The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBeachcomber Motel (II) 1995 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ( DEIS ) FOR THE BEACHCOMBER MOTEL (II) EXPANSION of the BEACHCOMBER MOTEL CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK Prepared for: Mr. Nicholas Aliano Prepared by: Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants DECEMBER 1995 REV. 0-1, 11-95 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) FOR BEACHCOMBER MOTEL H CUTCHOGUE, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK TOWNSHIP OF SOUTHOLD TYPE IACTION Located: North and adjacent to Oregon Avenue East and adjacent to Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, New York Lead Azency Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Contact: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner(765-1938) Applicant W.Nicholas Aliano Ashley Lane Shoreham,New York 11786 Contact: Nicholas Aliano Prepared by Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants 1050 Smithtown Avenue Bohemia, New York 11716 Contact: Glenn Spetta (567-5859) _— - Site Enzineerina En¢ineerin Barrett,Bonacci,Hyman &VanWeele P.C. HWGee \ Consulting Consulting Engineers/Surveyors/Planners Engineer& Hydrogeologist, P.C. 175A Commerce Drive P.O. Box 39 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Sayville, New York 11782-0039 Contact: Steven J.Hyman, P.E.(435-1111) Contact: Paul W. Grosser,Ph.D.,P.E. (589-6353) Cultural Resources Assessment Local Liason Archaeological Services Inc. Mr. Henry Raynor P.O. Box 1522 P.O.Box Drawer A Rocky Point, New York 11778 Jamesport, New York 11947 Contact: Robert J. Kalin (744-8047) Contact No.:(298-8420) Date of Acceptance: _ Deadline for Comments: REV. 0-1, 11/95 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS. i APPENDIX . TABLES iv FIGURES v FOREWORD. vi I. SUMMARY . 1-1 A. Description of the Project Action 1-1 B. Significant Beneficial and Adverse Impacts 1-4 C. Mitigation Measures Proposed 1-5 D. Alternatives Considered 1-7 E. Matters to Be Decided 1-7 F. Prior Submissions 1-8 II. DESCRIPTION OF TBE PROPOSED ACTION.. 2-1 A. Project Purpose,Need and Benefits 2-1 B. Location 2-2 C. Design and Layout 2-6 D. Construction and Operation 2-11 E. Approvals 2-13 III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. 3-1 A. Natural Resources 3-1 1. Geology 3-1 a. Subsurface 3-1 b. Surface 3-5 c. Topography 3-9 2. Water Resources 3-13 a. Groundwater 3-13 b. Surface Water 3-18 1. Location and description of surface waters 3-18 2. Identification of uses of surface waters 3-26 3. Existing drainage areas,patterns,channels 3-28 4. Potential flooding,siltation and erosion 3-28 3. Terrestrial Ecology 3-33 a. Vegetation 3-33 b. Wildlife 3-36 c. Wetlands 3-38 B. Human Resources 3-41 1. Transportation 3-41 2. Land Use and Zoning 3-43 a. Existing land use and zoning 3-43 b. Land use plans 3-44 1. Description of land use plans or master plans which include the project site and surrounding area 3-44 Rev. 0-1, 11-95 i Page 2. Future development trends or pressures 345 3. 208 Study 3-45 4. NURP Study 3-46 3. Community Services 3-46 a. Educational Facilities 3-46 b. Police Protection 3-47 c. Fire protection 347 d. Health Care Facilities 3-47 e. Social Services 3-48 f. Recreational Facilities 3-48 g. Utilities 3-48 h. Public Water Supply 3-49 i. Solid Waste Disposal 349 j. Taxes and Fiscal Setting 3-49 4. Cultural Resources 3-50 a. Visual 3-50 b. Historic and Archaeological Resources 3-50 c. Noise 3-51 IV. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION... 4-1 A. Natural Resources 4-1 1. Geology,Soils and Topography 4-1 2. Groundwater and Surface water quality 4-3 a. Water usage 4-3 b. Groundwater quality 4-4 C. Recharge regime 4.6 d. Surface water 4.6 3. Terrestrial Ecology 4-7 a. Vegetation 4-7 b. Wildlife 4-9 B. Human Resources 4-10 1. Transportation 4-10 2. Land Use and Zoning 4-10 3. Community Services 4-11 a. Educational Facilities 4-11 b. Police Protection 4-11 C. Fire Protection 4-11 d. Health Care Facilities 4-11 e. Social Services 4-12 L Recreational Facilities 4-12 g. Utilities 4-12 h. Public Water Supply 4-12 i. Solid Wastes 4-12 4. Cultural Resources 4-13 a. Visual 4-13 b. Historical and Archaeological 4-13 C. Noise 4-13 V. MITIGATING MEASURES TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION.. . 5-1 Rev. 0-1, 11/95 ii Page A. Natural Resources 5-1 1. Soils and Topography 5-1 2. Groundwater 5-2 3. Terrestrial Ecology 5-3 B. Human Resources 5-4 1. Transportation 54 2. Community Services 5-4 VI. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED. 6-1 VII. ALTERNATIVES 7-1 A. Alternative A 7-1 B. Alternative B 7-5 C. Alternative C 7-6 VHI. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES... . 8-1 IX. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS. . 9-1 A. Tourism and Recreation 9-1 B. Employment . 9-1 C. Construction Phase 9-3 XI. APPENDICES. A-1 A. BIBLIOGRAPHY. . A-1 B. PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS/CONSULTATIONS... B-1 C. TECHNICAL EXHIBITS. C-1 D. CORRESPONDENCE LETTERS/RECEIPTS... D-1 Rev. 0-1, 11/95 iii TABLES Table Page 2-1 Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts on the Subject Site&Density and Minimum Lot Size for Schedule for Zoning Districts 2-5 2-2 Site Data 2-6 2-3 Drainage Calculations 2-8 2-4 Sanitary Flow Calculations 2-9 2-5 Water Design Criteria 2-10 2-6 Parking Calculations 2-11 3-1 Soils found on the Applicant's property 3-6 3-2 Well design guidelines to prevent upconing 3-17 3-3 Decibel Ranges for Common Sounds 3-51 4-1 Water usage(tourist season)of the proposed Beachcomber Motel II Motel II expansion 4-3 7-1 Comparison of Alternatives for the proposed action 7-4 Rev. 0-0, 11/95 iv FIGURES Figure No. Page 1-1 Area map 1-2 1-la Site location in the Town of Southold 1-2a 1-2 Tax map for the subject site 1-3 2-1 Zoning map 2-3 2-2 Site plan for the proposed Beachcomber Motel II expansion 2-7 3-1 Stratigraphic columns in the vicinity of the Beachcomber Motel II 3-2 3-2 Detail of Stratigraphic columns in the vicinity of the Beachcomber Motel II 3-3 3-3 Soil Map for the Beachcomber Motel II site 3-7 3-4 Location of wells in the vicinity of the Applicant's property 3-10 3-5 Well logs in the vicinity of the Applicant's property 3-11 3-6 Topography map of the Applicant's property 3-12 3-7 Groundwater Elevations(above Mean Sea Level)and Groundwater Flow on the Applicant's property 3-14 3-8 Hydrogeological Zones on Long Island and in the vicinity of the Applicant's property 3-16 3-9 Transect of Nitrate levels in the vicinity of the subject site/North Fork 3-19 3-10 Transect of Aldicarb levels in the vicinity of the subject site/North Fork 3-20 3-11 Transect of Dichloropropane levels in the vicinity of the subject site/North Fork 3-21 3-12 High priority basins for management of non-point source nitrogen for the Long Island Sound 3-24 3-13 Management zones established for nitrogen control in the Long Island Sound 3-25 3-14 Waterways of the Town of Southold 3-27 3-15 Flood Insurance Rate Map for the Applicant's property 3-30 3-16 Town of Southold Coastal Erosion Hazard Area on the subject site 3-32 3-17 Vegetation map for the subject site 3-34 3-18 NYSDEC Freshwater wetlands map 3-39 3-19 Town of Southold Freshwater wetlands map 3-40 5-1 Location of proposed Stop sign on Duck Pond Road 5-1 7-1 Alternative B site layout 7-2 7-2 Alternative C site layout 7-3 Rev. 0-1, 11/95 v Foreword In July of 1992 a Long Environmental Assessment Form(LEAF)was submitted by Mr.Nicholas Aliano to the Town of Southold to expand the existing Beachcomber Motel by an additional 86 units. On November 2, 1992 the Plannin Board of the T of Southold adopted a resolution requiring the Applicant to prepare a DraftgEm�ironmental t pact Statement for the Beachcomber Motel expansion. In accordance with state(Article 8, Part 617- State Environmental Quality Review Act) and local law, this DEIS is submitted to provide information concerning the proposed action to both public officials and private citizens. The potential effects of the project to the natural, social, and economic environments of the site and surrounding communities are addressed in this document. The Applicant has significantly down-sized the original proposal of 86 units to 46 units and aspires to build the motel units in accordance with all Federal, State and Local government regulations. This action will be consistent with the Town of Southold's master plan by providing additional motel units, while preserving and protecting open space, natural communities and groundwater. This represents the second submission to the Town of Southold of this document. The first submission was made March 27, 1995. Comments on that document were received in June of 1995 requiring certain information to be expanded and specific questions answered. This revised DEIS is submitted to meet original requirements made at a formal scoping meeting held with Southold Town officials on January 22, 1993 as well as comments made by the Town of Southold Planning Board,Town Planner and Town Environmental Consultant in their letter of June 13, 1995. The Applicant has addressed and incorporated these comments into the DEIS. The results of the DEIS indicate that the proposed motel expansion will provide 46 additional seasonal motel units to the Town of Southold in a manner which is aesthetically pleasing, economically sound and which does not significantly impact the environment. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 vi L SUMMARY I. SUMMARY A. Description of the Proposed Action The Beachcomber Motel II,is a proposed expansion to the existing Beachcomber Motel located in New York State on Long Island in the Township of Southold in the Town of Cutchogue north of Oregon Road and on the east side of Duck Pond road(Figures 1 and 1A). The proposed expansion originally requested approval to construct 86 units on a 14.1 acre parcel. However, this Draft Environmental Impact Statement reflects a significant reduction and proposes the construction of 46 motel units in four separate buildings on 48.2 acres of property all accessed from a circular pattern driveway. The proposed motel expansion will be semi-clustered in a grass covered clearing (flat meadow area) in the northern portion of the property between the existing Beachcomber Motel and the tree line. The associated driveway and proposed units will occupy approximately 4.75 acres (10%) of the total 48.2 acre property. This semi-clustered expansion involves the owners of three adjacent parcels held in single and separate ownership. The owners have agreed to combine their properties to accomplish the motel expansion. For purposes of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement the owners of all three parcels: Pond Enterprises Inc., Patricia Krupski and Mr. Nicholas Aliano, hereinafter will be referred to as the Applicant. The three lots (Figure 1-2) fall within two zoning districts. These districts are Resort Residential(RR)and Agricultural Conservation(A-C). The parcels and owners are: 1) Suffolk County Tax Map Number(SCI'M#) 1000-083-2-1, 2.1 acres owned by Pond Enterprises Inc.,President Mr.Nicholas Aliano. The existing Beachcomber Motel is located on this lot and consists of thirty-six motel units, three apartments, an office, and a fifty seat restaurant with parking for approximately 24-30 cars. All of this property falls within the existing Town of Southold Resort Residential (RR) zone. 2) SCfM#1000-083-2-2, 12.3 acres owned by Patricia Krupski(Mr.Aliano's daughter). A pool and cabana(with five units) that are currently used by motel guests are located in a grassy area just south of the existing motel on this lot. The applicant does not rent out the cabana units as motel units but they have the potential to be rented. The lot is zoned Resort Residential (RR) and Agricultural Conservation (A-C). All existing and proposed structures fall with the RR zone. 3) SCTM#1000.083-2-17, 33.8 acres owned by Mr.Nicholas Aliano contains approximately 32 acres which are leased out to a local farmer for growing potatoes and 1.8 wooded acres. There is a small wooden structure in the farm field (Figure 1-2)which houses a well currently used for irrigating potatoes. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 1 - 1 FIGURE 1 - 1 AREA MAP - plum Island -•' �s Location of Cl und Gs Subject site011— Block 151.46 So ♦�OaMlnen a �•` GOa SOGNO Shane, (�U�/Island island OaNmere G ISLAND Ba° i N E W �•� LONG NEW YORK' JERSEY swrN MI w N ru[k• nNr4 Q a•v c „a° •nwee K'n Onar4 OMINIO na•e • •FrenXl •Grope• FalwIs �• • e • n0 •L•ueN erne.. E Ill brwY.l• • yen•Mt�si I., Bu r aoa l Brp.f F%041C `fin OPf.r BrypJ^fie •sBm Lrre„o. xa,r e.o�nr•Nw•, RLeme.F. onmr• Bay x s • n•m �nomr�e L.rNn• .`�r"dd n:F ": r "✓✓✓eoon BIM ••/ur•yLa- V\Ixxen n ' „x40 ire x Ben• CO ( .''Y rev BO,�� err,Np e'•Gee•Eiw •`y�mrq eL•L e • • axm M,no• Oeuvnre• senna.r:! ��'I se.l 0 �n .e:w` toM1� rO ^p� nrsomnn L...e.[ mrEor°r•r • la (u °. east r• M`� w°rn: K,ve:• ..N .Iti A. WeaMe � t�•j� 1•�` N o rmill u o a, g_.''" vPocn..n W E sr ae°a...• Bxen° r1,xl�r,rM'6, N A •S' B. ,. •, f F. 4.La y.Ben '=r-•�/ '°'”•�= w .n..r•Nnr.•wGn<.rrellx•r,• •'•.x.mun.ec Msl,��au 1``r ° ` J Bev Sn ,I• .B.vrlio•• '1 e :rL—1 �e QUEENS isM r..r.. .xon,.. .. .I ..n..r, South Bay O Ci O a J� s. I.n 1 ° so•B.ra " :° ecoo�.we er. wn •Opat .r I Ci sorr s..; e<n.�„. s•..°,,.Sore en�Bl n�we BC.LE OF MILES 0p0 rte,rover .a.e a Q6 �• �.0 x tlond`'e ( L 0 s to 15 e N A c d `00 na e '•s,,,M Q� L�'•'•L 1 0eecb tons lel 0 ICILaME,ERse k. lc Ccery LertY Beach every MASS. INarM ROP nk N.V. CONN. PA. ��` � Long/s/sno � Sound N.J.l� O OCEAN ATLN T I A 4 MILES 100 Location of Subject site Shelter 0 Oyper Bry{ Nuntindlon; S d f Nath ', Riverhead le Island aNl�ra N EG�NIO bK r !.% I Hampstead BaSylan , Itllp BP Ir,NemPton ' j"S'A Nampton GREAT SOUTH BAY NO SCALE Page 1 - 2 FIGURE 1 - I& Site Location in the Town of Southold `•/ Duck Pond Pt r Subject Site ---� %_O G q �C F Z C. ' V x� C OREGON '4 0� W9 CUT ROGUE w STA. 84 ° � z EAST TTITUCK cE _ CuQ l <ti �ETEM M � O S. - ° J e CUJCHO E wRc 0 25N OP c 'a,..,_ J <m_ NE� a o 3 NORTH FORK COUNTRY <.P 11ATTl7UCK ' da 3b� + ctue w µtsCt,?' ( +, J F A/RPORT R°I�, �n a •i _ - �ur,' + .. .': P R .. cwr ... o00 e rs' , 4 ° a �'"?y `' i"r <a ` RRCN� Did o Marratooka`PtT`" Fl o dT . P � h.;� ��lS•z.�ryXe�. M- 4 �r Y.. �I �� Ini r��T . El Page 1 - 2a BARRETT B ONAC C I HYMAN & VAN WEELE APPROXIMATE ' ZONING LINE —861AC - AGRICUL T(/RAL CONSERVA TION g 45'52'40" E 890.14'9 E �J RR - RESORT / RESIDEN77AL � 0.1 // / 489.06' ti 7 AC ryb� /N 4 1000-083-2-2 �/ I 5 E;40" S 33'44'10' 9 E ' A C 273.01' 7x2 N 4372'00 W 1000-083-2-1 0�ry� ZS10.BT -- 150.00' _ N 56'75'50" E � 5437020" E _ _ _ — S 480800' W 300.00' z 76'10' W 570.21 10 ' _ — 0.00' 0 to N S 450.00 W 1p 0.00' Q "� S 30'03'50" W Z N 0N 229.92' p $410, K 0 1000-083-2-17 G l� 458 0 RIR AC S 437. 00 E s 480800" w Q / 150.00' 250.00' N 29'50'50' E N 4204 05" W 1499.85' Z 213.08' 1441.75' _ — --- — Q N 4 0f 40" W _ J / J / DEPOT UNE i PROPERTY BO UNDARIEF SCALE 1' = 300'f 1000-083-2-17 33.8 ACRES 1000-083-2-2 12.3 ACRES FIGURE 1 -2 1000-083-2-1 2.1 ACRES TOTAL 48.2 ACRES PAGE 1 -3 The expansion will occur primarily on 4 acres of lot 1000-083-2-2 and 0.75 acre of lot 1000-083-2-17). B. Significant Beneficial and Adverse Impacts Impacts attributable to the project have been evaluated for both their beneficial effects on the community as well as for any adverse, or undesirable consequences. Potential negative environmental impacts identified by the Lead Agency resulting from this action are: 1. Location of proposed motel units on the northeast portion of the cleared meadow are proximate to areas of steep slope. The area is considered to be sensitive due to coarse erodible soils. The area is somewhat proximate to the Long Island Sound and destabilization could have ramifications in terms of transport of sediment to the existing site and potentially to the Sound. Additional consideration should be given to design in this area to minimize loss of vegetation, and reduce erosion and sedimentation. 2. Suffolk County Department of Health Services(SCDHS)indicates that 86 motel units in excess of 400 square feet have a design flow of 150 gallons per day(gpd). This would result in a flow of 12,900 gallons per du which exceeds the allowable flow for 14.1 acres (4,230 gpd). The H2M report ) addresses this issue through temporary sterilization of adjacent lands of the owner until such time as public water supply is available. However, the design flow would still exceed the allowable flow based on 14.1 acres,therefore,some portion of the adjacent lands must remain undeveloped in perpetuity. Coordination with SCDHS through the site plan review and Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)process would be beneficial. The Applicant may indicate that use is seasonal and therefore sanitary flow and water use is less than design flow, however,once constructed the use pattern may change and the Town and SCDHS should address potential used based on design flow. 3. Sanitary system design should be considered in terms of dispersal of sanitary waste, depth to water and design constraints for units in 15 foot elevation area, and nitrogen load with transport of contaminants to Long Island Sound. 4. Water use issues are critical in the Town of Southold. The H2M report provides insight into intended water supply. The report is not consistent with the site plan, deprcting alternate access roads and well field location which do not correspond with the site plan. In addition, due to the anticipated significant water use, potential movement of the salt water interface,need for well pumping control and distribution, water quality, and integration with the the I protect, discussion of water supply issues should be addressed. 5. The project will result in the removal of perhaps up to 2 acres of vegetation in a sensitive slope area. In addition, depending upon the location of the water supply system,additional acreage,possibly in the steep slope heavily wooded area may also be removed. Proper design, and clearing limitations should be considered. The (1) The H2M Water Resource/System report to review the estimated available water resources at the project site was submitted to the Town of Southold in July of 1991. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 1 - 4 significance of the small man-made pond should be considered and appropriate setbacks observed. 6. The impact to infrastructure and community services. The project will produce approximately 65 vehicle trips per hour during peak traffic hours on Saturday. The ability of the surrounding road system to accommodate increased traffic should be determined. The area roads are local/rural in character, and there are constraints noted in terms of horizontal and vertical alignment and traffic control signage on Duck Pond Road. Significant beneficial impacts of the proposed construction are: 1. Economic benefits to the local community. a. Increased tax revenue without commensurate useage (i.e.no demand on the school district) to Southold Town. b. Create jobs during the construction phase. C. Increase future spending in the community by the tourists and guests that come to stay in the Town of Southold. d. Provide additional lodging in support of the Town's tourist trade. 2. Retain approximately 43 acres of open space in the Town of Southold enabling it to retain its rural character. C. Mitigation Measures Proposed Mitigation measures(ways in which negative impacts are minimized)associated with the proposed motel expansion are described below: 1. Erosion Control - Since the submission of the original proposed site plans (dated 5-1-92)the Applicant has reduced the amount of buildings on the northeast portion of the cleared meadow from 3 to 1 and rearranged the proposed building so as to not be in an area of steep slope. This building will be set back 110 feet from the crest of the bluff and will be constructed in a manner which does not contribute to erosion of slopes or transport of sediment to the Sound. Erosion control is of great importance in this area due to the close proximity of this property to the Long Island Sound and the steep slopes in certain portions of the property. To prevent erosion from occurring the proposed motel expansion has been planned to fit the site. An assessment of physical characteristics of the site was made and a determination of how to develop the property with the least risk of environmental damage. Grading will be minimized by utilizing existing topography wherever possible. The Applicant will avoid disrupting natural drainage swales and utilize the existing man-made seasonally wet low lying area to assist with meeting drainage requirements for the site. Existing vegetated areas will be left intact throughout most of the site to help prevent erosion and maintain a buffer between the existing farmed area and the area where the motel units will be built. A full erosion control plan in accordance with New York State Guidelines will be developed upon approval of the preliminary site plan. 2. Water Demands-The Applicant has down-sized the original proposed number of motel units from 86 to 46 and after discussions with SCDHS has included existing sanitary flow. The allowable sanitary flow for 48.2 acres is 14,460 gallons per day (gpd). The existing flow is 7,525 gpd, the proposed flow is 6,900 gpd for a total of 14,425 gpd. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 1 - 5 This amount is in accordance with SCDHS requirements. If public water is brought into the site,the allowable sanitary flow would double to 28,950 gpd. 3. Sani System-The Applicant will rovide a conventional sanitary sewage disposal system(septic tank and leaching pool to accommodate sanitary system waste. There will be sufficient distance to meet with SCDHS(Article 6) requirements for dispersal of sanitary waste. 4. Salt Water Intrusion-The Applicant has located the proposed water supply well in an area and depth that will not cause saltwater intrusion to the water supply nor impact groundwater quality in this area. A non pollution easement will be maintained for a 200 foot radius on this supply well. The proposed development of 46 units will require two water supply wells of approximately 45 gpm. The expected drawdown in these wells during pumping will be between one and two feet based upon typical aquifer chazacteristics for the azea (see page 2-10). Therefore the pumping levels in the wells which are to be located south of the developed area should not be below sea level. This will minimise concerns relative to saltwater intrusion. The reader is referred to Table 3 2 in the DEIS which indicates that for a well of this capacity the site meets both the requirements for minimum aquifer thickness and minimum average water table elevation. In addition, it is demonstrated in the DEIS that the consumptive water use for the site will be less than 5 percent of the permissive sustained yield therby having little or no impact on the water levels in the vicinity of the motel property. Although test wells have not been installed to define the location of the freshwater/saltwater interface, the use of the Ghyben-Herzberg relationship has been used extensively on eastern Long Island and generally provides conservative results in that it predicts a shallower interface than actually exists. The current water use on the farmed field consists of irrigation watering three to four times a year to a depth of 1 - inch each time. Averaged over the year this amounts to between 7,141 and 9,521 gallons per day. If irrigation is stopped it will result in a net decrease in consumptive water use at the site of between 5,947 gpd and 8,327 gpd. 5. Lass Of Vegetation In Sensitive shore Areas And Man-Made Pond Setbacks-The Applicant has reduced the amount of buildings from eight to four and rearranged the 4 proposed buildings so as to not disturb existing deciduous woodland vegetation. None of these buildings will be placed in steep slope areas. All buildings will be placed in the relatively flat areas of grass. There will be a slight loss of open space in the presently mowed grassy area. The supply well line will be brought from the farm field down through the wooded area. This will impact a narrow band(approximately 10 feet wide) of vegetation approximately 130 feet long. This area will be reseeded with grass to prevent erosion. It is anticipated that indigenous species will quickly revegetate. No species of plants or wildlife that are listed as (NYS species list) endangered threatened or of special concern were found on the property during site investigations nor were any identified by the New York State Natural Hentage Program. Many of the species identified on-site are also found in settings of residential neighborhoods The man-made pond is not listed by the NYSDEC nor the Town of Southold as a freshwater wetland. The pond primarily serves as a catch basin to a natural drainage Swale. Observations over a two year period have shown extensive periods of complete dryness. 