primarly for the replacing of buildings....
DIR. ALIANO: It is both, either, or. Time will tell as far as the
expansion. I don't expect to expand right away, but I want to know
that it can be done.
D'IR. BRIAN: Did you consider bulkheading?
DtR. ALIANO: Yes, it would cost me $30,000. and there is no guarantee
that the bulkheading, will stay, I don't have that strong a footing
it's a 22 year old building. So, If I put $30,000. into it and I
can't get insurance on bulkheading. I called the flood control
people about it, they will not insure bulkheading. Rambo & the
one from Greenport gave me prices of about $30,000: I would rather
take that $30,000. and put the building back and let this building.
fall down.- It is about ready to go now.
MR. BRIAN: Is that what you have in mind, just letting the building
fall down. I mean, you won't cart anything away?
MR. ALIANO: Well, I don't have atty choice in the matter. I own
enough property in the surrounding area, I am certainly not going
to have it dumped there.
SUPERVISOR D4ARTOCCHIA: Is there anyone else who would like to
speak on the subject, in opposition to this application?
BILL WILHELM: I would like to make a. statement in opposition.
Since I get the impression_that.the primary effort here is to
expand the facility. I have this personal opinion that I don't
think it:.would be to the,.advantage of the community to have such
a large enterprise down"there:
SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak
in opposition to this application?
(There was no response.)
~ ~
~. PUELIC HEARING ;r ~ ~ i 11, 1978
~:~ CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION ~~ 238 - NICHOLAS A~iANO &'PATRICIA KRUPSK
SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Has everyone who wishes to sneak had an
opportunity to speak? .
.(There was no response.)
SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Hearing none, the hearing, will be closed,
after digesting all the facts, the Board will make a determination.
Respectfully submitted,
/~ - ~.~~i
Betty eville
Deputy Town Clerk
c_. ..
., i'
i.
~.E
~ ,.
:i:
• '1:
Beachcomber Motel (II)
Final EIS
ATTACHMENT C
Relevant Sections of Town of Southold Code
Attachments
§ 100.13 ZONING § 100-13
HOTEL OR MOTEL, RESORT - A building or group of
buildings, whether detached or in connected units, containing
individual guest units consisting of a room arranged or
designed to be available for use as sleeping quarters for
transients on a daily rental basis or for vacationers or other
persons on a weekly rental basis, provided that one (1) such
unit may connect directly with not more than one (I) other
such unit Each unit shall have a door opening on the exterior
of the building or on a common hallway leading to the
exterior. A 'resort motel" may include such accessory uses as
a beach cabana, private dock, dining room, restaurant or
swimming pool, conference and meeting facilities or an
accessory convenience shop, office or personal service facility,
provided that such facility or shop is located within the
building without any external sign or display and off-street
pazking facilities. The term "resort motel" shall not be
construed W include "transient motel" or "mobile home park."
HOTEL OR MOTEL, TRANSIENT - A building or group
of buildings, whether detached or in connected units,
containing individual guest units consisting of a room
arranged or designed to be available for use as sleeping and
living quarters for transients on a daily rental basis, provided
that one (I) such unit may conneM directly with no more than
one (I) other such unit and that no cooking facilities shall be
available. Each such unit shall have a door opening on the
exterior of the building or on a common hallway leading to the
exterior. A "transient hotel or motel" may include such
accessory uses as an office, restaurant, accessory persona]
services, swimming pool and off-street pazking facilities. The
term "transient hotel or motel" shall not be construed to
include "resort motel" or "mobile home park," nor shall it be
deemed to include any dwelling unit except that of the owner
or manager.
JUNKYARD -Land occupied or to be occupied for storage
of old wood, paper, cloth or metal, including old automobiles,
trucks, equipment, machinery, fixtures and appliances not
usable as originally designed, and also including any portion of
10023 s . zs - so
§ 100.23 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-23
§ 100.23. Effect of establishment of districts.
Following the effective date of this chapter.
A. No building shall be erected, moved, altered, rebuilt or
enlarged, nor shall arty land or building be used, designed or
arranged to be used for any purpose or in aqy manner, except
in conformity with all regulations, requiremenffi and restric-
tions specified in this chapter for the district in which such
building or land is located.
B. No yard or open space required in connection with any
building or use shall be considered as providing a required
open space for aqy other building on the same or any other bt
C. No lot shall be formed from part of a lot already occupied by
a building unless such building, all yards and open spaces
connected therewith and the remaining lot comply with all
requiremenffi prescribed by this chapter for the district in
which said lot is located. No building permit shall be issued for
the erection of a building on aqy new lot thus created unless
such building and lot comply with all the provisions of this
chapter-
D. Nothing contained in this chapter shall require any change in
the plans, construction or designated use of a building
complying with the Zoning Ordinance in force prior to this
chapter if the following is found to exist
(1) A building permit shall have been duly issued and
construction shall have been started before the effective
date of this chapter.
(2) The ground story framework (including the second tier of
beams) shall have been completed within six (6) months of
the date of the building permit
(3) The entire building shall have been completed in
accordance with such plans as have been filed with the
Building Inspector within one (1) year from the effective
date of this chapter.
E. Aqy use Trot permitted by this chapter shall be deemed to be
prohibited. Any list of prohibited uses contained in any section
of this chapter shall be deemed to be not an exhaustive list but
10036 x , ~ , ~
§ 100.23 ZONING § 100-30
to have been included for the purposes of clarity and emphasis.
[Amended 1-10$9 by LL No. 1-1989]
Notwithstanding the limitations imposed by any other
provisions of this chapter, ce building dredging or filling
operation shall be permitted below the datum of mean high
water of tidal waters unless such building, dredging or filling
operations leave been duly authorized and are conducted in
conformity with all Iowa, ordinances, rules and regulations of
all governmental agencies !laving jurisdiction thereof.
ARTICLE III
Agricultural-Conservation (A•C) District
and Low-Deroity Residential R$0, R-120,
8.200 and Rr100 Districts
[Last amended 1-10.89 by LL No. 1-1989]
§ 10030. Purpose.
The Purpose of the Agricultural~onservation (A-C) Distrito and the
Low-Density Residential R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts is to
reasonably control and, to the extent possible, prevent the unnecessary
lcas of those currently open Lands within the Wwn containing large
and contiguous areas of prime agrinrltural soils which are the basis
for a significant portion of the town's economy and those areas with
sensitive environmental features, including aquifer recharge areas
and bluffs. In addition, these areas provide the open rural environ-
ment so highly valued by yearround residents and those persons who
support the Town of Southold's recreation, resort and second-home
economy. The economic, social and aesthetic benefits which can be
obtained for all citizem by 6mitmg lass of such areas are well
documented and have inspired a bast of governmental Programs
designed, with varying degrees of success, W achieve this result For
iffi part, the town ie expending large sums of money to protect
existing farm acreage. At the same time, the town has an obligation
to exercise iffi authority to reasonably regulate the subdivision and
development of this land tq further the same purposes while honoring
the legitimate interesffi of farmers and other farmland owners
rsre,rt NMI 9w alr Ch 0.a. awq lke6.d Whvna zed Cd 97. W.Weda
10037 7 . zs . es
-~. ,~
i
..__
§ 100-31 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100.31 ~ § lOp,31 ZONING § 100-31
§ 100.31. Use regulations [Amended 3-14-89 by LL Na 8.1989] ~
In A-C, R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts, no building ar
~ ~ '° stand in existence on the effective date of this
subsection must, within one (1) year from such
premises shall be used and na building or part of a building shall 6e date, comply with the provisions hereof.
erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be Deed,
in whole or in part, for arty uses except the following: (b) The keeping, breeding, raising and training of
A. Permitted uses ~ horses, domestic animals and fowl (except ducksp on
. lots of ten (10) acres or mots
(1) One-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one (1)
dwelling on each lot ~ (c) Barns, storage buildings, greenhouses (including
plastic covered) and other related structures
(2) [Amended 523-89 by LI. No. 81989] The fo-owing
~ ,
Pro~ded that such buildings shall conform to the
agricultural operations and accessory uses thereto, Yard requirements for principal buildings.
including irrigation, provided that there shall be no
sorage of manure, fertilizer or other odor- of dash r (3) Buildings, structures and uses owned or operated by the
Producing substance or use, except spraying and dusting ~ Town of Southold, school districts,
park districts and fire
to protect vegetation, within one hundred fifty (150) fcet districts.
of arty lot litre: B. Uses permitted by special exception by the Board of Appeals.