6. Impact To Infrastructure And Community Services-Although the Beachcomber Motel II expansion will add traffic to the adjacent roadway network (33 vehicle trips per hour during peak traffic hours on Saturday), the traffic impact will be minimal and the Rev. 0-1, 11/95 1 - 6 existing and proposed highway network will be able to easily accommodate this additional traffic. However, it is proposed that two Stop signs be placed at the intersection of Duck Pond Road and Birch Lane/Vista Place. One sign would be placed to stop northbound traffic before the easterly bend at Duck Pond Road at the top of the hill. The other stop sign would be placed on the corner of Vista and Duck Pond Road to stop traffic before proceeding onto Duck Pond Road. D. Alternatives Considered Three alternatives to the Proposed Action have been addressed and include: 1. Alternative A-No Action -This Alternative investigates the option of leaving the property in its current state and is described in the existing conditions portion of the DEIS. 2. Alternative B - 46 Semi-Clustered Units - This Alternative investigates the possibility of moving two of the buildings(22 units) for the motel expansion to a cleared area that falls within Resort Residential (R/R) Zoning but is currently being leased as farmland. The Applicant feels that this is not the best Alternative for the Town of Southold nor for the Applicant. This Alternative would require a private road to be built running from Olivia Lane and running through the Agricultural Conservation portion of the property (Figure 7-1). Foot paths through the existing woods would be required for access to the existing Beachcomber Motel and beach. 3. Alternative C - 46 Semi-Clustered Units - This Alternative investigates the possibility of changing the preferred Alternative by rearranging the buildings within the existing cleared area (Figure 7-2). The primary difference is the relocation of the northern most building to the southern most portion of the existing cleared area. E. Matters To Be Decided Permits, Approvals, Funding: Southold Town 1. Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) -Special Exception 2. Building Department-Denial of project in order to be considered for Special Exception by the ZBA 3. Planning Board -Site Plan 4. Building Department The Town's Zoning Code allows motel units in Resort/Residential zoning by Special Exception of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Code permits a density of one unit per each 6,000 square feet of land area where there is no public water or sewer. A density of one unit per each 4,000 square feet of land is permitted where there is public water and sewer. Suffolk County Department of Health Services: 1. Water Supply 2. Wastewater Rev. 0-1, 11/95 1 - 7 New York State: 1. Department of Environmental Conservation Tidal Wetlands 2. Well Permit F. Prior submissions It is important to note that the Applicant has been trying since 1985 to expand the amount of motel units on this property. The Applicant has spent a considerable amount of time,money and effort towards developing this parcel in a manner which is environmentally satisfactory to the Town and provides additional support to the local economy. To provide pertinent background information to both the public and regulatory officials a brief chronological history of these actions follows. 13 March 1978-Southold Town Planniw Board recommends approval of zone change from"A" Residential Agricultural District to"M-1' General Multiple Residence for Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski (Appendix D-1). 23 May 1978-Southold Town Board approves change of zone from"A"Residential and Agricultural to "M-1" General Multiple Residence (Appendix D-2). February 1985 -Mr.Aliano submitted a proposed site plan to construct 12 two story buildings with 4 units (total of 48 units) on approximately 13.5 acres of property within approximately 14.4 acres of M-1 zoning contained on SCIMM #'s 1000-083-2-2,17 (Appendix D-3 18 March 1985-Southold Town Planning Board presubmission conference is held to discuss proposed site plan to construct apartments behind the existing motel at Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue (Appendix D-4). 27 March 1985-The Planning Board responds in writing to Mr.Aliano's request by asking him to resubmit his survey to include all items on the attached Industrial, commercial & Multi-Residential checklist (Appendix D-5). 28 February 1986 - Applicant contacts Mr. Henry Raynor (Local liason) for assistance with attaining Town of Southold permits. 3 March 1986-Mr. Raynor offers suggestions for site plan to meet Planning Board's requests. 2 April 1986-Mr.Steve Hyman (Site Engineer) contacted to assist with preparation of site plan. 1 August 1986-Mr.Aliano sends documents to Mr.Raynor showing ownership of adjoining parcels. Beachcomber Motel is owned by Beachcomber Motel Inc.,parcel to the south and east(Tax Map No. 1000-83-2-2)is owned by Patricia Krupski. Adjoining this parcel to the south and west (Tax Map No. 1000-83-2-17) a parcel of approximately 33 acres is owned by Mr.Aliano. 16 January 87-Mr.Raynor meets with the Planning Board and presents 2 land use options, apartments vs.motel. The Planning Board unanimously endorses the site for motel use. 'The only resistance to the project is limited road access (Duck Pond Road)and this town highway is in poor condition and concern over adequate fire protection to the site." (H.Raynor personal letter to Mr.Aliano 1-16-87). Rev. 0-1, 11/95 1 - 8 14 February 1987-Mr.Ra or submits revised site plans to Planning Board for Beachcomber Motel property (Appendix D-6 5 March 1987 -Planning Board responds (Appendix D-7)by requesting site plans to include: 1. all elements pursuant to section 100-134 of Town Code; 2. all plans stamped and signed by the Engineer; 3. enclose a copy of the checklist for the site plan elements. 20 January 1988-Letter from Steve Hyman to Bob Jewell of SCDHS(Appendix D-8) submitting: 1. Sketch plan showing 3 parcels of land; 2. Preliminary development plan with 147 units; Article 6 does not permit use of denitrification systems for projects requiring the Ming of subdivision maps. The sewage treatment facility would only accommodate new motel units. Building on parcel C-lots greater than 40,000 square feet. 5 May 1988-Letter(appendixD-9)from S.Hyman to N.Aliano summarizing meeting with SCDHS(Bob Jewell and Pete Akras): 1. Jewell advises test well program to demonstrate adequate potable water to SCDHS,if no water quantity and quality approval then no protect. 2. If water su p1 is adequate Mr. Jewell suggest formation of water company then donation to SCWA or Town. 3. Sanitary sewers (Sewagge Treatment Facility) to serve the Motel units. 4. If willing to covenant 28 acre residential portion of property as undeveloped and water oomparryweredonatedtoTownorSCWAmryUenoSlFneededformote]units SCDHS allows 600 gpd/acre. a. Units less than 600 sf- 42 acres x 600gpd/acre x 1 unit x 150ggppd = 168 units. b. Units > 600 sf& < 1200sf-42 acres x 600gpd/acre x 1 unit x 225gpd = 112 units. 26 May 1989-Letter from Mr.Raynor to Mr.Hyman to amend sketch site plan to show areas of expansion of motel,sewage treatment facility and water system. Proposed 147 units. Tentative appointment with Ms.Scopaz at 3 p.m.June 15. Mr.Raynor wants to proceed under section 100-250 through 255 for preparing presubmission conference. 23 June 1989-Mr.Raynor proposes expansion of Beachcomber Motel(SCTM#1000-83-2-1,2,p/o17)- presubmission conference. 3 July 1989-Town Planning Board (Bennett Orlowski)writes response letter(Appendix D-10)to Mr. Raynor: 1. 1978 - change of zone was granted for land behind (south of) motel, with the stipulation -No buildings within 200 feet of westerly boundary of property. 2. Concern as to location of community well and package sewage treatment facility outside of Resort Residential(RR)zone and in Agricultural Conservation(AC)zone. Applicant has not made plans clear for rest of property. Applicant must discuss any proposed water supply with SCWA. 3. Site plan application form enclosed. 4. Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF)requested. 7 July 1989 - Response letter (Appendix D-11) by Mr. Raynor to Planning Board Chairman (Orlowski): Rev. 0-1, 11/95 1 - 9 1. Change of zone for 200 foot westerly boundary was included in submission; 2. Community well and package sewage treatment facility are located as a result of planning with SCDHS. A Sewage Treatment Facility will be designed to accommodate proposed RR district motel units and future property subdivision of property to south; 3. Contacted SCWA; 4. Request formal presubmission conference. 15 August 1989-Mr.Raynor hand delivers letter(Appendix D-12)to Planning Board Chairman (Orlowski) and sends same letter as 7-3-89 with the following enclosures: 1. Site Plan Application 2. Filing fee 3. LEAF 4. 12 Prints of site plan Name of Applicant listed as Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski, Nick signs affidavit that he owns property 8-14-89. 3 October 1989-Planning Board responds(Appendix D-13) to Beachcomber Motel expansion. Application is incomplete. Following changes must be made before Planning Board can accept plans: 1. change scale from 1" = 50ft to 1" = 20ft; 2. zoning is incorrectly listed as M-1 instead of RR; 3. future land use of parcel"C' should be indicated; 4. Drainage calculations must be shown; 5. Parking calculations must be shown for entire site; 6. Percent lot coverage and % landscaping must be shown; 7. Lighting plan must be indicated; 8. Building profiles and floor plans must be shown,building dimensions and heights must also be indicated. 9. Location of dumpsters, transformers, etc.must be shown; 10. Location&details of aprons,curbs,sidewalks,fencing and grading both present and proposed with 2 ft. contours (on� site & 200 ft. beyond the property line) must be shown as required by Article XXV of the Zoning code; 11. Total square footage of proposed building area must be shown on the plan; 12. Calculation for units allowed based on public water and sewer. SCWA written notification to Town for availability of public water. Transient motels are a permitted use by SPECIAL EXCEPTION by the Zoning Board of Appeals&an application must be made to them. Upon receipt of 12 revised site plans the Board will proceed with an environmental review. Note: attached to letter is the 1978 change of zone from"A"residence&Agricultural to General M-1 Multiple residence dated May 23 1978 with the following condition: No buildings within 200 feet measured perpendicular to the western boundary line of premises described in the application. 6 October 1989-Mr.Raynor writes letter(Appendix D-14) to Planning Board requesting status of application. 15 October 1989 -Mr. Raynor writes (Appedix D-15) to Valerie Scopaz: 1. Received letter of 10-3-89; Rev. 0-1, 11/95 1 - 10 2. Notified Mr. Hyman to prepare necessary amendments; 3. Considering this submission a presubmission conference; 4. Item 12-SCWA has not set parameters for water supply on the property there is no public water in this area. 20 October 1989 -Letter (Appendix D-16)from Planning Board (Orlowski) to Mr. Raynor: 1. Planning Board review of his letter(10-6-89)requesting a presubmission conference; 2. Presubmission conference was held on 6-23-8 ; 3. No need for second presubmission conference; 4. Upon receipt of 12 items requested in October 3 letter, Planning Board will continue review. 8 November 1989-Letter(Appendix D-17)from Mr.Raynor to Valerie Scopaz with Questions: 1. Should applicant pursue special exception form ZBA prior to doing finite engineering; 2. Can applicant proceed concurrently with Planning Board; 3. Should applicant proceed with expensive and extensive calculations and site plan prior to ZBA application? 5 December 1989-Letter(Appendix D-18)from Ms.Scopaz to Mr.Raynor confirms conversation of December 4 with Mr.Raynor and recommends: 1. Apply to ZBA for Special Exception when applicant submits revised site plans to Planning Board,that will allow 2 Boards to coordinate their environmental review; 2. Information requested by Planning Board in October 3, 1989 letter should be provided in revised site plans so that environmental impacts of project can be accurately assessed. 15 August 1991 -Mr.Raynor submits copies of H2M potable water study to Town of Southold. 30 August 1991 -Letter (Appendix D-19) from Planning Board to Mr. Raynor: 1. Acknowledges receipt of H2M water resource study; 2. Have not received response from December 5, 1989 nor October 3, 1989 letter with revisions. 5 September 1991 -Letter from Planning Board to Mr. Raynor for response of 12-5-89 letter. 9 September 1991 -Letter from Mr. Raynor to Mr. Hyman: 1. Correspondence for Beachcomber Motel (October 3rd letter?) 2. Special Exception application before the ZBA as a result of change from M-1 to RR; 3. Revise all figures due to change of zone. 1 October 1991 -Planning Board replies (Appendix D-20) to SCDHS (Dennis Moran): 1. Thanks for response of 9-20-91; 2. Keep Planning Board posted on SCDHS comments on H2M report. 30 December 1991-Letter(Appendix D-21)from Mr.Raynor to Southold Town Building Department: 1. Proposed site plan submittal; Rev. 0-1, 11/95 1 - 11 2. Before proceeding with application to ZBA for"special exception"must receive"denial from Building Department. 7 January 1992-Mr.Raynor submits application for building permit. 13 January 1992-Letter(Appendix D-22)from Mr.Ponturo,P.E.Senior Public Health Engineer, Bureau of Drinking Water to Mr. Kelleher,P.E. H2M: 1. Confirm past conversations with S.McLendon regarding 7-91 Water Resources/System Report. a. Bureau can't respond to proposals and alternatives concerning density-related issues; In. Must make application to Wastewater Management Section,300 gpd/acre is sewage design allowance with on-site water source; c. Proposed well exceeds 45 gpm so LI well permit from NYSDEC will be needed; d. Carbon filtration needed; e. Detailed plans and specifications needed prior to any construction and specifics of design depend in part upon test well findings. 23 hLua X992-Letter(Appendix D-23)from Planning Board to Michael l oGrande,Chairman SCWA 1. Enclosing letter from Paul Ponturo at SCDHS; 2. Status of Beachcomber application remains unchanged; 3. Applicant has not responded to Planning Board request for information since 1989 therefore no coordinated environmental review; cc: to Joseph Lizewski, Councilman &Chair, GW Resources Committee Thomas Wickham, Councilman & Chair, Planning and Zoning Committee Mark McDonald, Chair, Water Advisory committee Edward J. Rosavitch, Chief Engineer, SCWA 24 January 1992-Letter(Appendix D-24)from Mr.Raynor to Zoning Board of Appeals(ZBA)for special exception: 1. Application in triplicate for Special Exception, "Add additional units to existing motel'; 2. Short EAF; 3. 4 Prints of site plan; 4. Filing fee; 5. ZBA questionnaire -list owners as: a. Nicholas Aliano In. Patricia Krupski c. Pond Enterprises Inc., Nicholas Aliano, President 2-23-89 12 February 1992-Letter(Appendix D-25)from Board of Appeals(Linda Kowalski)-returning the following: 1. 3 prints; 2. Aliano check for$300.00; 3. Cover letter with short EAR Rev. 0-1, 11/95 1 - 12 28 February 1992-Letter(Appendix D-26)from Board of Appeals Chairman (Goehringer)to Mr. Raynor acknowledging review by his office and return of documentation for the following reasons: 1. Documents with Planning Board are lacking documentation and they cannot proceed with site plan review process; 2. Project is within jurisdiction of Town Trustees under chapters 37 (Coastal Zone Mara em ent Law and 97(Wetlands ordinance-which pertains to Long Island Sound Areas activities proposed within 100 feet of the sound. Coastal Zone Management (CZ ) requires Type I SEORA declaration; 3. equest filing with: a. Town Trustees, b. SCDHS, c. NYSDEC, d. Southold Town Planning Board; 4. It is necessary to do one of the following: a. Combine and merge parcels showing total acreage; b. Submit separate application for each parcel if remaining separate ownership for the three lots which show ownership as : CTM#1-owned by Pond Enterprises, Inc,CTM#2-owned by Patricia Krupski,CTM#17-owned by Nicholas Aliano. 5. Copies of CO's for all buildings and uses (parcels #17,and #2& C.O. report); 6. Bluff setbacks; 7. Neighbor notices sent to all adjacent property owners with site plan; 8. Approvals required by SCWA and SCDHS prior to public hearing. 6 March 1992-Letter(Appendix D-27)from Mr.Raynor to Planning Board Chairman(Orlowski): 1. Errors in correspondence to SCWA that applicant had not responded to requests: a. Applicant hired BLB&H; b. Diligently pursuing approvals from SCDHS; c. Office received correspondence from SCDHS 10 days prior 6 March 1992-Letter(Appendix D-28)from Mr.Raynor to Mr.Bredemeyer,Chairman Southold Town Trustees asking for procedure for application to Board for Chapters 37& 97. 6 March 1992-Letter from Mr.Raynor to NYSDEC(Appendix D-29)requesting advice for approval of project. 13 March 1992-Letter from Mr.Raynor to Mr.Kelleher of 1-12M (Appendix D-30)requesting cost breakdown for water supply as required by SCDHS as well as design and cost analysis for leaching fields and septic requirements. Project has been reduced from 147 units to 86 units to avoid installation of STP. 20 March 1992-Letter to NYSDEC with 2 copies of surveys of 1964 and current site plan,98% of project above 10 foot contour. 23 April 1992-Letter from Board of Town Trustees President (Mr. J. Bredemeyer III) to Mr. Raynor (Appendix D-31): 1. Trustees inspected site and site plan and recommend structure be moved an additional 50 feet landward than shown on 12-91 survey of T. Filazzoa; Rev. 0-1, 11/95 1 - 13 2. Proposal must comply with Chapter 37 of Town Code: Coastal Erosion Protection; 3. Minimal setbacks from bluff are 50 feet for movable structures under Coastal Erosion Hazard Law and 100 feet for building under Zoning Board jurisdiction,closer setbacks will require variance applications. 7 May 1992-Letter from Mr.Raynor to Southold Town Trustees (Appendix D-32) - 3 copies of amended site plan -Please advise on decision of jurisdiction. 11 June 1992-Letter from Planning Board to Mr.Raynor(Appendix D-33)responding to 3-6-92 letter: 1. No Planning Board action on project because site plan in August 1989 was incomplete; 2. Planning Board letter of 10-3-89 explained what material was needed; 3. In research noticed application involves 3 parcels each in separate ownership which all must be listed on application in order to be valid. All three owners must grant consent for the proposed plans; 4. Section 100-61 of the Zoning Code stipulates that a Special Exception must be obtained for a Motel in the Resort Residential District. Since Motel use has been established only on parcel with existing Motel(Pond Enterprises Inc) and since the proposal is to expand the motel use to other maps both P.Krupski and ick Aliano must apply to ZBA for a special exception; 5. Section 100-254133A of the Zoning Code prohibits the Planning Board from granting site plan approval before ZBA has granted Special Exception. 12 June 1992 -Letter from Mr. Raynor to ZBA(Appendix D-34) summarizing response. 18 June 1992 -Letter from Town Trustees (J.Bredemeyer) to Mr. Raynor (Appendix D-35): 1. Proposed work as per plan dated 12-91 and received 5-11-92 is out of Trustees jurisdiction. 30 June 1992-Letter from Mr.Raynor to Planning Board(Appendix D-36)-signed and notarized by P. Krupski- please proceed with SEQRA. 21 July 1992-Letter form Mr. Raynor to the Planning Board (Appendix D-37) asking them to exclude Pond Enterprises. 22 July 1992-Letter from Planning Board to Mr.Raynor (Appendix D-38) telling him that all 3 parcels must be part of the site plan including Beachcomber I which was omitted from H2M report. Motel proposed is an expansion of an existing facility. 31 July 1992-Letter from Mr.Raynor to the Planning Board(Appendix D-39) complying with the above information: 1. Revised site plans; 2. Updated Long EAF; 3. Affidavit from principals of Pond Enterprises Inc. (Mr. Nicholas Aliano and his wife Margaret). 6 August 1992-Letter from the Planning Board to Mr.Raynor(Appendix D-40)saying that they have received the revised site plans, updated LEAF and Affidavit from principals of Pond Enterprises Inc. however they need: Notarization of Affidavit and application fee of$2,685. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 1 - 14 18 August 1992-Letter from Southold Town Planning Board (Ms. Scopaz) to review agencies ZAppendix D,41)-Southold Town Planning Board wants Lead Agency Status,sent to Zoning Board of ppeals -comments on LEAF. 18 August 1992-Letter from Planning Board to Mr. Raynor(Appendix D-42): 1. Resolution that STPB acting under SEQRA to start coordination process of this Type 1 action (proposed site plan for Expansion of Beachcomber Motel); 2. Copy of site plan sent to Cramer& Voorhis for review. 3. Estimate of cost of review sent to Mr. Raynor for payment before work is started. cc: Southold Board of Trustees,Zoning Board of Appeals,Town of Southold Building Department, Town of Southold Highway Department,SCDHS($.Cnsta,V.Minei,P.Ponturo),Suffolk County Planning Commission,DF,CAlbarry,DOS(Mohabir Petsaud),Groundwater Resources Committee Southold Town, Planning and Zoning Committee Southold Town. 28 August 1992-Letter from Zoning Board of Appeals to Mr.Raynor(Appendix D43) stating that they cannot schedule a hearing until the following is accomplished (Zoning Board of Appeals letters of 28 February and 30 June 1992). 1. Positive or Negative Declaration by the Southold Town Planning Board; 2. Applicant to forward copy of most recent status concerning Town Trustees application, SCDHS, NYSDEC; 3. Copy of receipt of filing with NYSDEC; 4. Notification of filing; 5. Separate applications for each parcel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the parcels appear to be single and separate ownership and owners do not want to merge 3 special exception applications,forms must be signed by the property owners 3 September 1992-Letter from Suffolk County Water Authority to the Southold Town Planning Board (Appendix D-44): 1. No objection to the Southold Town Planning Board as the lead agency; 2. Correct LEAF to include existing motel with 36 units and 3 apartments; 3. Impact on groundwater during construction phase should be reviewed and restrictions placed upon landscaped areas. 