(a) The raising of field and garden crops
vineyard and ~ The following use4 are permitted as a special excepticn by the
,
orchard farming, the maintenance of nurseries sod Board of Appeals, as hereinafter provided, and, except for the
the seasonal sale of products grown on the premises, uses set forth in Subsection B(15) hereof, are subject to site
subject to the following special requirements
~ Plan approval by the Planning Board:
[1] All buildings for display and retail sales of (1) Two-family dwellings not to exceed one (1) such dwelling
agricultural and nursery products grown on the
i
h
l on each lot
prem
ses s
a
l not exceed one thousand (1,000)
square feet in floor area ar one (1) story in (2) places of worship, including parish houses (but excludin
g
height Display of produce at a roadside farm a rector
Y or parsonage, which shall conform to the
stand shall be not less than ten (10) feet frmrr sll requirements for sons-fam0y dwelling), subject to the
street and lot lines Aqy roadside farm stand m ~
' following requirements:
excess of fifty (60) square feet in floor area shall
be set back twenty (2D) feet from the street line (a) No building or part thereof shall be erected nearer
.
Any stand in existence at the effective date of ~
~ than fifty (50) feet to any street line and nearer than
twenty (ZO) feet W any lot line
this chapter must' within one (1) Year, amply .
with all of the provisions hereof (b) The total area avered by all principal and accessory
[2) All si
gns shall anform to the provisions of ~ bu0dings shall not exceed twenty percent (2096) of
§ 100-31C(9). the area of the lot
[3l Off-street parking as required in the Parking
~ (3) Private elementary or high schals, alleges and other
Schedules shall be provided and shall be educational institutions, subject to the following requite-
aPPrm'ed by the Plannin Board,
g Any roadside manta:
rdi~ Nets See 4 t00.1s1A ter IM Pvtlna aeleduy, ~ ~0~ ~ ~ ~ t4 Daela
10038 r . ~ . ~
10039 x u es
1
§
00-31 SOTJTHOLD CODE § 100.31
§ 100-31 ZONING § 10031
(a) No building shall be less than fifty (50) feet from aqy
street or lot line.
'v (f) Any nursin hom
B e, hospital or sanatorium shall
(b) The total area occupied by all principal and meet the following standards:
accessory buildings shall not exceed twenty percent
~ [1] All buldings shall be of firnresistive construc-
(20%) of the area of the lot, lion.
(c) Any school shall be a nonpro5t organiretion within [2] All such uses shall be served by adequate water
the meaning of the Internal Revenue Act and shall ~ and sewer systems approved by the Suffolk
be registered pffective)y thereunder as such. County Department of Health.
(d) Any such school shall occupy a lot with an area of [3] Patients suffering from communicable diseases
not less than 5ve (5) acres plus one (1) acre for each ~ shall not be permitted in any nursing home or
twenty-five (25) pupils for which the building is sanatorium. (Cmmunicable diseases are de-
designed. fined by the Sanitary Cade of the Public Health
Council of the State of New York.)
(4) Nursery schools. ~ [4] Eight thousand (8,000) square feet of lot azea
(5) Philanthropic, eleemosynary or religious institutions, shall be provided for each patient bed.
hospitals, nursing and rest homes or sanatoriums for (6) Public utility rights-of-way as well as structures and
general medical care, but excluding facilities for the - other installations n
e'~'y }° serve areas within the
treatment of all types of dru addiction, sub' to the
6 lest town. subject to such conditions as the Board of Appeals
following requirements:
~ may impose in order m protect and promote the health,
(a) No building or part thereof or any parking or safety, appearance and general welfare of the community
loading area shall be located within one hundred and the character of the neighborhood in which the
(100) feet of any street line nor within fifty (50) feet ~ probed ~ro~re ~ to be constructed.
of oily lot line. ('n Beach clubs, tennis clubs, country clubs, golf clubs,
(b) The total area covered by principal and accessory public golf courses and annual membership clubs
buildings shall not exceed twenty percent (2096) of catering eaclusively to members and their guests and
the area of the lot accessory playgrounds, beaches, swimmin ls, tennis
g p00
courts, recreational buildings and maintenance buildings,
(c) The maximum height shall bethirty-5ve (35) feet or subject to the following requirements:
two and one-half (2y~ stories
~
(a) No building or pazt thereof or any parking or
(d) The entire lot, except areas occupied by buildings or loadth8 area shall be located within one hundred
parking or loading areas, shall be suitably hind- ~ (100) feet of aqq street line or within fifty (50) feet of
soaped and properly maintained. any lot line.
(e) Suffiaent exterior illumination of the site shall be (b) The total area covered by principal and accessory
required to provide convenience and safety. All such buildnigs shall not e:cced twenty percent (2096) of
illumination shall be shielded from the view of all the area of the lot
surrounding streets and k4s. ~ (c) Such use shall cot be conducted for profit as a
business enterprise.