8 September 1992-Letter from Southold Town Planning Board(STPB)to Mr.Raynor(Appendix D-45) confirming receipt of$450 to begin Environmental Review. 9 September 1992-Letter from STPB to Mr.Raynor(Appendix D-46)with a copy of SCWA letter (9/3/92). 14 September 1992-Letter from Zoning Board of Appeals to STPB(Appendix D-47)-stating that the ZBA has no objection to Planning Board as Lead Agency,but need to confirm the following: 1. Motel Unit Density- properties are all separate and need to be combined; 2. Pond Enterprises Inc. - improved by Motel Units, 2 acres; 3. Patricia Krupski-one story main structure with porch and accessory swimming pools; 4. Lot 17 owned by Mr. Aliano a principle structure and accessory buildings. Normal allowable motel unit density if parcels 1-3 are merged = 116.2 units. However the following questions need answering: Rev. 0-1, 11/95 1 - 15 a. Intent of land use in other areas of property; b. If dwellings are proposed in A-C confirm number of units for dwelling use and whether or not it will be a cluster subdivision or major subdivision. convents will be require; C. Copies of Certificate of Occupancies for all principal buildings and all accessory structures d. Questions concerning existing and proposed future uses. 28 Sel2tember 1992 - Memo from Planning Board to all review agencies (Appendix D-48) - clarification: 1. 3 separately owned parcels; 2. Owners of 2 parcels are part of a single application to develop their land as 1 unit; 3. Although no additional development is proposed for existing motel and restaurant is being included in the environmental review. 4. Enclosure of: H2M Report. 5. Data on existing water use of site is still forthcoming. 6. STPB to make determination at 19 October meeting. Attachment: Clarification of Project NAME- Beachcomber Motel Expansion of. 20 October 1992-Letter from STPB to Mr.Raynor(Appendix D-49)stating that they will act as Lead Agency in review of this Type I action. 29 October 1992-Review letter from Cramer,Voorhis Associates to STPB(Appendix D-50)reviewing Beachcomber Motel expansion Long EAR 2 November 1992 -SEQR Positive Declaration (Appendix D-51) -Type I Action. 4 November 1992-Positive Declaration by the Lead Agency,Planning Board of the Town of Southold (Appendix D-52) requiring a Draft Environmental Impact Statement to be prepared. 7 December 1992-Comments to the proposed motel expansion by NYSDEC(Appendix D-53)referencing Permit Application #1-4738-00511100001-0. Note: 1. These comments pertain to a previously proposed 86 unit site plan. 2. Many of the comments do not pertain to the proposed 46 unit site plan. 3. There will be no new access catwalks to the beach or bulkheads or beach stabilization structures and no need for plantings of grass. 4. The preliminary development plan contains grading and storm damage features which have been designed to accomodate roof areas,roadways,and parking to improved portions of the site. 5. A letter of non jurisdiction will be requested for the proposed construction. 22 January 1993 -Scoping session, $250.00 fee payable to the Town of Southold. 23 February 1993-Annotated version of Scoping checklist used at January 22nd scoping session (Appendix D-54). This checklist will be used by the Planning Board and reviewing agencies as the official synopsis of the meeting and will be followed by the Consultant in preparing the DEIS. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 1 - 16 28 March 1995 -DEIS submitted to Town of Southold. 13 June 1995-Comments received from Town of Southhold Planning Board (Appendix D-66). 23 June 1995-Correspondence from NYSDEC to Richard Ward regarding reconstructed seawall and foundations are in full compliance(Storm Damage Permit#147384)0710.00001-0)(Appendix D-67). 29 June 1995-Board of Southold Town Trustees Authorization approval with terms and conditions and Certificate of Occupancy from Town of Southold Building Department(Appendix D-68) for reconstruction of seawall. 14 August 1995-Cutchogue Fire District comments to site plan review request(Appendix D-69)by the Applicant. The Fire District requests a new 400 gpm fire well be constructed as per their specifications. When installation is completed and accepted by the Board of Fire Commissioners the District will assume the maintenance on the well and request easements for access to the well. Cutchogue Fire Department verifies that if the above well is installed and proper fire lanes are open on the property that they will be able to provide Fire Protection to the Beachcomber Motel II expansion and existing Beachcomber Motel. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 1 - 17 //. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACT/ON H. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A. PROJECT PURPOSE,NEED AND BENEFITS The purpose of the proposed project is to provide quality recreational lodging for summer travelers and tourists to the Cutchogue Community by constructing 46 motel units. These motel units will consist of 4 buildings semi-clustered on approximately 4.75 acres in an area adjacent to the existing Beachcomber Motel. The entire project encompasses 48.2 acres of property. The Applicant currently owns and operates the Beachcomber Motel(Pond Enterprises Inc.)and has been operating the resort motel and restaurant for 24 years. Although the current facilities are in good condition, the applicant believes that the added new facilities will make the Beachcomber Motel II a more attractive tourist destination. The need for expansion is compounded by the erosion of beachfront. After the severe "northeaster"storm during December 1992,it was suggested by the Southold Town Trustees that the Applicant consider a "selective retreat" in order to properly fortify the shoreline. 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. These units have the potential for loss at some future date. However, they still are in sound condition and contribute to the economic base of the Beachcomber's operation via rental income. Therefore, to selectively remove these units is not a viable economic alternative at this point in time. The proposed project is consistent with the Town of Southold's major economic base activities which include agriculture,commercial fishing, tourism and recreation (including seasonal residential activity). Since resort and seasonal development are an important element of the Town's economy, the benefit will be an expansion of the tax base and year round (during construction phase) and seasonal employment opportunities. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 2 - 1 Additionally, the proposed project will preserve the rural character of what is now farmland. If farming is permitted to continue it will encourage agriculture as an important element to the life and economy of the Town. Approximately 32 acres of land is farmed on the southern part of the project site. The proposed project will be consistent with the Town's planning goals by: o Maintaining and protecting Southold's agricultural heritage and pastoral and open qualities. o Concentrating resort and seasonal development at higher densities in areas where seasonal resort development is now concentrated. o Expanding the tax base in abase industry." o Maximizing the Town's natural assets to include its coastal location. In summary,tourism and recreation is a thriving part of the Town's economy, and all indications are that it will be important in the future. For this reason, the Applicant desires to expand the existing facilities to insure that the qualities that make Southold desirable are maintained. B. LOCATION The proposed Beachcomber Motel II project is located in an area north of Oregon Road and east of Duck Pond Road(a continuation northerly of Depot Lane) and extends to the south shore of the Long Island Sound in the Township of Southold,Suffolk County,New York (Figure 2-1). All of the subject area is within Section 83, Block 2 as shown on the Suffolk County Property Tax Map (Figure 1-2). There is already some development in the area consisting of: a) the Beachcomber Motel fronting on the Long Island Sound; b) existing partially built single family subdivision on the east side of Duck Pond Road and southwest of the proposed project; and c) another subdivision north of(b)but west of Duck Pond Road (on the streets of Vista Place, Glen Court and Birch Lane) extending to the Long Island Sound. The total potential single family homes in (b) and (c) is approximately 55 on about 50 acres. Most of the nearby area to the south, east and west is residential/agricultural with two-acre zoning and is currently under cultivation. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 2- 2 BARRETT BONACCI HYMRao � Varr WEAELE lAGR/CULTURAL CONSERVATION 31.7 ACRES 669 APPROXIMA7F RESORT/ RESIDEN77AL 16.5 ACRES 349 I ZONING LINE i RESORT / RESIDEN77AL (RIR) / AGRICUL 77JRAL CONSERVA 77ON (AC) �l/ l a a . C DUB 0 2 Q Z / i zl R 40 DEPOT UNE I - AGRICUL 7URAL CONSERVA 77ON it ZONING MAP SCALE I" = 300 t FIGURE 2-1 PAGE 2-3 Access to the site will originate from one of Southold's two major arterial roads, both of which run east-west, traversing the narrow peninsula. The primary road that will be used is County Route 48. It was built by the County as a four-lane major arterial road, which acts as a truck bypass, and primarily services the Town's through traffic. Route 48 is not heavily used,except during summer months when the road is used more by tourists who are traveling to their north shore summer homes and recreation spots. The accident rate has been very low along County Route 48. Route 48 in Southold does not appear to have any overly hazardous areas and the accidents have not been concentrated in any one area. At Depot Lane there is a flashing wanting signal. This engineering feature allows for the smooth and uninterrupted flow of traffic, making this route desirable for through traffic. Depot Lane is a collector street which turns into Duck Pond Road after the intersection with Oregon Road. Duck Pond Road terminates at the beachfront of the Long Island Sound. Duck Pond Road is the access road to approximately 30 existing residences in (b) and (c) above. It also leads to the existing private driveway of the Beachcomber Motel. Duck Pond Road is utilized for public access to the beachfront. Two hour parking is permitted from 10 AM to 10 PM. Parking is not allowed from 10 PM to 10 AM. The proposed project site consists of three contiguous parcels which have not as yet been combined The existing Beachcomber Motel is located on a parcel that is zoned Resort Residential(RR). The proposed Beachcomber Motel H will be constructed on that portion of the project site zoned RR. According to the Town of Southold Zoning Code,"The purpose of the Resort Residential(RR) District is to provide opportunity for resort development in waterfront areas or other appropriate areas where, because of the availability of water and/or sewers,more intense development may occur consistent with the density and character of surrounding lands." Approximately 32 acres of the project site lie within an area zoned Agricultural Conservation (A-C). The part of the project site, zoned A-C, will not be developed (Figure 2-1). Rev. 0-1, 11/95 2-4 Table 2-1 Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts on the Subiect Site Agricultural Resort Conservation Residential A-C RR MINIMUM LOT SIZE(square feet) 1-family detached dwelling Residential unit without utilities 80,000 20,000 Residential unit with community water NA 20,000 Residential unit w/community water and sewer NA 12,000 2-family detached dwelling 2-family dwelling without utilities 160,000(tdi) 40,000 2-family dwelling with community water NA 40,000 2-family dwelling with community water and sewer NA 20,000 Multiple dwelling unit or townhouse , Multiple dwelling or townhouse without utilities NA NA Multiple dwelling or townhouse w/community water NA NA Multiple dwelling or townhouse w/community water/sewer NA NA Motel,hotel or conference center guest unit Guest unit without utilities NA 6,000 Guest unit with community water NA 6,000 Guest unit w/community water and sewer NA 4,000 Nonresidential use(as permitted) Use with or without utilities 80,000 40,000 Density and Minimum Lot Size Schedule for Zoning Districts Minimum Requirements for 1-family detached dwellings Lot site(square feet) 80,000 20,000 Lot width(feet) 175 75 Lot depth(feet) 250 120 Front yard(feet) 60 35 Side yard(feet) 20 15 Both side yards(feet) 45 30 Rear yard(feet) 75 35 •� Livable Boor area(sq.ft./dwelling unit) 850 850 Maximum permitted dimensions: Lot coverage(percent) 20 25 Building height(feet) 35 35 Number of stories 2.5 2.5 Notes: • [Amended 8-1-89 by Local Law(L.L.) No.14-1989 — •• Except one-bedroom or studio in multiple dwelling may have six hundred(600)square feet. NA Not Applicable Rev. 0-1, 11/95 2- 5 The Town's Zoning Code(Chapter 100-61 B(4))allows motel units in the RR-zoned land by Special Exception of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Code permits a density of one unit per each 6,000 square feet of land area where there is no public water or sewer. A density of one unit per each 4,000 square feet of land is permitted where there is public water and sewer (Table 2-1). The proposed Beachcomber Motel II will be semi-clustered on approximately 5 acres of the 16.5 acres of RR-zoned land (all three parcels). The existing Beachcomber Motel consists of thirty-six units and three apartments, a fifty seat restaurant, a swimming pool and a five unit cabana. C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT The preliminary development plan of the Beachcomber II along with the existing Motel and resort is shown in Figure 2-2 and on the Preliminary Site Development Plan(Attached to the inside back cover of the DEIS. As shown on the site plan all proposed units will be graded to a minimum elevation of 14 feet. The following data refers to these plans. Table 2-2 Site Data Existing Conditions Area = 48.2 acres Farmland = 32.0 acres Wooded Vegetation = 9.7 acres Grass/Meadow = 5.4 acres Unvegetated(Structures/Paved) = 1.1 acres Parking = 28 stalls Zoning = A-C 31.7 acres(66%),RR 16.5 acres (34%) Number of Existing Units = 36 Motel, 3 apartments, 5 cabanas Proposed Land Uses: Area = 48.2 acres Farmland and/or Fallow = 32.0 acres Wooded Vegetation = 9.5 acres Grass/Meadow = 4.4 acres Unvegetated (Structures/Paved) = 2.3 acres (0.64 acres 128,125 sf} roads internal to the site) Parking = 108 stalls Paved Area(associated with parking stalls) = 0.4 acres (0.8% of site) Recharge = 0.33 acres Number of Proposed Units = 46 Total number of Units = 82 Motel, 3 apartments, 5 cabanas Rev. 0-1, 11/95 2- 6 BARRETT B ONAC C I HYMAN & VAN WEELE . APPROXIMA TE / ZONING LINE '" "❑may MA oI Q I out PROPOSED WELL R/R AC w o Q J F-CI 5 DUCK -DAD DEPOT LANE ,SITE PLAN SKETCH SCALE I" = 300'f FIGURE 2- 2 PAGE 2-7 The applicant has chosen a site design which will minimize environmental impacts as follows: (1) Drainage: Stormwater runoff on the site will be directed to a drainage reserve area to be located near the entrance to the motel on Duck Pond Road. This area currently acts as a natural drainage basin for the site. It will be enhanced by enlargement and the construction of an overflow structure. When capacity of the drainage reserve area is exceeded, the excess water will discharge to a bubble type inlet on Duck Pond Road. The high water level of the proposed drainage reserve area is at elevation 11.00,which coincides with the FEMA 100 year flood elevation as discussed in Section III.A.2.b.4. By necessity, the overflow structure must be situated at an elevation lower than 11.00,so that excess stormwater can flow by gravity from the reserve area to its overflow destination. Assuming that sufficient rip rap is placed adjacent to the overflow structure to protect against erosion, there will be no measurable environmental impact. The basin itself will provide settling for stormwater and allow filtration of this water through the soil into the water table thereby enhancing infiltration to the groundwater system. The capacity of this reserve will be 30,000 cubic feet. Drainage calculations are shown in Table 2-3 below: Table 2-3 Drainage Calculations Total Drainage Area = 624,087 square feet(SF) Steep Slopes (229,063 SF x 0.167x 30%) = 11,476 cubic feet (CF) Total Buildings (15,934 SF x 0.167 x 100%)= 2,661 CF Proposed Buildings= 13,800 SF Existing Cabana = 1,750 SF Existing Gazebo = 384 SF Total Buildings = 15,934 SF Pavement = 7,305 CF Landscaped = 5.600 CF Total Volume = 27,042 CF Rev. 0-1, 11/95 2- 8 (2) The sanitary system is designed in accordance with"Standards for Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems for Other Than Single Family Residences"published by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). Section 2.D (Construction and Operation)includes a discussion of the development potential under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code when public water is supplied or if a sewage treatment plant is constructed on the Applicant's property. The existing and proposed sanitary design flow consists of the following: Table 2-4 Sanitary Flow Calculations Apartments 3 units x 350 gpd/unit = 1,050 gpd Cabana 5 units x 100 gpd/unit = 500 gpd Motel 36 units x 150 gpd/unit = 5,400 gpd Bar 5 seats x 15 gpd/seat = 75 gpd Restaurant 50 seats x 10 gpd/seat = 500 end Total Existing Flow = 7,525 gpd Proposed Motel Units 46 units x 150 gpd = 6,900 gpd Total of Existing and Proposed Sanitary Flow=14,425 gpd The sanitary design flow from the proposed development is 46 units x 150 gpd/unit or 6,900 gpd. Each 12 unit building will have its own sanitary disposal system consisting of a 3,600 gallon septic tank and one 10 foot diameter by 6 foot deep leaching pool providing 188.6 square feet of sidewall leaching area. This meets the SCDHS requirement of 10 gpd per square foot of leaching area. Near the units the lowest elevation is about 14 feet making the depth to water a minimum of eleven feet. This provides adequate room to install the leaching pools with a minimum distance between the bottom of the pool and the groundwater table of 2 feet as required by the SCDHS. The leaching pools for each of the building are spread about the portion of the property to be developed dispersing the nitrogen loading from the sanitary systems. (3) Water supply design to establish size for the proposed action has been based upon the following criteria: Rev. 0-1, 11/95 2 - 9 Table 2-5 Water Design Criteria Average Day Tourist Season - 14,925 gallons per day (gpd) Estimated Maximum Day - 30,000 gpd Estimated Peak Hour - 60 gallons per minute (gpm) The proposed water supply system will be designed in accordance with NYS Department of Health and Ten States Standards and will consist of two wells (one as backup) each with a capacity of 60 gpm. A 3,000 gallon hydropneumatic tank will be provided for storage,with pressure controls providing working pressures from 40 to 60 pounds per square inch (psi). The storage will also provide chlorine contact time should chlorination be required. Should the water quality from the wells be impacted from pesticides beyond acceptable limits,granular activated carbon filters will be placed prior to the storage tank in the system. The system will be constructed with fittings and room for granular activated carbon should it be needed in the future. It is not expected that nitrates will be a problem in the well's water. Since the water needs will be seasonal,it is recommended that the existing Well No. 2(25 gpm)be retained for use during the off season months. The proposed location of the new wells will be in the vicinity of the southerly portion of the RR zoned property and the northerly portion of the A-C zoned property. It is proposed to place the two wells approximately 60 to 100 feet apart and at least 200 feet from potential pollution sources, as required by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) for wells screened in the upper Glacial aquifer. The proposed well depth is approximately 110 feet based upon a ground elevation of between 50 and 55 feet above sea level. This places the bottom of the well at approximately 55 to 60 feet below sea level and 60 to 65 feet below the water table. The bottom of existing Well No. 2 is currently 61 feet below sea level and has demonstrated excellent water quality in the past. This well is located approximately 600 feet east-northeast of the proposed wells. Based upon the aquifer characteristics Rev. 0-1, 11/95 2 - 10 of the area it is expected that the drawdown in the wells will be between 1 and 2 feet during pumping. Over pumpage of wells presents a concern of saltwater intrusion through upconing from below,but the average pumpage in the summer will only be at a rate of 10.4 gallons per minute. The seasonal aspect of the water use will improve the situation as it relates to saltwater intrusion since the wells can be rested in the off season when the groundwater recharge is greatest and the aquifer system can return to equilibrium. The availability of three wells will also allow for rotation of well use to minimize the stress in any given location. There is not expected to be an impact on groundwater quality as a result of the pumpage from the water supply wells. The water supply system will also be capable of providing up to 145 gpm of water for fire fighting if needed. Additional fire flow can be obtained by drafting from Long Island Sound or by the construction of fire wells on site. (4) Parking calculations, design and layout are depicted on the preliminary development plan. A total of 108 parking stalls will be provided. Calculations for arriving at this total are given below: Table 2-6 Parking Calculations Existing Motel 36 Units x 1 Unit = 36 Stalls required Existing Restaurant 50 Seats x 1/3 Seats = 17 Stalls required Existing Apartments 3 Apartments x 1/Apt. = 3 Stalls required Proposed Motel Units 46 Units x 1/Unit = 46 Stalls required Employees 6 Employees x 1/Emp = 6 Stalls required Accessory Uses No Specific Requirements = As required Total Requirements = 108 Stalls required Total Provided 104 Standard + 4 Handicap = 108 Stalls provided D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION Construction will commence after the granting of all permits and approvals. The Beachcomber Motel II expansion is planned to undergo a phased construction period. It is anticipated that construction will begin in late 1996 to early 1997 with approximately all 46 units completed in one year. Development will be limited to those areas on-site which Rev. 0-1, 11/95 2- 11 have already been cleared. Very few trees will be removed and very little alteration will be done to the existing terrain. New landscaping will be added in disturbed areas. As each motel building is constucted its septic system will also be built. The systems will be designed to accommodate sanitary flow from the proposed new motel units. Water supply will be designed for both water supply and fire services, although it is anticipated that additional fire fighting supplies will be utilized from the Long Island Sound. The developmental potential of the property will double if public water is brought into the site. This would increase the allowable sanitary flow from 14,425 gpd to 28,950 gpd. Further development could take the form of additional motel units in the RR zoned portion of the property and/or single family residences in the A-C zoned area. It should also be noted that construction of a sewage treatment plant (STP)would eliminate the density constraints placed on this property by the SCDHS. Site density would then be limited by requirements such as Town zoning, parking, site conditions etc. Approval to construct a STP would be required by Suffolk County Department of Public Works. Operation of the Beachcomber Motel II will be as a family resort providing motel accomodations for transient tourists. All units will be individually heated/air conditioned and furnished with sofas, beds, refrigerators and televisions. All units will have private bathrooms. The proposed motel units will be operated by members of the Aliano family on a seasonal basis. It will be open to the public beginning Memorial Day weekend through mid October. As an informal resort, landscaping will be done utilizing non-fertilizer dependent vegetation. Exotic plantings and specimen type varieties will not be used. The grassey areas surrounding the buildings will not be fertilized and will be maintained only by mowing. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 2- 12 E.APPROVALS Upon approval of the DEIS by the Lead Agency the Applicant will initiate the permiting and approval process. The Applicant will diligently follow up and coordiante with all involved agencies to ensure all the necessary approvals are received. The following approvals are required prior to construction of the Beachcomber II as proposed: Permits,Approvals, Funding: Southold Town 1. Building Department -Denial of project in order to be considered for Special Exception by the ZBA 2. Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) - Special Exception 3. Planning Board-Site Plan 4. Building Department 5. Highway Department The Town's Zoning Code allows motel units in Resort/Residential zoning by Special Exception of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Code permits a density of one unit per each 6,000 square feet of land area where there is no public water or sewer. A density of one unit per each 4,000 square feet of land is permitted where there is public water and sewer. Suffolk County Department of Health Services: 1. Water Supply (Suffolk County Department of Health Services) - review and approval of the design for the water supply system. 2. Wastewater (Division of Wastewater Management) New York State: 1. Well Permit(Division of Water)-Suffolk County Department of Health Services will require review and approval of the design for the water supply system. NYSDEC will review and approve a water supply permit and a Long Island Wells permit for the wells in excess of 45 gpm. 2. Tidal Wetlands-Letter of non jurisdiction for revised site plan (Application # 1-4738-00511/00001-0). Comments in Appendix D-53 were based upon 86 units. The Applicant will request non jurisdiction for the revised site plan. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 2- 13 ///. ENVIRONMENTAL SETT/NG III. A. NATURAL RESOURCES 1. GEOLOGY a. Subsurface Long Island is composed of various layers of sediments overlying southerly sloping bedrock. Geologic activities during the Pleistocene Epoch, formed the basis for much of Long Island as we know it today. During this period, four major continental glaciers were formed. The Wisconsin Stage of glaciation was the last and only advance to reach Long Island. This stage had two distinct and significant phases. The first glacial phase advanced in a southerly direction. It advanced as far south as the center of Long Island and stretched east to Montauk creating the Ronkonkoma Terminal Moraine (a ridge of till that marks the utmost advance of a glacier). This ridge of sand and gravel was pushed by the glacier, and deposited as the glacier receded. In addition meltwater streams carried sand,gravel,and small boulders southward forming an outwash plain. Following this northerly retreat,the glacier readvanced a second time to what is now the north shore of Long Island. This second push created the Harbor Hill Moraine,which extends through the Town of Southold including Plum, Gull, and Fishers Islands. Soils typically contain unsorted rock, sand and gravel. The outwash plain from this second advance formed the northern half of the island and its meltwater modified both the Ronkonkoma moraine and existing outwash plain. Since that time,natural erosion combined with a rising sea level, have molded Long Island to its present shape. A cross section from the north to south shores of Long Island reveals the stratigraphic column for two areas, one to the west(E) and another to the east (F) of the subject property (Figure 3-1). Details of these columns are shown in Figure 3-2. An interpolation of this data has been made for this discussion. During the Cretaceous Period unconsolidated layers of sand and clay were deposited in a southeasterly direction. The Applicant's property is north and south of the terminus of the Harbor Hill Moraine. Bedrock is found in a layer approximately 850 feet to 1,600 feet below sea level beneath the site, slopes south easterly and is relatively impermeable, creating a lower boundary Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 1 Figure 3-1 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMNS IN THE VICINITY OF THE BEACHCOMBER MOTEL II r m� 'Gar naro n.,pr4y 1 36 60— A•v o A v \ by \ �r4y h 4.'aY 4p A,.p A4 Y bry 'h[4 _d+Pd A,•p Grb C'{�4.- pro _ n ruC' 96 0'1 y nippy+ �„ ` ti'a Syr • ,� � �d�("+ � 4 -� x �em.rG•a n •-� "rh e� .� l 5� � ..fr[fds�nuc A'of n° � hd da 43, O _6 zs r o bro dib ter sr o x".r° Qa +Pt f 4 4 f a•.r � .. n a - M•r1 t+__ SGS �/ip p� ebain°Wir • �`sGAA' A•'e Man 9 A• Hacq __, yr A,b°"R 36 �b tP � 'Gay ' 'p 'Gar p �. �A; !�• !I Fr Vy+V ySe josp°+r O°YSe Pf°Gf r p Rcb pe bI'�" J�/�,b"�h p a x n•p a0 r dnde or oy Ceo� PGadm SGlydO �� c�� C,,.�" � yep �,'p empi P eae sw n 'rnl`� H o o n v,. b v A v e`oryef A/,qy oortnkx p r b Aa p ,yr ,'G'•p 'cA r � o n _ °94P b_ aArb a��•_ C�• 7 5'O at y/ d (,arum Vr !o 4� n( ¢ -----___SUAVmauR On{iiEl++upmeryryyliT(, FIWI x"im ppssieb fuUmnpE DO'N+---_---- ."•np •lap �—w, `:,Nv\Ji��./tidi•�/ -- �"��'�6 •,np oap •,np bnp '+"O '•no '•"p er•I!r '•"p 4ap 4 p Source: USGS figures west and east of the site Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 2 Figure 3-2 DETAIL OF STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMNS IN THE VICINITY OF THE BEACHCOMBER MOTEL II Z � O � c h O ao - 0 � ae� _� Z E o m ` 400• Q o ir m n = E E' g d Z aoo o' W A O SEA Shore Acres V SEA LEVEL _ LEVEL Gardiners Clay �� Upper glacial aquifer 400' Monmouth greensand \� 400' Mao aquifer Soo 800• 1200' LioYda4uifer A�frJ 1200• Bedrock 1600' �/� 1600' O U E Wo O oc c� c m ICE = 0 2 6 0Z C R E � CC7 O cc $ c Co E o C _M.- Cr P SEAQ F� H ~ �� v y Greenport V 200' LEVEL Upper glacial aquifer SEA _ LEVEL �Gardiners Clay 400 Magothy aquifer ��-- � 400' Monmouth greensand 800' Rai n oi. eV — T��,f� 800• 1200• --IoYd eGuifer TJ `��n��f�l��l Bedrock 1200• 1600 tsao• Source: USGS figures west and east of the site Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 3 for ground water supply (Smolensky et. al.). Typically bedrock consists of crystalline metamorphic and igneous rocks such as; muscovite-biotite schist, gneiss and granite,with the surface of the bedrock weathered to a greenish white residual clay. Above the bedrock are two distinct Cretaceous sediments: the Raritan and Magothy formations. The Raritan is the oldest formation and is further divided into two members: the Lloyd Sand Member(aquifer) and above it the Raritan Clay. The Lloyd Sand Member(aquifer) lies atop the bedrock, is approximately 100 feet thick,and approximately 750 feet to 850 feet below sea level beneath the Beachcomber Motel II property. It consists of fine to coarse sand and gravel,with beds and lenses of clay, silt, clayey and silty sand, and some lignite (a soft brownish black imperfect coal of woody appearance) and pyrite (a lustrous yellow mineral also known as iron sulfide/fools gold). This aquifer, an area which can hold and transmit water is discussed in Section III.2.a. The Raritan Clay layer is typically gray, red or white in color, approximately 125 feet thick, slopes southerly and consists of mainly laminated clay. This is a solid and silty clay with few layers and lenses of sand mixed with lignite and pyrite. It is relatively impermeable and forms an aquiclude (a saturated geologic unit that is incapable of transmitting significant quantities of water) between the Lloyd Sand and Magothy formations. This predominantly clay layer lies approximately 625 feet to 750 feet below sea level beneath the subject site. Overlying the Raritan Clay is the second Long Island formation of the Cretaceous period, the Magothy. This aquifer consists of alternating fine sands, silts, and clays with some coarser grained beds of sand and gravel. It is approximately 300 feet thick, slopes southeast and ranges from 325 to 625 feet below sea level beneath the site. The Magothy is the predominant source of ground water to Long Island but since it is salty in this area it is not used for water supply. Above the Magothy are the undifferentiated deposits that make up the surface geology Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 -4 of Long Island. These upper glacial outwash deposits (consisting of stratified fine to coarse sand and gravel and having a high conductivity) range from the surface level of the property to approximately 385 feet below sea level beneath the site. This aquifer slopes toward the Long Island Sound in this area. b. Surface The Suffolk County Soil Survey(Warner, et al. 1975) lists ten major soil associations present on Eastern and Central Long Island.The Town of Southold is identified as having three of these associations: (1) Haven-Riverhead(2) Carver-Plymouth-Riverhead and the (3)Dune land-tidal marsh -beach. The first two are the main ones encountered on the Beachcomber Motel II property. Each soil association contains individual soil series and mapping units. General characteristics of these two soil associations are given below. A more detailed discussion of the individual soil series is presented thereafter. Haven-Riverhead Association-This Association is identified in the Suffolk County Soil Survey as containing "soils which are deep, nearly level to gently sloping, well-drained,medium and moderately coarse textured soils on outwash plains." Most areas of this association have been cleared for home sites or farms. From the Brookhaven/Riverhead Town line eastward,the soils in this association make up the largest area of farmland in the county, and they are used extensively for potatoes and other vegetables. In the western part of the county, nearly all of these soils are in housing developments. Combined with the gentle slopes and moderately high available moisture capacities this association has one of the best farming capabilities in the county(Warner,1975). Carver-Plymouth-Riverhead Association-This Association is mainly found along the north shore of Long Island. On the Beachcomber Motel II roperty it is found along the Harbor Hill Moraine and parallels the shoreline of the Long Island Sound. From the beach it ranges approximately 600 feet deep into the property on the west side along Duck Pond Road to approximately 1300 feet deep on the eastern boundary of the property. It is characterized by "deep, rolling, excessively drained and well-drained, coarse textured and moderately coarse textured soils on moraines." (Warner, 1975). The sandy texture and steep slopes make the soils in much of this association poorly suited to farming. Slope is the dominant limitation to use these soils as building sites (Warner, 1975). Within these two associations there are 7 mapping units (as described in the Suffolk County Soil Survey) encountered on the project site. Table 3-1 lists the types of soil series found within the associations on site with their mapping units, slopes, number of acres found, and percent of lot coverage. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 5 Table 3 - 1 Soils Found on the Applicant's Property Mappine #of Soil Association Soil Series Unit S10pes Acres %on Site Haven-Riverhead Haven Haven Loam(HaA) 0-2% 29.2 60.6 Riverhead Riverhead Sandy Loam(RdA) 0-3% 2.0 4.1 Riverhead Sandy Loam(RdB) 3$% 2.9 6.0 Carver-Plymouth-Riverhead Carver Calver and Plymouth Sands(CpE) 15-35% 8.0 16.6 Plymouth Plymouth Loamy Sands(PIC) 8-15% 2.4 5.0 No Association Beaches (RC) 0.3 0.6 Cut and Fill (Cull) gently 3.4 7.1 Figure 3-3 details the location of these soils on site. A discussion of the predominant mapping units found on the Applicant's property follows. Haven Series soils range from the edge of the Harbor Hill Moraine south to Oregon Road in an area of the property which is actively farmed. Haven series soils are deep,well drained, and medium textured. Their surface layer typically has a thin layer of leaf litter and decomposed organic matter. However,because this is an area of farming the surface organic layer does not exist. Below and to a depth of about 19 inches is a layer of dark grayish-brown to strong-brown, friable loam. The substratum,to a depth of 55 inches,is yellowish-brown to brownish-yellow loose sand and gravel. Haven soils have high to moderate available moisture capacity. These soils are predominantly level and generally are on outwash plains between the two terminal moraines, with slopes ranging from 0 to 12 percent. This soil is used extensively for crops, and it is well suited to all crops commonly grown in the county(Warner et. al., 1975). The majority(60.6%) of soils on the project site are Haven Loam on 0 to 2 percent slopes (HaA). They are mostly found on the southern portion of the property in the area that is farmed. There is a very slight potential for erosion of these soils. The nearly level slopes make for easy excavation and in the western part of the county have been used for housing developments (Warner et. al., 1975). Riverhead sandy loam with 0 to 3 percent slopes(RdA) comprises approximately 2.0 acres of the northeastern portion of the property. The hazard of erosion is slight. It generally is found on outwash plains, and the areas are large and uniform. The soil is well suited to all crops commonly grown in Suffolk County. However, the soil tends to develop a plowpan if it is intensively farmed (Warner et. al., 1975). Riverhead sandy loam with 3 to 8 percent slopes (RdB) is found on 2.9 acres in two corners of the southern most portions of wooded area on the site. This soil is on moraines and outwash plains. It generally is in areas along shallow, intermittent drainageways. Slopes generally are moderately short. The hazard of erosion is moderate to slight on this soil. The main concerns are controlling runoff and erosion and providing adequate moisture. This soil is well suited to all crops commonly grown in the county (Warner et. al., 1975). Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 -6 BARRETT B ONAC C I HYMAN & :_ XLLL VAN WEELE __'_L' LLL _L ' L' LLLLLL C`_L .; ;;...L_:......;. ; L� �/-LLLLLLLLL RdA LLRdB __ RdC LL4L LLLLLL r LL� L_ '- LRdB=LLLL LLLLLi '• LLLLLL __ '_LLL LLLLL//�--LLL /. LLLL ' - LLLLLL'L_lLL r i► / L_i LLLLLL'-LLLL'_-_ LLL _ LLLLL_LLLLLLLLLLLL'L_ LLLLLLLLL ( P1C r LLL' LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLI ' LLLLLL , X. X LL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL__LL L . / LL LLLLLLLLLL'_LLLLL LL L fr _L LLLLLLLLLLLL'' I 4 '--LLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLL ' LLLLLLLLL {{ CpE HaA LILRdB=LLLL _LLLLLLLL '_LLLLLL- • LLLLLLLLL fff L-LLLLLLI / J L LL-LLLI C B / / / f LLLL L-LLLI /jL PlC/ LL-LLLLL' o LLLLLL-__ ao i LLLLLL U_ / LLLLLLLL LLLLLLLL' LLLLLLLL' LLLLLLLL' LLLLLLLL ' -LLLLLLLLL o HaA Q CPE -LLL LL LLLLLLLLLL - LLLL LLLIL L LLLL 'h -LLLL w L -LLLLLL LLLLLLLLL ' "�. w LLLLL 1 _ __ C) ��/�j uB�/ L He - - =� a O LLLLLLLLLLLLLLL L LLLLLLLLLLLLLLL- / LLLl�L -LLLLLLLLLLLLLLL /. RdA .I LLLLLL LLL4LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLL- .': ( LRCJB-LLL DEPOT LANE --L J \ LLLLLLL '--LLLL LLLLLLLL X L J_LLLLL'_L' - L-LLLL X'k , LLLL-LL, BC OIL MAP FOR THE BEACHCOMBER MOTEL II SITE SCALE 1" = J00't SOIL TYPES HcA HAVEN LOAM 0 TO 2% SLOPES 29.2 ACRES 60.6% CpE CARVER AND PLYMOUTH SANDS, 15 TO 359; SLOPES 8.0 ACRES 16.6% CUB CUT AND FILL LAND, GENTLY SLOPING 3.4 ACRES 7.1% RdB RIVERHEAD SANDY LOAM, 3 TO 8% SLOPES 2.9 ACRES 6.0% FIGURE 3- 3 RdA RIVERHEAD SANDY LOAM, 0 TO 3% SLOPES PIC PLYMOUTH LOAMY SAND, 8 TO 15% SLOPES 2.4 ACRES 5.0% 2.0 ACRES 4. Bc BEACHES 0.3 ACRES 0.66 % PAGE 3-7 Carver Series soils consist of deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured soils. Native vegetation is white oak,black oak,scrub oak and pitch pine. However, none of these species were found on site. Carver soils have very low available moisture capacity. Natural fertility is very low. The mappingg umt found on site is Carver and Plymouth sands with 15 to 35 percent slopes (CpE). This unit is found in a U-shaped band in the northern portion of the property. ft makes up about 8 acres (16.6%) of the soils on the property and closely follows the area that is wooded. se soils are found almost exclusively on moraines. The hazard of erosion is severe if vegetation is removed. The soils are too droughty, too steep, or too stony for crops or pasture. These areas have generally not been cleared for farming,being largely restricted to woodland. Aermanent cover of plants should be maintained or restored on all soils in this unit. (Warner et. al., 1975) Plymouth loamy sand with 8 to 15% slopes (PIC) is identified by the Suffolk County Soil Survey on about 2.4 acres of the site. This moderately sloping soil is found on moraines and outwash plains. This is where the motel expansion is proposed to be located. Actual slopes which cover the cleared grassy area between the existing Beachcomber Motel and the woods are in the range of 3 to 8%. Normally the potential for erosion is moderate to severe due to the slope and sandy texture of the soil. However, because the actual slope in this area is much less the erosion hazard is considered slight to moderate. Beach(Bc)soils are found on the northern most 0.3 acres of the property in a narrow band stretching parallel to the Long Island Sound. These soils are made up of sandy, gavelly,or cobbly areas between water at mean sea level and dunes or escarpments. Slope is nearly level in most areas. All the beaches along the Long Island Sound are very gravelly and cobbly. A few very large boulders that rolled down from the adjoining bluffs of the Harbor Hill Moraine are present. Measures should be taken to control erosion to keep the beach wide enough to protect nearby uplands. Beaches are barren of vegetation but are able to support a few plants that can tolerate droughtiness and low fertility (Warner et. al., 1975). Cut and Fill (CuB)land is found on approximately 1.8 acres of the lot that contains the existing Beachcomber Motel. This unit is made up of level to gently sloping areas that have been cut and filled for nonfarm uses. Slopes range from 1 to 8 percent. Texture is dominantly loamy fine sand or coarser textured material throughout. "This land has few, if any, limitations to use as building sites." (Warner et. al., 1975) Soil Conservation Service Maps show most of the property, except the cleared and grassy area where the existing Beachcomber Motel is located to be "Prime and Unique" farmland. The definition of Prime farmland is: "Land best suited for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and also available for this use (the land could be presently cropland, pastureland, forest land, or other land but not urban land or water). It has the soil quality, growing season,and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops economically when treated and managed,including water management, according to modern farming methods (Soil Conservation Service,USDA, of Suffolk County, 1978)." Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 -8 The definition of"Unique"farmland is: "Land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of specific high-value food crops. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season,and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high quality and or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to modern farming methods. ples of such crops arerapes,fruit,and vegetables (Soil Conservation Service,USDA, of Suffolk County, 1978).' Soil samples on the Applicant's site and in the vicinity of the site have been assembled from well log data(NYSDEC). The location of these wells is shown in Figure 3-4 and the log data is detailed in Figure 3-5. c. Topography Elevations in the Town of Southold range from sea level to 160 feet above mean sea level (MSL), though the majority of the Town is at an elevation less than 50 feet above MSL. The greatest topographical variety is found along the north shore, which is characterized by hills and bluffs. Elevations on the site generally range from about 60 feet above mean sea level(MSL)on the southern portion of the property to 0 feet(MSL)on the northern portion of the property. The Beachcomber Motel II property is distinctly divided north and south by a wooded ridge with steep slopes. To the south of this ridge slopes are gentle and the area is predominantly used as farmland. The topography north of the ridge is steep on both sides of the existing cleared portion of property where the Beachcomber Motel complex is located. On the east side of the clearing in the northeast comer of the property elevations range from 50 to 20 feet over approximately 137 feet or a 22%grade. On the western side of the clearing elevations at the steepest point range from 50 to 20 feet over approximately 50 feet or a 60% grade. Looking from the LI Sound into the subject property a bluff begins to form and rise in height very rapidly on the west side of Duck Pond Road. On the east side of the Beachcomber Motel there is a gradual increase in bluff height to the eastern boundary of the Applicant's property where bluff heights then significantly increase. There is a low lying area on the property where natural drainage occurs. This "drainage swale"is highlighted in Figure 3-6 and ultimately runs into a small seasonal Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 -9 FIGURE 3 - 4 Location of Wells in the Vicinity of the Applicant's Property Duck Pond Pt S-72243 ` ,S-818167 ' S-79089 S-77112 ti S-81298 S-92 64 21 ° OREGON \1 (�o s. I I •..1 �- I-' \ T 00 o� CUTCHOGUE 0 STA Y 9 i CES z EAST NIATTITUCK Y P� (ti 9 CEMETERY 4y v PS. � P CU-TC110 USE P � C 25 i°LK a ° � 0 NORTH FORK D y P COUNTRY O I � HATTITUCK ' F J// dP ° PA W L (�a AIRPORT N ° a''' ' 00 0 0 0 0�� Marratooka P1 °R[4Q Old Con °' Y.C. 3 - 10 FIGURE 3 - 5 Well Logs in the Vicinity of the Applicant's Propety Well Number: S-97332 S-81816T S-79089 S-81298 S-92464 S-72243 S-77112 Location: Duck Pond Rd Duck Pond Rd Duck Pond Rd Duck Pond Rd Oregon Rd Birch Lane Vista Court Cutchogue,NY Cutchogue,NY Cutchogue,NY Cutchogue,NY Cutchogue,NY Cutchogue,NY Cutchogue,NY surface (0) - 5' - 10' - 15' F- 20' - 20' coarse sand 20' sand& 21' clay,loam 20' very coarse 20' coarse sand 20' hardpan 25' - and gravel large rocks I gravel gravel,stone and rock 30' - 30' hard pan, and mud 30' coarse sand 35' - 36' groundwater I gravelI gravel& 40' - 40' coarse sand, stones 45' - gravel 50' - 50' groundwater 50' groundwater 55' - 52' groundwater 53' groundwater 52' groundwater 58' groundwater 1 60' - 60' coarse orange 65' - 63' sand&stone sand-dense 70' - I gravel 75' - 73' sand&stone 72' coarse sand 80' - 80' coarse sand Li and rock 79' coarse sand 85' - 83' coarse gravel&mud some mica graveUrock 90' - med.to fine sand 95' - 90' brown sand& 100' - med.stone& mica 100' sand Owner": Aliano/ J.Fellinger K.Knobloch P.Maucotie F.McBride M.Finnican Liso Construct.\ Beachcomber Motel F.Lubinski Depth to water: 36' 52' 53' 52' 50' 58' 50' Depth of well: 100' 90' 95' 92' 85' 83' 91' Diameter of well: 5" 8" 5" 5" 5" 5" 5" Use: Domestic Fire Well(Test) Domestic Domestic Domestic Domestic Domestic Date filed: 07/31/90 06/04/87 08/2885 12/0685 11/03/88 022282 08/14/84 ' Source: NYSDEC October 1994 " Original owners are listed as per data in NYSDEC files 3 - 11 BARRETT B ONAC C I HYMAN & EXISTING DRAINAGE SWALE VANWEELE h 60 I p Z ' / - DEPOT UNE i BIR cN TOPOGRAPHY mAP OFTHE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY SCALE 1" = 3OO f FIGURE 3- 6 PAGE 3-12 pond. The applicant will take appropriate measures to protect the natural drainage qualities of the swale and small seasonal pond as outlined in Section V.A. 1 & 2 Mitigating Measures. 2. Water Resources a. Groundwater There are three aquifers beneath the site; the upper Glacial, Magothy and Lloyd aquifers, which are underlain by crystalline bedrock, forming the base of the aquifer system. All but the upper most aquifer, the upper Glacial, contain salt water in this area of the North Fork. The Lloyd aquifer is salty under most of the North Fork and is expected to be salty in the vicinity of the site. It is therefore not used for water supply in this area. The locations of the bedrock and Lloyd aquifer do not impact on an analysis of the proposed development since these strata are hydraulically isolated from the surface by the Raritan Clay unit. The Magothy aquifer is the primary source of water supply in areas of Long Island to the west but since it is salty in this area it is not used for water supply. The Magothy aquifer in this area is approximately 300 feet thick ranging from 625 feet to 325 feet below sea level (Smolensky, et. al.). The hydraulic conductivity of the Magothy aquifer in this area is estimated to be in excess of 400 gallons per day per square foot (gpd/sq. ft.) in the horizontal direction and 10 gpd/sq. ft. in the vertical direction. The large disparity between the vertical and horizontal hydraulic conductivities indicates that the water preferentially flows in the horizontal direction under equal hydraulic gradients. The disparities in hydraulic conductivities give this aquifer semi-confined characteristics. The water table aquifer in the area is the upper Glacial aquifer. Water level data generated by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services(SCDHS)indicates that the approximate groundwater level at the site varies from three to five feet above sea level at the southern end to sea level at the shore of Long Island Sound (Figure 3-7). Based Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 13 BARRETT Osv BONACCI HYMAN & VAN WEELE fl) L0 D APPROXIMATEa GROUNDWATER FLOW — NORTHWEST i / I s DEPOT UNE GROUND WATER ELEVATIONS ABO VE MSL) ON THEAPPLICANTS PROPERTY SCALE i" = 300 f NOTE: DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL (MSL) SOURCE: SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES (SCDHS) FIGURE 3- 7 PAGE 3-14 upon the Ghyben-Herzberg principle which estimates the freshwater/salt water interface location to be 40 times the groundwater elevation below sea level, the interface is located 120 feet below sea level. The exact location of the interface has not been verified but it is known that a well on site which is screened 60 feet below sea level pumps fresh water. Another well, located near the northern end of the site,which was inadvertently allowed to pump continuously became salty, indicating that the saltwater interface is not at great depth. The well which had a saltwater problem on the site was located on the southeast corner of the existing motel. This well is located approximately 270 feet from L.I. Sound, while the nearest proposed water supply well is approximately 900 feet. Typically when wells "go salty" in this manner, if they are rested for a period of time they can be again used for water supply as the salt water front recedes. This particular well was relocated and eventually brought back to use. "In June 1990, Well No. 1)was replaced with Well 1R near the old well to a depth of 50 feet. High chloride content in the older well (No. 1) may have been due to saltwater intrusion resulting from weeks of excessive well pumpage caused by leaks in the piping system for the pool" (H2M report, 1991). This highly permeable material of the upper Glacial aquifer has a hydraulic conductivity of 1,200 gpd/sq.ft. (McClymonds and Franke) and a vertical hydraulic conductivity of typically one tenth of the horizontal. The groundwater flow direction in the vicinity of the site is to the north towards Long Island Sound where it ultimately discharges. The area is classified by the Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 Study)as being Hydrogeologic Zone IV (Figure 3-8). This zone is described as follows: 'This area has unique groundwater conditions,and special management alternatives apply to it. Intensive agricultural activities have resulted in nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in wells located in agricultural areas that are above six milligrams per liter,with many observations exceeding ten milligrams per liter. Although groundwater underlying agricultural areas shows definite signs of nitrogen-related contamination, the residential areas still have good quality water, and statistical examination of over 300 analyses from domestic wells located on the North Fork indicates that almost all have nitrate-nitrogen concentrations of less than three milligrams per liter. High chloride concentrations(over 250 milligrams per liter) have been found in a few areas on the North Fork. ... Based on assessments of the groundwater development potential in each of these areas, there appears to be sufficient groundwater to support projected land uses,if pumpage is properly developed and managed....However,because of the limited depth of fresh water on the forks,wastewater management controls must protect those areas that still have acceptable groundwater quality if the areas are to Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 15 FIGURE 3 - 8 Hydrogeologic zones on Long Island and the Location of the Applicant's Site U Proposed Beachcomber Motel II Site VIII IV VIII - .�- n 1 ;VI VI I Y0 � I 3 - 16 remain self sufficient in water supply." The availability of the water resources for use in the area of the site are restricted by the quantity of water which is recharged to the aquifer and available for safe yield on a regional basis and by the location of the saltwater interface. The safe yield of the aquifer restricts the total volume of water which can be removed from the aquifer while the saltwater interface restricts the location, depth and capacity of water supply wells. The permissive sustained yield of the area has been analyzed,developed and reviewed in a number of studies(Holzmacher,McLendon& Murrell, ERM Northeast and Dvirka and Bartilucci) and estimated for this area to be 0.35 million gallons per day per square mile of recharge area. The Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (Dvirka and Bartilucci) developed well design guidelines to prevent upconing in areas subject to saltwater intrusion. These guidelines are presented below in Table 3-2. TABLE 3-2 WELL DESIGN GUIDELINES TO PREVENT UPCONING Continuous Minimum Depth of Minimum Avg. Pumping Interface Below Minimum Aquifer Water Table Rate(enm) Well Screen* (ft) Thickness**(ft) Elev.***(ft) 5 10 55 1.5 10 15 60 1.5 20 20 65 1.5 30 25 75 2.0 50 30 80 2.0 100 40 100 2.5 200 55 115 3.0 300 70 130 3.5 500 90 170 4.5 1000 125 205 5 2000 175 255 6.5 * Depth of interface below bottom of screen with the following assumed lengths: 5-20 gpm (3-5 ft); 30-50 gpm (loft); 100-300 gpm (20 ft); and, 500-1,00 gpm (40 ft). ** With top of well screen 40 feet below water table; screen lengths as above; and depth of interface below bottom of well screen as indicated in column 2. *** Average water table elevations(adjusted for sea level rise)based on Ghyben-Herzberg relationship(40:1 ratio). Values rounded to nearest 0.5 feet. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3- 17 The SCDHS(1992)investigated the water resources of the North Fork and included in their investigation a geologic cross-section and water quality profile along Depot Lane (see Figures 3-9, 3-10, and 3-11). As with most parts of the North Fork there is concern with regard to the water quality, particularly with regard to nitrates and pesticides. Past data showed nitrate concentrations at the site and in its close vicinity to be less than 10 mg/l as Nitrogen (N) and in most instances less than 6.0 mg/l as N. This is less than the drinking water standard and would not require treatment prior to use. In the past levels of aldicarb have fluctuated,but samples(1991)have shown minimal levels (2.0 ug/1 or less) at the site. Higher levels of aldicarb have been found under the farm fields upstream of the site and proper contingencies must be taken to treat for aldicarb if the need arises. Dichloropropane, a pesticide residual, has been detected in wells at the site and in other wells in the close vicinity. The design of the water supply system will have appropriate connections and allocated space for the installation of a granular activated carbon filter for the removal of aldicarb and/or dichloropropane should the need arise. The EPA and NYS drinking water quality standards for both dichloropropane and aldicarb are 7.0 ug/L and 5.0 ug/L respectively. b. SURFACE WATER 1. Location and description of surface waters The nearest significant body of water to the proposed Beachcomber II motel site is the Long Island Sound. The northern border of the Applicant's property is on the Sound. The Long Island Sound is an estuary of national significance. An estuary is generally defined as a semi-enclosed coastal body of water having a free connection with the open sea and within which sea water is measurably diluted with freshwater. They are highly productive ecosystems(a complete ecological system operating in a given geographical unit, including Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3- 18 FIGURE 3 - 9 Transect of Nitrate Levels in the Vicinity of the Subject Site/North Fork soo DALDOM RD AT. 21 LIAR IIT. 75 10 i Ra sa „ wraocua xAwoR 20 I L.I.S. CI1L[[K RCC[TS 1111 MSL 7.6 8.7 / H 11.0 ' w -I• 6.5 6.9 10.0 o '� 7.5 0.3 7.6 8.2 6.1 Q -10 \ 3.9 7.1 6.9 8.6 / T 0.8 13.0 4.2 6.2 14 •RS 5.4 5.2 9.3 �\ 11.0 0.56.0 9.0 0 -ao ,15.3 2.4 8.0 soo SALT IIATSA wto"\, 8.9 0.6 4.5 6.0 /• 3.0 0.2 1.6 4.7._ - _ 2.4 s 5.2 -77a Cur aDDRDART \ T \ 0 2- - SAT WATER M[DCC Concentrations in ppm (mg/1 ) -ue • 1 i 5 i S { 1 1 f to ll 11 15 15 U la I1 la IS IO DISTANCE FROM NORTH SHORE (1000 FT) Source: SCDHS 3 - 19 FIGURE 3 - 10 Transect of Aldicarb Levels in the Vicinity of the Subject Site/North Fork lee OUG At AT. )f LIK AT. 13 10 It „ „ tv7c loco t x.RRew It WICUM TLR[TS wft L.I.S. (f) US CKCR NCCR 29) 1•) Ill {q Iq / 1.1 1149100 07) 1'1 I.1 f(!001 -le •\) I.) A 40 84(') UII 1.1 (') tell (•I /. 0 . A * ) H -ft 1•N•If • f R \ I•I 1.1 1•) W ) 1.1 A 4 f A 60 1 3 f ) .24 -100 • • — - 7 —�-- ' dil \ Coneentzationa of total aldleari CtAT •tU11tART(ppb), �� fur YarcA Ncocc • Nona detected. ` ( )Private wall •ample (depth may be inaccurate). — -1/• • 1 ) / { ) • f It 31 12 I7 N 13 If 17 U I" )e DISTANCE FROM NORTH SHORE (1000 FT) Source: SCDHS 3 - 20 FIGURE 3 - 11 Transect of Dichloropropane Levels in the Vicinity of the Subject Site/North Fork too 04cOx W AT. 71 UIa At. 75 to 10 CV [ 1"hom IIA RbOA 70 L.7.7. MIC[MAA IL[LTS ASL CRL LY FlC[ / H -.o (12) 11 5 / w \7 (20) (52) • Or \ 16 SALT xATLA n00C\ 13 -170 [u1 eouxOARY Concentrations in ppb (p9/1 ) 7 \ . ,ALT xATCR YLOCL •710 A- None Detected ( ) — Private well (average value, estio7ated depth) -tso 0 3 7 7 L 3 5 7 1 1 10 11 17 17 17 15 1{ 17 11 N 10 Source: SCDHS DISTANCE FROM NORTH SHORE (1000 FT) 3 - 21 the biological community and the physical environment)with a great diversity of plants and animals inhabiting them for all or part of their lives. Unlike a typical estuary, the Sound has no major direct source of fresh water at its head. The largest source of freshwater is the Connecticut River discharging into the eastern Sound(Long Island Sound Study, 1993). The watershed of the Sound drains an area of more than 16,000 square miles,ranging from a small area in Canada to Long Island. Virtually the entire State of Connecticut, portions of Massachusetts,New Hampshire,Vermont and portions of New York City, and Westchester,Nassau, and Suffolk Counties in New York State contribute to the watershed (Long Island Sound Study, 1993). A study of this body of water began in 1985 and has culminated with the issuance of a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan that should improve the health of the estuary while ensuring compatible human uses within the Sound ecosystem. Studies to characterize conditions of the Sound have revealed several water quality problems which merit special attention: 1. Low dissolved oxygen (hypoxia) 2. Toxic contamination 3. Pathogen contamination 4. Floatable debris 5. The impact of these water quality problems and habitat degradation and loss on the health of living resources 6. Public involvement and education 7. Land use The study has focused its efforts on the most pressing problem, dissolved oxygen in the western portion of the Sound during late summer. The amount of oxygen that water can hold varies with temperature, salinity and pressure. Hypoxia generally occurs in the western part of the Sound between July and September. During the winter the entire Sound is generally well oxygenated. The Beachcomber Motel/Applicant's property is in an area of the Long Island Sound where oxygen levels have not been considered to be hypoxic(less than 3 mg/L of dissolved oxygen, although 5.0 mg/L is considered a healthy level). Models and studies have identified nitrogen as the primary cause of hypoxia in the Sound. This Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 22 nutrient and others are required for the growth and survival of algae and plants in the Sound. However, too much nitrogen causes phytoplankton (unicellular algae) to grow rapidly (bloom). This rapid increase in growth creates a large number of algae dying. Because there are more decaying algae than normal a correspondingly larger amount of oxygen is used up in the decay process. When this is combined with poor mixing in the water column and high water temperatures, oxygen levels tend to drop even more. The greatly increased human population bordering the Sound has increased the input of sewage-derived nutrients and organic matter into the waters of the Sound. There are a number of natural sources of nutrients, such as rainwater runoff carrying wildlife excrement and decaying plant material into the Sound. However, larger amounts are associated with human populations from sources such as sewage treatment plants, septic systems, runoff carrying lawn fertilizers and pet excrement and runoff from fertilized agricultural fields. Levels of nitrogen generated from the existing Beachcomber Motel sanitary system were designed to meet the requirements of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Nitrogen levels detected during groundwater testing on site have generally been less than 6.0 mg/L. The goals of the Long Island Sound Study(LISS) are: "1. Protect and improve the water quality of Long Island Sound and its coves and embayments to ensure that a healthy and diverse marine community is maintained. 2. Ensure that health risks associated with human consumption of shellfish and finfish are minimized. 3. Ensure that opportunities for water-dependent recreational activities are maximized. 4. Ensure that social and economic benefits associated with use of the Sound are realized to the fullest extent possible,consistent with social and economic costs. 5. Preserve and enhance the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Sound and the interdependence of its ecosystems. 6. Establish a water quality policy that supports both the health and habitats of the living marine resources of the Sound and the active and passive recreational and commercial activities of people." The proposed Beachcomber Motel II site falls within the"High Priority Basin" (Figure 3-12)for management of nonpoint source nitrogen,and within Nitrogen Planning Management Zone 11 (Figure 3-13). This area has been identified in the Long Island Sound Study Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 23 FIGURE 3 - 12 High Priority Basins for Management of nonpoint source Nitrogen in relation to the Subject Site I � 3 I � I E _ I 4 I Applicant's Property \ /�— \. LI Sound 1/ � 0 • O i Q a Source: Draft CCMP Long Island Sound Study 3 - 24 FIGURE 3 - 13 Management Zones Established for Nitrogen Control 4 2 3 5 6 Applicant's Property 12 LI Sound 9 . 7 0 8 10 11 8 v ' 1- Nitrogen Planning Zone .a Ac Source: Draft CCMP Long Island Sound Study 3 - 25 (LISS) as part of a high priority subregional basin where nitrogen loads from non-point sources (pollution sources that are not introduced into a receiving water from a specific outlet; generally carried by stormwater runoff) are likely to be high. This area is recommended for initial planning attention to determine the need and approach for nitrogen control activities. There are four specific implementation actions for reducing nitrogen considered in the LISS. "1. Implement cost-effective point source control actions that will reduce the load of nitrogen from that source. 2. Continue to develop actions to freeze and begin to reduce nitrogen from non-point sources. 3. Estimate baseline nitrogen loads from the twelve management zones established around the Sound and begin to expand monitoring to track annual loads in these zones. 4. Complete the LIS 3.0 model and continue development of the New York/New Jersey Harbor/New York Bight/Long Island Sound system eutrophication model." The proposed Beachcomber Motel H will be constructed in a manner that is consistent with the above nitrogen reducing implementation actions. Other than the Sound there are no other bodies of water near to the Applicant's property. Mattituck Inlet is approximately 2.5 miles to the west and Goldsmith's Inlet is approximately 2.5 miles to the east of the site (Figure 3-14). These waterways are not influenced by the existing Beachcomber Motel. There are no mapped freshwater wetlands (NYSDEC, Town of Southold) on the Applicant's property. However,there is a small natural drainage basin/seasonal pond that holds water at certain times of the year. A discussion of this area is covered in Section III. A. 3. c. Wetlands. 2. Identification of uses of surface waters The marine waters in and around the Town of Southold support a variety of fish and shellfish. These fish and shellfish are important not only as natural resources, but also as the basis of the Town's commercial and recreational fishing industry. Most of the shellfish found in the Southold area are taken in certified waters of the bays and creeks and not from the vicinity of the Applicant's property. Several lobster trap buoys were Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 26 FIGURE 3 - 14 Location of WATERWAYS OF SOUTHOLD TOWN Proposed Beachcomber Motel 11 �1 LONG ISLAND SOUND . INLET GOIOSE T TTITOOK INIETa - ARSNAMOMAOOE w SONO GREENTORT EAST w ` EE4 OJ W y �a4 ,(.P �TWr 6 MARION i O W 6 O c f'�ESOP JAMES"C", W N UW c �lWW OE?vy. PO VW W 4 ~Op' 00 :. 41- : n OP { OLP r pE N '' ZV 0 LTJ PE+OW J�6J =u �. I �E OP EEK W u}iw 2 PO Qtic �H`PEE♦• rl'OWO p ,T�T� 1 EC0N a CY •lE!'S P T O . C �SIINOs ? Te'v SQ Source: Town of Southold 3 - 27 seen offshore in the vicinity of the Beachcomber Motel. A wide variety of finfish are found around Long Island and in its bays. These finfish include both offshore species,and species which are found in shallow near-shore areas or in estuarine waters. Several species of fish may be recreationally caught in the vicinity of the Applicant's property at different times of the year, these are described below. The blackback(winter flounder)and fluke(summer flounder) are both members of the flatfish family. The winter flounder migrates to inshore areas during late autumn,while the summer flounder migrates inshore between late spring and early fall. Another popular fish that may that may be found in the waters off the Beachcomber Motel is the blackfish, or tautog. This fish is found near rocky shores,piers and breakwaters,where it feeds on barnacles,mussels and clams. They migrate to shallow waters during the spring and in the winter move to somewhat deeper water. Porgies(scup)and black sea bass are also attracted to the rocky areas, similar to those found near the Beachcomber Motel. Other fish found in the Long Island Sound which may be in the waters in the vicinity of the subject site are bluefish, Atlantic mackerel, pollock, weakfish and striped bass. The beachfront is utilized by sports fishermen throughout the year being accessed from Duck Pond Road. In addition to sport fishing the beach is used by local residents for recreational purposes. 3. Existing drainage areas,patterns, channels Drainage patterns for the subject site are discussed in Section III. A. 1. c. Topography. 4. Potential flooding, siltation and erosion Long Island is highly vulnerable to hurricanes and northeast storms. National Weather Service data indicate that the Island has been directly impacted by at least eight hurricanes and 15 tropical storms since 1886. Northeast storms causing significant water-related damage occur nearly every year. Unusually severe storms occur in the area about three times every century. The expected number of tropical storms per 100 years Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 28 impacting the Long Island region in the vicinity of the Beachcomber Motel ranges from 19-31. The expected number of hurricanes/100 years in the vicinity of the Beachcomber Motel ranges from 7-16. The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)has prime responsibility for the implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP); the Disaster Relief Act of 1974; and other programs of support to State and local governments that are designed to improve emergency planning preparedness,mitigation response and recovery capabilities in a disaster or emergency situation. "Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) show mathematically projected storm tide elevations with recurrence intervals of 100 and 500 years. The FIRMs identify zones of varying flood hazard which exist within the 100-year and 500-year flood plain areas. The V and A zones comprise the 100 year flood area, and the 500 year floodplain contains the B zone as well as the V and A zones. Areas prone to experiencing a 100 year flood have been cited by FEMA as areas appropriate for floodplain management and the application of a 100 year flood have been cited by FEMA as areas appropriate for floodplain management and the application of development controls. In compliance with FEMA regulations the first floor and basement of new construction in A and V zones must be elevated above the level of the base flood. The base flood elevation includes the height of the 100 year stillwater storm surge and wave effects as they relate to mean sea level." (LIRPB, 1984). There are four zones identified on the FIRM for the Applicant's property. These are shown in Figure 3-15 and listed below: 1. Zone V8(EL 16 feet elevation for first floor and basement for new construction) 2. Zone A7(EL 11 feet elevation for first floor and basement for new construction) 3. Zone B (area between limits of 100 year flood and 500 year flood) 4. Zone C(area outside of 500 year flood) The V zone extends landward until the point where the flood depth is insufficient to support 3 foot breaking waves. At this point the A zone begins and it continues to Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 29 LEGEND BARRETT BONACCI ZONE VS AREAS OF 100—YEAR COSTAL FLOOD HYMAN & WITH VELOCITY (WAVE ACTION): BASE VAN 111� FLOOD ELEVATIONS AND FLOOD HAZARD FACTORS DETERMINED. k� ZONE A7 AREAS OF 100—YEAR FLOOD: BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS AND FLOOD HAZARD FACTORS — DETERMINED. / ZONE B AREA BETWEEN LIMITS OF 100—YEAR FLOOD / -- AND 500—YEAR FLOOD: AREAS OF 100—YEAR SHALLOW FLOODING WHERE DEPTHS LESS THAN 1 FOOT. ZONE B � ZONE C AREAS OUTSIDE 500—YEAR FLOOD. ZZONE VS (EL 16) !