10040 z-ra-es
, 10041 E.YS-Ba
§ 100-31 SOUTHOI.D CODE § 100.31 ~ § 100.31
ZONING
§ 100-31
(d) No such use shall occupy a lot with an area of less
than three (3) acres. ~ (10) Veterinarian's offices and animal hospitals, subject to the
following requirements:
(e) The direct source of all exterior lighting shall be (a) The housing of all animals shall be in a fully
shielded from the view of surramding residential ~ enclosed structure, if nearer than one hundred fifty
lots.
(150) feet to arty lot line.
(8) Children's recreation camps organized primarily for (11) Cemeteries.
seasonal use and subjeM to the following requirements: ~ (12) Stables and riding academies
(a) No building, tenk activity area or recreation facflity (13) Wineries for the production and sale of wine produced
shall be less than two hundred (200) feet from any lot from grapes primarily grown in the vineyards on which
line, and arty such building, tenk activity area or ~ such winery is located. [Amended &1-89 by LL No.
recreation facility shall be effectively screened 151989]
therefrom as required by the Planning Board.
Buildings intended for use a, sleeping quarters shall ~ (14) One (1) accessory apartment in an existing one-family
be not less than thirty (30) feet from each other, dwelling, subject to the following requirements:
except tents, which shall be cwt less than ten (10) feet (a) The accessory apartment shall be located in the
apart ~ principal buflding.
(b) The minimum lot area shall be cwt less than ten (b) The owner of the existing dwelling shall occupy one
thousand (10,000) square feet for each cottage, tent (1) of the dwelling units as the owner's principal
or other principal bm7ding and rot less than three ~ residence The other dwelling unit shall be leased for
thousand (3,000) square feet of land area shall be year-round occupancy, evidenced by a written lease
provided for each person accommodated in the for a term of one (1) or more years
buildings or tenb on the premises (c) The existing one-family dwelling shall contain not
(c) All outdoor -ighting shall be arran
ged and/or ~ less than one thousand su hundred (1,600) square
shielded to eliminate the glare of light toward feet of livable floor area
nearby residential Iota, streets or other public ~ (d) Tbe wry apartment shall contain not less than
facilities. four hundred fifty (450) square feet of livable floor
(d) The sound level o[ all outdoor publicaddze~ systems
shall not exceed the intensity tolerable in a resider-
~ area
(e) The accessory apartment shall not exceed forty
tial neighborhood. percent (40%) of the livable floor area of the existing
dwelling unit
(9) Farm Tabor camps, subject to the following requiremends: (f) A minimum of three (3) off-street parking spaces
(a) All farm labor camps on farms shall be aretrned in ~ shall be provided.
conformance with applicable laws and shall not be (g) Not morn than one (1) accessory apartment shall be
located nearer W any other residence than the permitted on a lot
residence of the employer. except by speciflc review ~
and approval of the Planning Baatd.
10042 z-ss•av
10043 ro - u -»
§ 100-31
-
SOUTHOLD CODE § 10x31 -
1~ __
(h) The accessory apaztment shall meet the requirn § 100-31 ZONING § 10031
menu of a dwelling unit as defined in § 10013
I
hereof. (~ No bed-and-breakfast facilities, as authorized by
(i) The exterior entry to the accessory apartment ah~ll ~ § 10031B(15) hereof, shall be permitted in or on
,
to the maximum extent possible, retain the existing I~ premises for which an accessory apartment is
exterior appearance of a one-
family dweling. I authorized or exists. [Added 3-14.89 by LL No. 3-
V)
All extenor alterations to the enshng bunldmg,
except for access to the apaztment
shall be made
~ 1989]
(15) The renting of not more than three (3) rooms in an owner-
,
on
the existing foundation. occupied dwelling for lodging and serving of breakfast to
(k)
The certificate of occupanq shall terminate upon
~ not more than six (6) casual and transient roomers,
provided that the renting of such rooms for such
ur
the transfer of title by the owner or upon the owner
' • p
pose
is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use
ceasing to occupy one (1) of the dwelling nnib as the
' of the dwelling, subject to the following requirements:
owner
s principal residence. In the event of an
owner's demise, the occupant of an accessory ~~
~ (a) Ad oats off-street arkin s
~ P 6 Paces shall be provided
apartment may continue in occupanq until a new ~ for such rented rooms in addition to pazking spaces
owner shall occupy the balance of the dwelling or i for the use of the family of the owner.
one (1) year from date of said demise, whichever I~ (b) No accessory apartment, as authorized by § 100
shall first occur. 31B(14) hereof, shall be permitted in or on premises
Q) All conversions shall be subject to the i
nspection of
C for which abed-and-breakfast facility is authorized
the Buildin I
g nspector and renewal of the certificate ~ or exists [Added 3-1489 by LL No. 3-1989]
of occupanq annually. ~ C. Accessory uses, limited to the following uses and subject to the
(m) The building which is cenverted W
permit an
k conditions listed in § 10033 herein:
accessory apartment shall be in existence and have a
; - (1) An y y
y customar structures or uses which are customaril
valid certificate of occupancy issued prior to incidental to the principal use, except those prohibited by
January 1, 1984. i this chapter.