/ ZONE (EL 0 x /ZONE C Z ZONE B \ L i O o d / - DEPOT LANE �RCH FLOOD INSURANCE RA TE MAP FOR THE APPLICANTS PROPERTY SCALE 1- = 300 f FIGURE 3-15 PAGE 3-30 the edge of the 100 year flood boundary. V and A zones are subdivided into Flood Insurance Zones. Each having a specific flood potential hazard. Therefore, flood insurance rates differ within each V zone and each A zone in accordance with their designation. V zones will be most severely affected by the 100 year flood. In this zone, structures must be elevated by piles or piers above the base flood level. Basements and first floors of new construction and A zone must be elevated above the level of the base flood. The zone is located between the special hazard area and the limits of the 500 year flood plain. Water damage associated with flooding in V zones is typically more severe than that found in A zones,because of direct wave action impacts. Under New York State Coastal Management Program(CMP)the State enacted legislation to control erosion hazards. The Town of Southold administers this program under Chapter 37 of Town Law. The purpose of the law is to: "A. Establish standards and procedures for minimizing and preventing damage to structures from coastal flooding and erosion to protect natural protective features and other natural resources. B. Regulate,in coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and erosion, land use and development activities so as to minimize or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property,natural protective features and other natural resources and to protect human life. C. Regulate new construction or placement of structures in order to place them a safe distance from areas of active erosion and the impact of coastal storms to ensure that these structures are not prematurely destroyed or damaged due to improper siting,as well as to prevent damage to natural protective features and other natural resources. D. Restrict public investment in services, facilities or activities which are likely to encourage new permanent development in erosion hazard areas." Avery small portion of the Applicant's property falls within the limits of the Town of Southold's Coastal Erosion Hazard area (Figure 3-16). Part of the eidsting Beachcomber Motel straddles this line. However, all proposed motel construction will be located at least 100 feet from this area and will be mitigated in such a way as to prevent erosion or the destruction of eidsting bluff protection. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 31 BARRETT BONACC I HYTL'M�AN & LIMITS OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD VAN 1'1' ELE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA -"7 DUB Q I � DEPOT � i BIRC I TO O T' "0 O UTHOLD WN COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA ON THE SSITE SCALE I- = 300't FIGURE 3-16 PAGE 3-32 3. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY a. VEGETATION On-site investigations were conducted during June,July and August 1993. Based upon these observations, and aerial photos of the site, a vegetative map has been constructed (Figure 3-17). The project site is comprised of approximately 31 acres of farmland (to the south of the proposed motel expansion site), 14 acres of wooded area, 3 acres of cleared grass/field, and 2 acres where the existing Beachcomber Motel and its associated buildings and roadways are located. Historically,the Beachcomber property was probably cleared of forest sometime in late colonial times. Actual evidence of agricultural activity occurs early in the last century. In the first half of the 19th century the entire area was utilized for agriculture, and trees were scarce, having probably been cut for fuel and to clear land for crops and pasture. Larger trees on the property may be 50 to 100 years old. A large pond existed on the northern portion of the property where the existing motel is located. This is discussed in greater detail in Section III. A. 3. c. Wetlands. Evidence suggests that this area of the Beachcomber site had been abandoned as pasture land and eventually grew into woodland. The Garvey and/or McBride families may have owned the subject parcel and surrounding parcels at this time. They resided along Oregon Avenue and held parcels which extended north to the Long Island Sound. The southern portion of the site continues to be farmed today(Kalin, 1994, Appendix C-1). The farmed portion of the property yields potatoes. It is sprayed with pesticides and herbicides to prevent insect and weed infestation. However,weeds still invade the property within the bounds of the farmed area. Early colonizing plants found in this portion of the property were: common lamb's-quarters, common purslane, and common ragweed. A list of these plants and others believed to possibly grow on site are listed in Appendix C-2. The grassy/field exhibits typical grasses found in ones back yard. It is mowed and Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 33 VAN BARRETT r BONACCI C HYMAN & V V WEE 'T , ANWEELE VEGETATION TYPES FARM LAND 32.0 ACRES 66.47 WOODED AREA 9.7 ACRES 20.17. GRASS AREA 5.4 ACRES 11.27 UNVEGETATED AREA (INCLUDES BUILDINGS, 1.1 ACRES 2.37 DRIVEWAYS, PARKING XERIC AREAS, AND BEACH.) WOODED GRASS Opp r.'._,.._ i� Q \ PHRAGU17FS FARM LAND 6� O Iz iJ O EPOT LANE -VEGETA TION MAP SCALE I" = JOG' -L- FIGURE 3- 17 ----------- PAGE 3-34 therefore larger shrubs and weeds have been held in check. If mowing stopped, plant succession (the transition from an open cultivated field to low growing species of plants, to shrubs and finally trees) would eventually occur. Typically the first plants to sprout are such annual herbs and grasses as ragweed and lamb's-quarters. These plants have wind-dispersed seeds and the ability to thrive in sunny places with widely varying temperatures. Subsequent years see the rapid establishment of milkweed,thistles and other perennials which eventually leads to growth of trees. Since the majority of the site is farmed or mowed, plant growth is restricted to approximately 9.7 acres of the 48 total acres. On those 9.7 acres the dominant species of plants are trees. The wooded portion of the property is dominated by black cherry,locust,and shadbush trees. The trees are evenly spread on the western and southern portion of the wooded area. The eastern side of the wooded area contains a small xeric (dry) community dominated by bayberry,staghorn and winged sumacs,and eastern red cedar. The species of plants in this area have adapted to the dry conditions caused by the coarse textured soil and rapid permeability of water on this portion of the property. The understory of the woods is heavily dominated by poison ivy. Other vines found throughout the wooded area are cat brier, grapevine, oriental bittersweet, and honey suckle. Between the three different habitats (farmland, woodland and field) are transition zones. These zones where habitats overlap are known as ecotones. The ecotonal community commonly contains many of the organisms of each of the overlapping communities and in addition, organisms which are characteristic of and restricted to the ecotone. Often both the number of species and the population density of some of the species are greater in the ecotone then in the communities flanking it. The tendency for increased variety and density at communityjunctions is known as the"edge effect." In the ecotone,between the woods and farm field, the most notable plant species are birch, grape, poison ivy, black cherry and locust. Since much of the site has been previously impacted by man's activities the types of plants found on-site are those typical of successional plants for this area. No Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 35 endangered or threatened species of flora were found on site. This has been confirmed by the Natural Heritage Program(Appendix D-55). A complete list of all vegetative species(by common and latin name)identified as well as those not identified but believed to be on site appears in Appendix C-2. b. WILDLIFE On site investigation revealed no species of endangered,threatened,or special concern status. The NYS DEC confirmed(Appendix D-55)no occurrence or breeding records for any species currently listed under ECL 11 -0535 (endangered species law). The wildlife populations on site have adapted to man's surrounding activities. There are housing developments on the southern and western boundaries of the property; to the east are several homes on the bluffs overlooking the Sound along with another farmed property to the southeast. Immediately to the north is the Long Island Sound and its associated marine communities (discussed in Section III. A. 2. b.). There is a small area where freshwater collects just south and west of the motel. Freshwater is at times available in this seasonal pond. It is likely that many species take advantage of irrigation on the nearby farms. Generally,the farmed portion of the property does not provide good habitat for most species of wildlife since there is not suitable cover nor a preferred food source. The most visible wildlife species identified on and nearby the site were birds. Numerous crows were observed perched on trees near the farmed fields. Mourning doves, robins, blue jays, catbirds, red-winged blackbirds, and the rufous-sided towhee were common. Species of birds identified on site as well as those which were not seen at the time of sampling but may utilize the site at some time of the year, are listed in Appendix C-3. Many species of birds will use this site at various times of the year for a variety of needs. The property contains an abundance of food supply, suitable cover, and nesting habitat for many species. Some birds may only spend short amounts of time on the site Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 36 during migration while others may be present for substantial periods. The vast majority of avian species recorded in our area are migratory to some extent. The spring migration of land birds is completed within a relatively short period. The bulk of the migrants pass through in late April and especially in May, as they hasten to breeding grounds. April and particularly May are noted for the more or less regular pattern regarding arrival of northbound migrants. Most of the insectivorous species arrive like clockwork some within a few days of the same date each year(Bull, 1975). The general distribution of the avian species on the property is determined by individual requirements for climate, foraging and nesting habitat. The concept of edge effect has been shown to be especially applicable to bird populations. It is common knowledge that the density of song birds is greater on estates, campuses,and similar settings,which have mixed habitat and consequently much "edge" as compared with tracts of uniform forest or grassland. Some species found at the subject site, such as robin, mockingbird, chipping sparrow, and orchard oriole, require trees for nest sites or observation posts,yet feed largely on the ground in grass or other open areas. Their habitat requirements are met in ecotones between forest and farm or field communities, but not in areas of either alone. No large mammals were observed on site. However, signs (tracks,burrows, scat) of mammalian activity were visible. Deer and raccoon tracks (near the farmed field)were found. In addition, the eastern gray squirrel and eastern cottontail were seen on site and a red fox was seen on an adjacent parcel. It is anticipated that other species not identified during sampling sessions such as opossum, mice, and chipmunks also may utilize the site and are listed in the mammalian species inventory (Appendix C-4). Since deer have a large range and there is suitable habitat both on the site and in the surrounding area,it is anticipated that deer enter and leave the property with some degree of regularity. There are reptile species which may inhabit the Applicant's property. The only Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 -37 species of turtle likely to inhabit the site is the eastern box turtle. Snakes are not anticipated to be numerous on the property but some may occur in limited numbers such as the eastern garter snake and milk snake. Appendix C-5 lists reptile species which may be found on or in the vicinity of the Applicant's property. Impacts of the construction of the Beachcomber Motel II to wildlife are discussed in Section IV. A. 5. c. Wetlands There are no wetlands of significance found on the subject site that are mapped by either the Town of Southold or the New York State DEC(Figures 3-18,19). However,there is a small (less than one tenth of an acre) seasonal pond that exists in the northeast section of the site near the entrance to the existing Beachcomber Motel. This low-lying area is not wet very often. It is infrequently flooded and has long periods of dryness. The dominant vegetation is Phragmites communis which typically exists in stressed wetland environments. No emergent wetland vegetation was found. This small seasonal pond offers no recreational benefits. However, it does provide a natural drainage collection area, sediment containment, and recharge function for stormwater runoff on the property. Historically(Kalin, 1994-Appendix C-1)a pond of about one acre or more existed in a low lying area just south of the beach. The pond was fenced, probably to control access by cattle. At this time (1834) the eastern shore of the pond extended to the east about 100 or 150 feet further than it does today. By the late 19th century (1884) the pond was mapped as a body of water of about one-half acre surrounded by marsh. During the period between 1904 and 1956 the pond had apparently dried up or had been partially filled by blowing sand or moving dunes. Sometime after 1956 an excavator was hired to partially fill a low marshy area south of the beach. Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of fill was moved from the east side of the parcel to the south in order to partially fill the pond. At the present time the pond has become seasonal and covers an area of less than one-tenth of an acre. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 38 Fr(ff:l - Fater Wetlands Map Subject site S Mattitt" Hills N * �o4d• Quidrm :, 1975 Ed.Mrip rpf - -rice #31 .' Nis .. ? •" 55� .. A� •��A Lo, o r '57 Mateituck Inlet Mall Light ght �_�- � �u �(\\V • ',Jetty �/ +-•`� �11` \UB. - Qa "'' �'o LONG tSl n) SOUND �T v roperiy I S r Q . '•V T R �. �•� h -� Q. Waterville Tidal Fat i\ ISI MATT TUCK 705�m•E. za00000 32'30' ' 2410000 7100( SC4LE 124000 0 BOUNDARIES: --- -- 3 - 39 MILE State own of Southold ffa5 30 . � � Subject site "•Freshwater Wetlands Ma +^'rY' t'x S=ir r�,. t .-.y a u .ie^ � k`�` ♦ Ta}nVN'.+rT f.es�w'3''s 'r >' ' • _ 7 ae ii 1� ,b-.+�.��`� •.., z s zb,4e'�+'�'�„x°�p�y�+, Qn.�-rJl"�c T.a.+v� �Ma .ac 4 � ° ,fZ`q`�' �'3.a.� w• ,� +r-.t.8+`^. tri _.. i.nr i»- sadu..wn6srX - 7 � • ' Tfy r.'+'Y` ��et ° 4'"♦'_�. a.��,yJ � *. A + `d3 'P'n ",R�' !x '�+ 4'.�+ w , � o �� 4 r 1 �..ri ,, .a „�Y♦ 1 b v '�r4"!ti"v .,r.�,x,v.;�"�`.="CS''' l.r�3A m``ati x.. y Soun6•• °[oo - ,..'t.tk � ' S y'- gy �E air . 3�-•. .e 1z s+..a f. . so /�� ° ' P�PfY^'o �z ,.`- .� .'"..Sz*s� •#yi. n"n•.�`e7�^'�+�"� 'p"s/„.`� a ,6 s•.w � ,;t'�-h �r'r {t ti rTf {�. " .•yar�^^x. a +�`� 1H R°j1 a • yo ° ♦• 'n /5 �. t1 '��-l��..r'"'?��i� ♦ :J�y� y ? k'Sw i4�3 .Y''�•'yG�i�.>,3=+'X" ..�f.C��1'� 56 1 +. Y ,y4�n ,y, i"% � -C,r / d ' "�"``' fi^�-'e'1"i,�ve• +`^L 'ee Po•• ° 'O n ix r�-.. � J�'i V�i^V•�r�L z _� Y e'-fY '" •l X� .s x � \\" !o. .i O• o. x: .-_7 7 e N 57 .. •L �t�l.�}�� o Nuc � e •,P , \ � .�• J,7 ` a M l• MH-1 J / ` t Intel ' � Ba II4 • A v. .+ i = i Mattrtuck ,� Dist i< +• o � • �-Light .Ov Jetty_ : � _ Breakwater Beach' �T c. District Park pert, /nas N�VA i �� v�� •� 0 '•V L H 0 L�L v�� :• _ TIDAL ov. �� Captain Kidd o�� ' ! :`:f nl uaDs �� ; V.. oo ze r: Estates I63 U) 'UE •\ I\ •(•1•\ ,• ' I Shore 0 K �� / za N"� e \• Y hl Acres /. � \ _ �p iv,, pi _ �� MH-4 MH-5 ® IMH • f 2 400 000 ' 7100' .' 4 f 32'30" 2 410 000 71p000m E � 72"'30 3 - 40 BOUNDARIES. in. B. HUMAN RESOURCES 1. TRANSPORTATION As shown in figure 1-2,the site is bordered on the south by Oregon Road, and on the west by Duck Pond Road (a northerly extension of Depot Lane). Transportation to and from the site will be primarily auto-oriented. Therefore, the discussion will be limited to the existing road network and the use of automobiles. The existing road network in Southold consists of three classifications of streets. They are the major arterials, collector streets, and the minor streets. The major arterials move traffic through and between Southold's communities; the collector streets move the traffic from the major arterials through the community to the minor streets; and the minor streets give immediate access to abutting properties. Southold has two major arterial roads,both of which run east-west. State Route 25 (Main Road),traverses all of the hamlets in Southold and is the most heavily traveled road in the Town. County Route 48(Middle Road), built by the County as a four lane major arterial road, acts as a truck bypass, and primarily services the Town's through traffic. Route 48 is not heavily used except during the summer months when the road is used more by tourists. Depot Lane and Oregon Road are both collector streets and are maintained by the Town. Duck Pond Road,which will provide access/egress from the site is considered a minor street in the vicinity of the project site. County Route 48 is a four lane road (in the vicinity south of the site) and will be used by visitors traveling to the Beachcomber Motel II. County Route 48 is well designed and in good condition. It is not heavily traveled as verified by traffic counts. The sets of counts indicate that County Route 48 is servicing a level of traffic that is far less than the capacity of this road. (Source: Suffolk County Department of Public Works, Traffic Control& Engineering Division). The section of Route 48 that is four lanes is capable of accommodating close to 2,400 cars in one hour. This is assuming that one lane traffic can easily move about 600 Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 41 automobiles per hour. In a traffic count during the period 7/16/90 through 7/23/90 the greatest volume(1359 cars)occurred on a Saturday between 6:00 and 7:00 PM(700 Feet East of Elijah's Lane). Depot Lane a local north/south collector street, consists of one roadway lane in each direction. It is a rural asphalt road in good condition. Depot Lane turns into Duck Pond Road after the intersection with Oregon Road. Duck Pond Road, a rural asphalt road approximately 18 feet in width, terminates at the beachfront of the Long Island Sound. Duck Pond Road is the access road to the existing private driveway of the Beachcomber Motel. The above described roadways will serve as the major routes to and from the proposed Beachcomber Motel II. Major Intersections/Grades and Sight Distances In the vicinity of the site, County Route 48 is well designed. The section of road that is four lanes has, at each intersection, left and right hand turn lanes. At the intersection of Depot Lane there is a flashing warning signal. The grade on County Route 48 is essentially flat and the alignment straight. No sight distance restrictions occur in the vicinity of the intersection with Depot Lane. These engineering features allow for the smooth and uninterrupted flow of traffic. A stop sign is located on Depot Lane at the intersection with Oregon Road. The grade on both these roads is flat and there are no sight distance restrictions in the vicinity of this intersection as both roads are essentially bordered by farmland. A sight distance restriction occurs in the vicinity of Duck Pond Road and the intersection with Vista Place. Vista Place is an access road to a small community of private residences. There is a stop sign at this intersection for motorists traveling south from Vista Place onto Duck Pond Road At this intersection Duck Pond Road bends at an approximate 120 degree angle and slopes downward at its steepest point at a gradient of approximately seven percent. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 -42 2. LAND USE AND ZONING a. Existing Land Use and Zoning The Town of Southold encompasses 54 square miles (approximately 34,600 acres) including Fisher, Plum and Robins Islands (totaling approximately 3,800 acres) and the incorporated Village of Greenport (approximately 580 acres). The unincorporated "mainland" portion of the Town encompasses approximately 29,500 acres of land. The land in Southold is for the most part level or gently sloping. The major exception is the northern slope,which is formed by steep bluffs overlooking Long Island Sound. This area is characterized by wooded hills,with some homes on large wooded lots, but most in small residential clusters. The largest portion of Town land is in agricultural use or vacant. Approximately 40% of the Town's"mainland"acreage is used for agriculture. Relatively small proportions of the Town are developed for residential, commercial, industrial, marine commercial and public/quasi-public uses. The project site property characterizes many of the landforms within the Town. The existing Beachcomber Motel,situated on 2.1 acres of the 48.2 acre project site borders the gravelly beachfront of Long Island Sound. Adjacent to the Motel are the bluffs,which are steeply sloping landforms composed of glacial till deposited as part of the Harbor Hill moraine. Surrounding the motel is 5.4 acres of open space consisting of the existing recreational complex and field/meadowland. This area is bordered by wooded slopes of approximately 9.7 acres. The southern portion of the project site consists of 32.0 acres of farmland. Portions of land throughout the Town that are currently in agricultural use and/or possess prime soils for farming are designated for Agricultural Conservation (A-C). Within this area, which totals slightly less than 10,000 acres, is essentially a critical mass of contiguous farmland. The major purposes of this category are to retain farmland, contribute to the encouragement of farming and agricultural activities, to retain the Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 43 agricultural and rural quality of the Town, and to provide some opportunity for rural residential development (2 acres/residential unit). The land involved in the project that is zoned A-C (see figure 2-1, zoning map) is part of the aforementioned contiguous mass. It is currently under cultivation and will not be developed. The property to the east of this part of the project site is also zoned A-C and under cultivation. The property to the west of the project site is an A-C District that borders Duck Pond Road and consists of a mapped but mostly unbuilt subdivision. The remainder of the project site lies within the Resort Residential (RR) District. It is within this area that the proposed Beachcomber Motel II will be constructed. The minimum lot area is 6,000 square feet per unit (guest unit without utilities). Resort and seasonal development, an important element of the Town's economy, is indicated for areas where seasonal resort development is now concentrated, e.g. Motels and restaurants (eidsting Beachcomber Motel). b. Land Use Plans 1. Description of Land Use Plans or Master Plans which include the proiect site and surrounding area A major tenet of both the Town of Southold Master Plan and the Southold Town Stewardship Task Force is the retention of farmland and the preservation of open space. It is the working landscape of farmland which gives the Town its rural character, and contributes to all residents quality of life. The scenic quality of farmland and open space along Oregon Road is noted in both reports. The southern portion of the project site contributes to the open vista of the agricultural landscape. It has been suggested that this area (along Oregon Road) be designated a Scenic Corridor (Stewardship Task Force Report). Resort and seasonal development is recognized as an important element of the Town's economy. Resort development is indicated for areas where seasonal resort development is now concentrated,e.g.motels,restaurants. This accomplishes both open space preservation and Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 -44 the establishment of additional overnight accommodations in a rural resort setting. 