(n) The ~~ng building, together with the aacssory ~ ,. (2) (Amended 4-9-1991 by LL No. 10-1991] Home
apartment, shall comply with all other requirements
of Chapter 100 of the Town Code of th
lb
f occupation, including home professional offices, provided
h
e
ws o
Southold. ~~ t
at
(o)
Notwithstanding the provisions of § 10031B hereof (a) No display of goods is visible from the street
,
no site plan approval by the Planning Board shall be (b) Such accu
patron is incidental to the residential use of
required for the establishment of an accessory the Premises and is carried on in the main building
apartment by the residents therein with not more than one (1)
(P)
Approval by the Suffolk County Department of nonresident assistant
Health Services of the water supply sad sewage ! (c) Such occupation b carried on in an area not to
disposal systems shall be required, exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the area of all
floors of the main building, and in no event shall
such use occupy morn than frve hundred (500) squaze
10044 u - ~ - ~ feet of floor area
I~ 10045 s-rs-sr
§ 10460 SOUTHOLD CODE § 10081
ARTICLE VI
Resort ReaidentW (RR) Dietrkt
[Added 1-10-89 by LL Na 1-1989]
§ 10060. Purpose.
The Purpose of the Resort Residential (RR) District ie to provide
opportunity for resort development in waterfront areas or other
aPPropriate areas where, because of the avaBabdity of water and/or
sewers, more intense development map occur consistent with the
density and character of surrounding lands.
§ 10081. Use regu)stione.
In the RR District, no building or premises shall be used and na
building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is
arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any
use except the following.
A. Permitted uses.
(1) Arty Permitted use set forth m and as regulated by § 104
31A of the Agricultural-ConaervaTion District
B. Uses permitted by special exception by the Board of Appeals
The following uses are permitted ae s special exception by the
Board of Appeals as hereinafter provided and except for the
uses set forth in Subsection B(5) hereof are subject to Bite plan
approval bq the Planning Board:
(1) Arty special exception nse set forth in and as regulated by
§ 10031B(1). (6), ('n, (13) and (14) of the Agriculbual-
Conservation District [Amended &1-89 by L.L Na 16•
1989]
(2) Marinas for the dacldng, mooring or axommadation of
noncommercial boats.
(3) Yacht clubs.
1LY irnl bM W ,apnMd famr Arc YL B Ua6t Bair Dlrriec r
10068
a-m-n
!~!~
I
§ 10081
ZONING
§ 10081
(4) 1Yarmient hotels or motels, resort hotels or motels or
conference facilities, provided that the following nquire-
me~ are met:
(a) Minnrnrm parcel size shall be five (5) acres.
(b) The maximum rmmber of guest mid shall be:
[1] One (1) mmit per six thousand (6,000) square feet
of land without public water or sewer.
[2] One (1) nnit per four thousand (4.000) square
feet of land with public vvat~ and sewer.
(c) No mnsic, entertainment or loadspeaker system
shaIl be audible from beyond fhe property line.
(d) No light shall create a glare on adjoining property.
(e) The madmum size of a guest unit shall be six
hundred (600) square feet [Added 7-5-89 by LL
Na 13-1989]
(b) Bed-and-brealdast uses as set forth is and as regulated
by § 100318(1b).
(Carta on page 10069)
10068.1 s - ss si
;~
,~
§ 10x61 ZONING § 100-62
(6) Tourist camps as regulated by Chapter 88, Tourist and
Trailer Camps, of the Town Cade.
(~ Freestanding restaurants.
C. [Amended 59.89 by LL No. 6-1989] Aacmory uses. The
fallowing uses are permitted as aa~easory uses and except for
residential aceeseory axes and signs, which are governed by
Article XR, are subject to site plan review:
(1) Aqy accessoory use set forth in and as regulated by § 100-
31C(1) through (7) of the Agricultural-Conservation
District
(2) Signs as regulated by § 10031C(9) of the Agricultural-
Coriaervation District; and, in tbe case of a hotel, motel
resort, tourist mmp, country club, beach club, swim club
or tennis club, if the bul7ding is set back twenty-five (25)
feet; one (1) freestanding or ground-~luminated sign with
a maximum area of eighteen (18) srprare feet may be
permitted at the entrance, set back a minimum of fifteen
(15) feet from the street line
(3) Sanitary and laundry facilities
(4) Accessory uses set forth in and as regulated by § 100•
42C(3) of the Bamlet Deroity Residential District
§ 100.62. Bu[Ic, area and parlring reguLrtiore.
Except as otherwise provided herein, no buildings or premises shall
be used and no bmlding or part thereof shall be erected or altered in
the Residential R.R District unless the same conforms to the Bulk
Schedule and Parking and Loading Schedules incorporated into this
chapter by reference, with the same force and effeet as if such
regulations were set forth herein in full."
~CdibY~ Nal~ TM Bdk 9eLMu6 i 4,eloded Y tlw end d IhY elrper. ud the Arkln[
end Iaedl~ 9ehedals en m % 100.1ri end 100.18E
10069
1 ~YS-80
ATTACHMENT D
Letter From Mr. Robert Farmer, P.E.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services,
Bureau of Drinking Water
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
~~
ROBERT J. GAFFNEY
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
March 24, 1998
Town of Southold
Attn: Mr. Robert G. Kassner
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Subject: Beachcomber Motel Proposed Expansion
S.C.T.M.: 1000-83-2-(1, 2 & 17)
Water Supply
Dear Mr. Kassner:
Southold Town
Planning Board
We have reviewed our existing files and monitoring data, and the water quality data, collected on
8/27/97, from the test well located on the northeastern portion of the referenced property,
submitted by Paul W. Grosser, Ph.D., P.E., the consulting engineer for the water supply at the
site. The data shows the water from this well contains detectible levels of agricultural
fertilizers, (Nitrates), and pesticides, (Aldicarb suHoxide, Aldicarb sulfoxide, 1,2-
Dichloropmpane and 1,2,3- Trichloropropane). None of these detectable levels exceeded the
Maximium Contaminant Levels (MCL's) established by Federal and New York State agencies, although
the levels were high enough to warrant concern. Consequently, any water supply system design will
have to provide an enclosed area large enough to contain and support treatment, should ft becomes
necessary. The proposed treatment area will be large enough to install an ion exchange unit for
nitrate removal and GAC, (granular activated carbon), unit(s) for the removal pesticides and
adequate storage for water treatment chemicals, as per conversations with Dr. Grosser.
The proposed motel expansion will be classified as anon-community public water supply, which is
its curcent classification. If the units were sold as or converted to co-op's or condominiums,
with multiple owners, then the system would become a community water supply subject to more
stringent regulations. Given the present water quality at the site, we would not approve it as a
community water supply for new construction. Therefore, restrictive covenants must be placed upon
the property, as a conition of approval, to assure it remains a motel, until such a time that ft
could be connected to an existing approved community public water supply.
Surac-
~C
Fie P~
CLARE B. BRADLEY, M.D., M.P.H.
ACTING COMMISSIONER
~, ~~ ,~
~~ M
111J~~~ ~
~~ MAR 2 7 1998 ~
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DUALITY TEL 1516)653-3076
OFFICE OF WATER RESOURCES ^ 225 RABRO DRIVE EAST. HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 1 1 766-4 290 ^ FAX 15161633-3075
As indicated in our letter of 3!7/97, the peak domestic water demand will be about 100 gpm which
would necessitate multiple wells for the project. Two new wells are being proposed to provide
water for the expansion. If salt water intrusion becomes a problem, then additional wells may be
required. Additionally, since the pumping capacity for the site will exceed 45 gpm, a Long Island
Well Permit must be applied for and obtained from NYSDEC.
The comments presented in this letter are general comments concerning the water supply for the
proposed project and should not be construed as tacit approval for construction by Suffolk County
Department of Health Services. A formal application'ForSawage Disposal Facilities and Water
Supply Systems for Other Than Single Family Residences' must be submitted to our Bureau of
Wastewater Management in Riverhead in order to proceed with construction approval.
Please feel free to contact this office at 853-3195, if you have any questions concerning this
matter.
Very truly yours,
Robert J. Farmer, P.E.
Senior Public Health Engineer
Bureau of Drinking Water
cc: Paul Grosser, Ph.D., P.E.