2. Future Development Trends or Pressures One needs only to look west at the Town of Brookhaven, and in part the Town of Riverhead to see development trends. As these Towns become more developed,an increased level of pressure is added to the Town of Southold. The history of land development on Long Island is that of the subdivision of large parcels into smaller ones. This trend has been a consequence of the demand for new single family homes and the fact that residential use yields the maximum value to the landowner. Because of their development potential, the value of large parcels of land has thus increased dramatically. Most open land in Southold is zoned for agricultural and single family residential use. If farming was no longer a viable option for a large lot owner, the only alternative allowed by zoning would be subdivision for residential use. The existence of this situation has led to the loss of open space. Therefore, a key ingredient to the preservation of open land is the health of the agricultural industry. The economic vitality of farming will play an important role in keeping the pressure for suburban development at bay. Government policy can also play a role in the preservation of farmland, although not a substitute for the market economy. Several programs such as transfer of development rights, purchase development rights, tax abatements, and farmer's markets are being explored. Collectively, their objective is to protect the farmland currently in productive use, and concentrate new residential and commercial development in and around the existing hamlets and villages. 3. 208 Study Refer to section III.A.2.a. (Water Resources-Groundwater)for information on this project as it pertains to the 208 Study. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 -45 4. NURP Study The Long Island segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program(NURP)investigated the potential effects of nonpoint sources of pollution to fresh and marine surface waters as well as groundwater beneath recharge basins in selected areas of Nassau and Suffolk counties. Efforts were also made to define and evaluate drainage areas. No specific studies were done in the vicinity of the proposed project. However,recommendations made for protecting groundwater and surface water quality appear below. Groundwater 1) "Continue to use recharge basins wherever feasible for the disposal of stormwater and the replenishment of groundwater. 2) Avoid maintenance practices that would interfere with the natural revegetation of basins by grasses and shrubs. 3) Use "ecological recharge basins" only where their aesthetic value justifies the additional cost. 4) Consider the use of in-line storage leaching drainage systems, or components thereof, as a substitute for recharge basins in areas, other than parking lots, where maintenance will be assured and where the value of the land for development purposes is greater than the cost of installing and maintaining the underground system. 5) Prevent illegal discharges to drainage systems or recharge basins. Surface Water 1) To maintain etdsting water quality where it is currently satisfactory: a) Preclude any additional direct discharge of stormwater runoff into surface waters, using all available means for detention and/or recharge to reduce bacterial loads. b) Protect stream corridors from encroachment, so that the stream reaches that will become dry because of the lowering of the water table due to sewering will always be available for stormwater detention and recharge. c) Inform local officials and the public regarding the nature and cost of the nonpoint source controls that must accompany further development or redevelopment and of needed changes in current practices relating to dog waste clean-up and disposal and public feeding of waterfowl". 3. Community Services a. Educational Facilities The site for the proposed action lies within the Mattituck-Cutchogue School District, the largest in the Town of Southold. The following schools comprise the school district: Cutchogue School (West) Cutchogue School (East) Depot Lane, Cutchogue Main Road (Rt. 25), Cutchogue Grades K-1 Grades 5-6 Mattituck-Cutchogue High School Main Road, Mattituck Grades 2-4 in one wing, Grades 7-12 in the main portion of building Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 46 Utilizing information obtained from the School District Superintendents office, the following data are considered: The total approved budget for the school district for the 1992-93 school year amounted to $12,240,106. The school district has a tax rate of$34.22 per $100.00 of assessed valuation. The district presently employees 99 teachers. The total student enrollment (as of April 30, 1993) is 1,252. This compares to an enrollment of 1,259 students in 1992 and an enrollment of 1,273 students during the 1982-83 school year. Projections of the school enrollments for the next several years are expected to remain at the current level. Since the proposed action is designed for seasonal transient use,there will not be additional demands placed on the school district). b. Police Protection Police protection in the proposed project area is provided by the Southold Police Department. A letter stating their services for the proposed Beachcomber Motel H appears in Appendix D-56. c. Fire Protection Fire protection in the proposed project area is provided by the Cutchogue Fire District. A letter stating their concerns for the proposed Beachcomber Motel II appears in Appendix D-57. Subsequent to this letter they have reviewed a preliminary copy of the proposed site plan and requested that an additional fire well be added to the site in the northeast corner of the clearing. This well will have a 400 gallon per minute pumping capability and has been added to the proposed site plan(Appendix D-69). The District calls Peconic Ambulance when necessary for emergency medical service/transportation. d. Health Care Facilities The site for the proposed action lies within close proximity of two hospitals; Central Suffolk Hospital in Riverhead,and Eastern Long Island Hospital in Greenport. The following data are considered for the two hospitals: Number Number of Occupancy Hospital of Beds Employees Rate Central Suffolk Hospital 214 525 77% Eastern Long Island Hospital 80 220 87% (Source: Long Island Almanac 1993,publication of LI Business) Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 47 Both hospitals provide 24 hour emergency service. Letters stating their services for Beachcomber Motel II appear in Appendices D-58 and 59. Additionally, the University Hospital at State University of New York at Stony Brook is available for specialty services. e. Social Services The site for the proposed action lies within Suffolk County, New York. Although Suffolk County provides many social services,the proposed action will not place any demand on these services due to the transitory nature of the proposed seasonal use Motel. E Recreational Facilities The Town of Southold abounds in recreational facilities many reflecting its seafaring heritage. It also is a popular summer home area. Swimming, boating and recreational fishing are deemed the greatest recreational attractions of the Town. However, in general the Cutchogue area offers relatively limited public park and recreation facilities. The recreational facilities (swimming pool, basketball court, bocci court, and miniature golf) of the existing Beachcomber Motel along with access to and use of the Long Island Sound Beachfront will be available to tourists planning to stay at the proposed Beachcomber Motel II. g. Utilities The Long Island I fighting Company supplies electric service to the surrounding Cutchogue community. A letter stating their service for Beachcomber Motel 1I appears in Appendix D-60. In 1991 LILCO produced 13,570 megawatts as opposed to 15,228 megawatts in 1988. Although this decrease is associated with conservation and independent power producers,the present electric cost to consumers is 15.06 cents a Kilowatt Hour(KWH), one of the highest in the country. Oil for heating purposes is provided to the residents and businesses of the community through independent oil companies. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 48 h. Public Water Supply There is no public water supply available in the proposed project area nor is there any anticipated in the near future. The SCWA has rejected the Applicant's request (Appendices D-61&D-62)for public water supply. The existing Beachcomber Motel along with the private single family homes in the area are supplied by individual private wells. i. Solid Waste Disposal Garbage and trash for the Cutchogue community are collected by private carters or is self-hauled to the Southold Town Collection Center located on County Road 48 in Cutchogue. The Collection Center accepts recyclables, garbage (everything that can not be recycled), household hazardous waste, and special items. After reduction,reuse and recycling,the Town of Southold generates and disposes of about 24,000 tons of municipal solid waste annually. The Town's municipal solid waste disposal estimates and projections (residential, commercial, and institutional wastes) is as follows: 1988 1989 1992 1997 24,526 23,774 22,001 17,023 The Town's main landfill in Cutchogue receives virtually all of the Town's Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). There is also a smaller solid waste operation on Fishers Island. Omni Technical Services, has proposed a large recycling/composting facility in neighboring Riverhead seeking to handle up to 100 tons per day of MSW from Southold,but the Town has not yet committed to this plan. Southold has explored the feasibility of transporting solid waste to Huntington's resource recovery facility. In exchange, Southold would accept material that could be composted. The capabilities of the Town to accept the solid waste generated by the proposed project appears in Appendix D-63. j. Taxes and Fiscal Settin¢ The site for the proposed action will be in an area identified on the Suffolk Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 -49 County Tax Maps as: District Section Block Lot Location Owner 1000 083 002 017 10475 Oregon Road Nicholas Aliano 1000 083 002 001 3800 Duck Pond Road Pond Enterprises Inc. (Nicholas Aliano) 1000 083 002 002 3510 Duck Pond Road Patricia Krupski The total property tax on the project site is $47,082 for the 1992-1993 fiscal year (Appendix D-64). This includes tax levies by the Mattituck-Cutchogue School District, Suffolk County,Cutchogue Ubrary,Cutchogue Fire District,and the Cutchogue-New Suffolk Waste Water District. The largest taxing subdivision is the Mattituck-Cutchouge School District. The School tax amounts to$26,710 or 57% of the total tax bill. 4. Cultural Resources a. Visual Resources The physical character of the community consists of farmland with small enclaves of residential subdivisions. However, to the south and east of the project the Town of Southold landfill is highly visible. The existing Beachcomber Motel is at significantly lower elevations than the surrounding community and surrounded by woods at a higher elevation. Therefore the physical structures are observed by few residents and only during the winter months. The existing motel and woods can be viewed from the water when directly in front of the motel. However,because of the features of the coastline sight is limited to a narrow field of view. b. Historic and Archaeological Resources A request was made to the NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation concerning the historic and archaeological resources for the Applicant's property. Their response letter (Appendix D-65) expressed concerns that there was potential that the project area may contain an archaeological site. In response to that letter both a Stage IA and IB Cultural Resource Assessments were performed on the site and are included as Appendix C-1. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 50 Results of these assessments concluded that the proposed construction areas for the proposed Beachcomber Motel II contain no significant cultural resources. Consequently disturbance to these areas as a result of construction activities will impact no culturally significant materials. For a more detailed discussion refer to Appendix C-1. c. Noise Existing noise levels in the community surrounding the Applicant's property are generated from: automobile traffic, farm equipment, low density residential subdivision (i.e.lawn mowers,power equipment, etc.). At the project site these noises are reduced by the natural buffer provided by the woods and decreasing elevation surrounding the Beachcomber Motel. In the vicinity of the Motel noise can be heard from people engaged in recreational activities and the Long Island Sound itself. These noises are relatively isolated by the large expanses of property. Existing noise levels include wind and wave action particularly during the winter months in the vicinity of the Applicant's property. Boat and pedestrian traffic may also contribute to noise levels generated. No data was found specific to this area. However, typical noise levels (decibels) associated with noise sources are listed below. Table 3-3 Decibel Ranges for Common Sounds Loudness(Decibels) Tvce of Noise 0-10 Rustling leaves. Light breathing 10-25 Whisper at two meters. Quiet office. Empty movie house. Quiet neighborhood at night 25-50 Suburban playground. Restaurant. Average living room. People talking. 50-70 City playground. Vacuum cleaner. Noisy office. Average traffic. 70-90 Portable sander. Food blender. Noisy party. Power lawn mower. Citytraffic. Garbage disposal. 90-115 Rock band. Loud motorcycle. Car horn at one meter. Airplane propeller at takeoff. Jackhammer. Foot of a large waterfall. Subway train. 115-130 Thunderclap. Distant rocket. Siren at two meters. Jet engine revving for takeoff. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 51 IV. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS of THE PROPOSED ACTION IV. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. NATURAL RESOURCES 1. GEOLOGY. SOILS and TOPOGRAPHY Geologic conditions will not be affected by construction of the proposed additional motel units and associated services. Excavation required for construction of motel buildings and associated paved road/parking will create only a minor disturbance to the natural terrain. The minimum grade adjacent to any proposed structure shall be 14.0 feet (see site plan). The improvements are designed to incorporate natural features, requiring minimal amounts of fill and alteration of the property. Of particular importance is that the location of buildings 1, 2 and 3 as shown on the Preliminary Development Plan (December 1991) has changed. These buildings were located in a steep slope area that would have required land alteration. The down sizing of this project and relocation of the proposed units to an area with a lesser grade transition will require only slight excavation during construction. Minor impacts to soils and topography on-site will occur during construction activities for the: four buildings that will contain the motel units, circular pattern driveway with associated parking, drainage reserve basin with overflow line, sanitary systems for the motel buildings, and the water supply well with its associated lines. Impacts will be minor due to 1) the placement of motel buildings in areas of slight to moderate slopes, and 2) the preservation of much of the existing natural vegetation. The primary areas of construction activity (motel units, circular pattern driveway with parking,proposed drainage basin and water supply well) are already cleared. Most of the vegetation removed will be grass. The motel building with unit numbers 37 to 46 located in the northeast portion of the site has the highest potential for erosion. The grade transition is 5.5 feet over the length of the building or a grade of approximately 5.5%. However the eastern portion of the building (motel unit numbers 43 to 46) has a transition of 4 feet over 40 feet or a 10% slope and will be sensitively developed. The soil is coarse in this area and measures will be taken to prevent erosion and/or transport of sediment particularly to the Long Island Sound. The building has been located in such Rev. 0-1, 11/95 4 - 1 a manner as to minimally impact the existing tree/shrub vegetation line. Mitigation measures to prevent erosion of this area will involve the regrading of the area around the building to elevation differences of 2 ft. over 100 ft. for a slope of 2%. This is considered to have very low potential for erosion. During construction, erosion control measures will be utilized to prevent erosion until final grades are established. Drainage and sanitary lines will also be located in areas where slopes are moderate. However, the water supply line will run down from the farm field through a steep area within the woods to the existing clearing (refer to the site plan). A narrow cut of vegetation will be removed to install the line but care will be taken to avoid disrupting natural drainage patterns. Vegetation has a significant physical effect on soil. Land erodes 2,000 times faster when the vegetative cover is removed (Dept. of State, 1982). Knowing that the water supply line is located in an area of steep slope (> 25%) and that it will cross the existing "drainage swale" the applicant will exercise particular caution to prevent erosion and to help stabilize the soil in this location. In addition to the two specific areas of potential impact to soils the Applicant is aware that with any construction project the potential for some degree of erosion to the exposed soils exists. However,soils encountered on the Beachcomber Motel II site in the location of the proposed expansion have predominantly slight to moderate slopes and good permeability characteristics that enhance percolation to the water table. Potential adverse impacts to both soils and vegetation in the areas of concern will be mitigated (Section V.Mitigation Measures)by utilizing proper construction methods and revegetation following completion. The proposed plan includes an improvement to the man-made pond that is currently on-site. It will serve as a sediment basin to detain stormwater runoff from the proposed site improvements as well as the existing natural drainage swale. The absorptive capacity of the soils will be reduced when areas under construction are covered by pavement or other impermeable surfaces. Approximately 1.1 acres, or 2.8% of the total land area,will be covered by impermeable surfaces such as the internal road Rev. 0-1, 11/95 4 -2 with parking areas, and the motel units. Runoff from the paved areas and units will not significantly impact soils since stormwater will be collected and recharged. Beneficial impacts are two fold;it will remain as undeveloped open space and sediment runoff due to cultivation will cease. This refers to the current runoff of unprotected soil from the farm into the drainage swale. 2. GROUNDWATER and SURFACE WATER QUALITY Although effects to both groundwater quality and quantity have the potential to result from the construction of the Beachcomber Motel II, these possibilities have been identified, and will be mitigated as needed to ensure that groundwater integrity is maintained. Potential impacts to groundwater may result from changes in: (a)water usage, (b) groundwater quality, (c) recharge regime and(d) surface water quality. (a) Water Usage The proposed action will increase the water use during the tourist season as shown in the following table: Table 4-1 Water Usage (Tourist Season) of the Proposed Beachcomber Motel II Expansion Facili Water Use Totalalg lons Qer day(gnd) Motel 46 Units x 150 gpd/unit 6,900 Pool 20 people x 10 gpd/person 200 Motel Complex Irrigation 300 Total 7,400 It is estimated that the water use during the remainder of the year will average 500 gpd for an average over the entire year of 2,800 gpd. The entire water use both, existing and proposed, for the Beachcomber facility is then 14,925 gpd during the tourist season and 5,975 averaged over the entire year. This is approximately 25 percent of the permissive sustained yield of 24,068 gpd. During the tourist season the water usage is only 62 percent of the permissive sustained yield. There is not expected to be an impact on groundwater quality as a result of the pumpage from water supply wells. It is estimated Rev. 0-1, 11/95 4 -3 that 80 percent of the water used during the tourist season will be returned to the groundwater system through on-site septic systems and 90 percent during the rest of the year. The consumptive water use of the project then will average 1,194 gpd or less than 5 percent of the permissive sustained yield for the area. (b) Groundwater quality The expected water supply system design will consist of two wells of approximately 45 gpm. The second well is required by the SCDHS design standards and serves as a redundant source of water supply. Based on this, only one is needed to supply the development and one well would only be used at a time under normal operations. From Table 3-2 on page 3-17 the minimum aquifer thickness for a 45 gpm well is approximately 80 feet. At the Beachcomber site the upper Glacial aquifer is estimated to be approximately 325 feet thick. The upper Glacial aquifer does contain a clay layer at a depth of approximately 110 feet below sea-level in the vicinity of the site creating a subaquifer with a thickness of approximately 110 feet. This is in excess of the 80 foot minimum aquifer thickness recommended in Table 3-2. The average water table elevation at the location where the wells are to be placed is approximately three feet above sea level as compared to the minimum average water table elevation in Table 3-2 of 2.0 feet. The proposed water supply system provides for a factor of safety of 1.5 over the standards recommended in Table 3-2. The average nitrogen loading is based upon the assumption that the property to the north which is included in the density calculation is not going to be farmed or that fertilizer use will be such that it does not provide an additional nitrogen load to the groundwater system. Based upon an average recharge to the aquifer system of 1 million gallons per day(I1 Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan,Vol.II,July 1978)over a 44 acre recharge area,the quantity of water to be recharged on an average day is 68,722 gpd. The estimated nitrogen of the water recharged as rainwater is 0.5 mg/L, while the nitrogen concentration in the wastewater is expected to be approximately 30 mg/L. The resulting nitrogen concentration in the recharged water (both rainfall and septic systems) Rev. 0-1, 11/95 4- 4 is then 5.6 mg/L for the entire site and does not include consideration of farm nitrogen. New York State drinking water standards require less than 10 mg/L of total nitrogen in potable drinking water. Since the septic systems are downstream of the wells it is expected that the water supply wells will have nitrogen levels below 10 mg/L. A complete design report will be prepared by the fret of Barrett, Bonacci, Hyman & VanWeele(BBHV),a consulting engineering firm qualified to perform sanitary engineering services. The final plans and specifications will be prepared by BBHV upon approval of the DEIS. The sizing will be based on proper design parameters regulated by the County,State, and federal agencies, incorporating appropriate safety factors. The design will meet standards of all review agencies(the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and the Suffolk County Bureau of Waste Management). Current farming procedures for potatoes grown on the farmed portion of the Applicant's property require the following chemical applications: "fertilizer (8 parts Nitrogen, 16 parts Phosphorus,8 parts Potassium)applied once per season at approximately 2,000 pounds per acre. Herbicides Dual and Sencor applied for weed control at ratios of approximately 1 quart per acre(Dual) and 2/3 pound of Sencor per acre. Fungicide M-45 is applied. The pesticide Kryocide is applied at approximately 12-13 pounds per acre. Monitor is applied at about 1/2 to 1 pint per acre. Irrigation is required approximately 3-4 times during the season to achieve a one inch covering of water on the crop. This requires approximately 3 to 4 days of continuous watering and averages out to about 15000 gallons per week over the entire year for a total of 780,000 gallons. (Reference B-1, Telephone conversation Mr.R. McBride). If it is decided that farming will not continue on the Applicant's property, beneficial impacts to the groundwater will be realized by the discontinued use of fertilizer, pesticides, fungicide and herbicides in the amounts specified and a less intense use of water. This will also mean that no chance of accidental spillage or improper application of these pesticides exists. The abatement of these agriculturally related compounds means a potential beneficial impact to groundwater quality. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 4- 5 Another potential impact is from the leaching of nitrogen from over fertilized lawns. However,lawn products (fertilizers, pesticides)will be minimized to the greatest extent by landscaping with grasses, such as red fescue, and plants which require lower chemical levels to thrive. (c) Recharge regime The drainage concept for the motel buildings consists of directing stormwater runoff from the roofs to underground drainage systems with on-site storage and recharge in leaching pools/recharge basins. Increased area of impervious surfaces from the internal circular pattern driveway with parking spaces, and motel units will cause the amount of surface runoff at the Beachcomber Motel II site to increase. However, there will be no significant effects to groundwater due to stormwater runoff being directed to a drainage reserve area to be located near the entrance of the motel on Duck Pond Road. This area currently acts as a natural drainage basin for the site. It will be enhanced by enlargement. Water will drain and filter through the soil prior to entering the water table. When capacity of the drainage reserve basin is exceeded the excess water will flow into a 'bubble" overflow structure at Duck Pond Road. The high water level of the proposed drainage reserve area is at elevation 11.00,which coincides with the FEMA 100 year flood elevation as discussed in Section III.A.2.b.4. By necessity, the overflow structure must be situated at an elevation lower than 11.00,so that excess stormwater can flow by gravity from the reserve area to its overflow destination. Assuming that sufficient rip rap is placed adjacent to the overflow structure to protect against erosion, there will be no measurable environmental impact. Impermeable areas on site will be kept to a minimum to reduce stormwater runoff by enhancing infiltration to the groundwater system. (d) Surface Water The Long Island Sound will not be significantly impacted by the proposed motel expansion. The source of nitrogen in recharge estimates is page 193 of the Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan, Volume II: Summary Documentation,Long Island Regional Planning Board,July 1978. The source of pounds per Rev. 0-1, 11/95 4 - 6 day for farm fields is from conversations with Mr. R. McBride regarding his current fertilizing practices. Calculations for nitrogen loading were based upon the year round average flow of 2,633 gpd for the proposed expansion and 3,342 gpd for the existing Beachcomber. The calculations are as follows: 2,633 gpd x 3.7853 liters/gal = 9,967 I/day say 10,000 I/day 30 mg/1 x 10,000 I/day = 300,000 mg/day or 300 g/day or .3 kg/day .3 kg/day x 2.2 lbs/kg = .66 lbs/day for the proposed Beachcomber II 3,342 gpd x 3.7853 liters/gal = 12,650 I/day 30 mx 12,650 Way = 379,500 mg/day or 379.5 g/day or.3795 kg/day .379 kg/day x 2.2 lbs/kg = .84 lbs/day for existing Beachcomber I .661bs/day + .84 lbs/day = 1.5 lbs/day for Beachcomber I and II This calculation accounts for summer loading, reduced water usage and occupancy during the winter months. If summer water usage values were taken for the entire year a yield of 3.7 lbs/day of nitrogen loading would occur. However, since the project is not designed for year long use or is year long use expected the nitrogen loading is the reduced value of 1.5 lbs/day. The nitrogen loading from the farm acreage is the result of the application of 2,000 lbs per acre once per season. This fertilizer is 8% nitrogen resulting in 160 lbs of nitrogen per acre being applied to 32 acres in a year. This results in a total farm application rate of 14 pounds per day. Of this approximately 55% is taken up by the crop and the remainder leaches into the groundwater yielding a loading of 6.31bs/day. 3. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY a. VEGETATION One potential impact to vegetation on the Applicant's property may be associated with the discontinuance of farming on 32 acres. If this farmed portion of the property remains fallow, it is expected that the area will begin the process of succession. Vegetation Rev. 0-1, 11/95 4 - 7 will change from farm plants to a transitional hard wood forest. The plants/trees will eventually be dominated by those similar to the species currently found on-site such as locust,black cherry and many of the smaller shrubs such as eastern red cedar, sumacs and vines. However, if farming continues this successional pattern will not occur. Slight impacts to the major vegetative habitats on site will occur from the clearing of the property for driveway/parking, motel units and service lines. As mentioned previously,the size of this project has been significantly down-sized from 86 to 46 motel units or 8 buildings to 4 buildings. This reduction has allowed the Applicant to place these buildings in an area which is already cleared. This area is presently dominated by "crab grass"and mowed by the Applicant. Portions of the wooded habitat will be protected through this semi-clustering of motel units in the cleared area. In addition to keeping the proposed motel units in cleared areas the Applicant will also be avoiding areas of steep slopes which tends to create erosion problems when not mitigated correctly. Thus by careful planning and the significant reduction of units/buildings very little of the natural vegetation on site will be removed. The total amount of vegetated area impacted by construction will be approximately 1.2 acres of the 48.2 acre site. This includes 1 acre in the cleared area south of the existing motel and approximately 0.2 acres of woods in: a)the area where the water supply line will be brought down from the farm field, and b) a very small cut into the xeric portion of vegetation on the northeast portion of the property where the motel building containing units numbers 37 to 46 is proposed to be located. The dominant types of vegetation removed in each of these areas is discussed below. The proposed water supply line coming from the proposed supply well location in the existing farm field will require cutting a narrow band of vegetation down a steep slope through the woods. Prior to making this cut a visual survey will be made to place the line in a path that will require the least amount of loss of trees/vegetation. The primary types of trees found in this area are black cherry with a thick understory of poison ivy, oriental bittersweet, cat brier and grape vine. These plants typically have Rev. 0-1, 11/95 4 -8 the capability of growing back rather quickly and no significant impacts to vegetation are expected in this area. The proposed drainage reserve area will require regrading where the seasonal man-made pond exists. This will require the clearing of"crab grass" and some portions of the reed Phragmites communis. Both species are very capable of quickly recolonizing therefore no significant impact will occur to vegetation in this area. In the area where motel building containing unit numbers 37 to 46 is proposed to be located some very slight loss of bayberry and sumac species covering an area of approximately 2,000 square feet (0.05 acres) will be lost. Again this is not a significant loss of vegetation to the area. In the small areas that require clearing, landscaping with will be used wherever possible to attract wildlife and create habitat. Species of native plants which provide berries, fruits and nuts that birds and small animals would choose in their natural surroundings will be utilized. The cleared areas on site may be landscaped with(but not limited to)deciduous trees such as red maple,hickory,flowering dogwood,black cherry, and white oak. These trees have wide tolerances to various soil conditions and provide varied seasonal supplies of food and habitat for birds and small mammals. Coniferous species such as red cedar, hen-dock,and white pine may also be added to the landscaping scheme to provide winter habitat. b. WILDLIFE The site provides habitat for many species of wildlife. The majority of species found are normally abundant in and around towns of the Northeast. Many will be able to adapt and co-exist quite readily to the development at the Beachcomber Motel II. However, utilization of the property may be increased if farming is discontinued. As the farm field proceeds through succession, habitats will be created for small rodents (mice, rabbits) birds, and mammals. These may be considered beneficial impacts from the construction of the Beachcomber Motel II. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 4 -9 IV. B. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO HUMAN RESOURCES 1. TRANSPORTATION There will be no significant impacts to traffic resulting from construction of the proposed motel units. Although the expansion of the Beachcomber Motel by 46 units will add traffic to the adjacent roadway network, the traffic impact will be minimal to the adjacent roadway network. This existing network will easily accommodate the additional traffic. The following points should be recognized: a. The maximum vehicular trips generated per hour are estimated at 33. This number represents the average vehicle trip ends on a Saturday during peak hour of generation assuming 100% occupancy of the additional 46 units. Trip ends are the total of all trips entering plus all trips leaving the site over a given period of time. b. The average Saturday vehicular trip ends are estimated at 50, assuming 100% occupancy. c. The Beachcomber is a seasonal resort operating from Memorial Day weekend through mid October. Therefore, there will be no impacts to traffic during the balance of the calendar year. d. It is a fact that Southold experiences a great deal more traffic in the summer than any other season. 2. LAND USE AND ZONING The proposed action is compatible with existing land use within this area of Cutchogue. That portion of the site designated for Agricultural Conservation will be retained as farmland or open space and continue to contribute to the rural quality of the Town. Development of the Beachcomber II is planned for an area where seasonal resort development is now concentrated,e.g.the existing Beachcomber Motel Resort. The proposed action therefore does not represent a shift in current land use. Within the area zoned Resort Residential there will be a slight loss of approximately 1.0 acres of open field. Very little of adjacent brush and woodland will be cleared for construction of the motel units. There will be no significant impact to the bordering wooded slopes or their natural habitats. There will be a slight impact to the beachfront at the end of Duck Pond Road where the drainage reserve basin overflow line terminates. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 4- 10 However, this line will be installed in accordance with all required regulations. Small bluffs which slope towards the Long Island Sound on the northeastern portion of the property will not be impacted since all development will be placed greater than 100 feet from the Coastal Erosion Hazard area boundary. 3. COMMUNITY SERVICES a. EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES Since the Beachcomber Motel 11 is a seasonal-transient resort and motel, there will be no impact to the Mattituck-Cutchogue School District in terms of additional student population. The school district will be favorably impacted by the additional property tax revenue that the Beachcomber Motel II will generate. b. POLICE PROTECTION No adverse impacts are expected to affect the ability of the Southold Town Police to provide police protection to the Cutchogue community as a result of this proposed project. c. FIRE PROTECTION The Cutchogue Fire District has requested additional water supply be provided to serve and protect the Cutchogue community(Appendix D-69). Water supply from the proposed system will be capable of providing up to 145 gpm of water for fire fighting if needed. An additional fire well with capacity of 400 gpm has been added to the proposed site plan to provide the Cutchogue Fire District with this fire fighting capability. Additional fire flow can be obtained by drafting from the Long Island Sound. The proposed motel units will be constructed to meet all applicable building and safety codes with regard to fire safety. d. HEALTH CARE FACILITIES The impact of the proposed action on the health care resources is related to the projected seasonal population of the additional 46 motel units vis-a-vis utilization. Utilization will be primarily limited to emergency room services. The Eastern Long Island Hospital Emergency Room is staffed by a physician and nursing personnel 24 hours per day, seven days per week. This emergency room also provides Rev. 0-1, 11/95 4- 11 services for seasonal visitors and many second home residents. Letters from the Director of the Eastern Long Island Hospital,and the Director of Central Suffolk Hospital(Appendices D-58,and D-59 respectively) confirmed that services can be provided for the proposed action. e. SOCIAL SERVICES The proposed action will not place any demand on social services due to the transitory nature of the proposed seasonal use motel. f. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES No recreational facilities in the Town of Southold will be adversely impacted. It is anticipated that the guests of the Beachcomber Motel II will make use of the on-site amenities such as the 800 feet of private beach,swimming pool,and miniature golf putting area. Guests may also utilize the nearby Island's End Golf and Country Club or Drossos Tick Tock Miniature Golf for golfing activities. g. UTILITIES The ability of local utilities to service the surrounding community as a result of Beachcomber Motel II will be unaffected (LILCO,letter Appendix D-60). h. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY There is no public water supply available in the proposed project area,therefore no impact. i. SOLID WASTES The solid waste generated by the proposed project will be collected by a private carter for disposal at the Southold Town Collection Center. The amount of solid waste generated by guests of the 46 Motel units is estimated to be 2 pounds of solid waste per unit per day. This would result in an additional 1.38 tons per month of solid waste disposed at the Town's Collection Center(assuming 100% occupancy). There will be no impact to the Town's ability to accept this solid waste (Appendix D-63). Rev. 0-1, 11/95 4- 12 4. CULTURAL RESOURCES a. VISUAL No long term adverse visual impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There may be short term impacts during the construction phase that may affect the appearance of the project site due to excavating, stockpiling of materials, and partially finished structures. There will be a contextual relationship of the new units with the existing Beachcomber Motel. They will be an architectural extension of the existing motel units and not alter the perceived landscape. Therefore, the project should not alter the aesthetic expectations of the local residents that access the Long Island Sound beachfront via Duck Pond Road. There is a low degree of visual exposure from the surrounding area due to location of the Beachcomber Motel in a natural depression in the Harbor Hill Moraine. Since it is screened by topography and vegetation it cannot be viewed from any significant distance (it has no magnitude of vista). It will not alter the panoramic view of famnland and open space experienced by automobiles driving along Oregon Road or any of the local collector roads in the area. b. HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL Results of the cultural resource assessments indicate that there will be no impact to these resources as a result of the Beachcomber Motel R construction(Appendix C-1 &Com. A stage 1B study was conducted and it was concluded that"the property has suffered so severely from excavating, grading, soil stripping, and construction process (under previous ownership) in the past that little or nothing of the native soil and incorporated archeological evidence has been preserved". A map of additional test locations of the 1B survey has been plotted in the proposed site plan (Appendix C-6) for reference. c. NOISE During the construction phase of the project, there will be temporary increases in noise levels due to construction related activities. Construction related activities will Rev. 0-1, 11/95 4- 13 include regrading,foundation excavation, cement pouring,and hammering. Construction equipment and vehicles will be equipped with mufflers to keep noise within levels set by Town ordinances. Once construction is completed,noise will be from the increased number of guests and vehicles traveling to and from the motel. The guests may contribute to a very slight degradation to the ambient noise levels. For example,there may be more people utilizing the recreational facilities on-site. However, the Long Island Sound tends to mask the sound of human activity. Noise levels will be compatible with surrounding residential areas and no adverse noise impacts will result from this project. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 4 - 14 V. MITIGATING MEASURES TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS of THE PROPOSED ACTION V. MITIGATING MEASURES TO NATURAL RESOURCES This section describes mitigation measures which are recommended to minimize the environmental affects expected to result from the implementation of the proposed plan for development of the Beachcomber Motel II expansion. Recommended mitigation measures are presented for potential impacts to soils/topography,groundwater, surface water,vegetation, transportation and community services. Impacts which cannot be fully mitigated are described in Section VI as unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. A. NATURAL RESOURCES 1. SOILS and TOPOGRAPHY The potential for soil erosion as a result of the proposed construction exists in three areas: 1)near the motel building at the northeastern corner of the cleared area and woods (in the vicinity of proposed motel units 37-46),2) in the steep wooded area where the water main line will be installed, and 3) in the existing drainage Swale. The existing vegetation has done a good job of containing erosion in these areas. However the potential for impacts exists once this vegetative cover is removed. The proposed motel units have been designed to minimize disturbances to the flora in these areas. For instance, the existing treeline on the northeast side of the clearing will be altered only slightly as a result of the proposed motel units 37-46. Additional measures to minimize and mitigate potential impacts will be taken utilizing the following methods. Soil erosion during construction on site will be minimized by disrupting soils only where necessary, revegetating disturbed areas, utilizing mulch or other erosion control measures wherever necessary, and implementing effective stormwater control measures. Periodic inspections of the construction site will be conducted by the construction foreman to detect erosion problems which require remedial action. During development, soils will be redistributed as necessary, and revegetation of disturbed areas (particularly the wooded areas with steep slopes)will be implemented. After development,stormwater runoff and resulting soil erosion will be controlled on site by the establishment of a stormwater drainage reserve area,and revegetation as necessary with Rev. 0-1, 11/95 5 - 1 ground cover, shrubs and trees. Semi-clustering the motel units will minimize intrusion of the motel expansion into areas that are already vegetated thereby reducing the movement of soils on site. Special care will be exercised to prevent any sediment transfer during construction into the Sound. Hay bales will be staked end to end across down hill gradients to prevent sediment transfer. Additionally, excavated soil will be stockpiled in areas that will not allow movement of these soils. There will be little impact to the topography as a result of clearing. Most of the construction activity will consist of minor grading or leveling of the already moderately sloping property. The proposed drainage reserve area has been designed to collect run-off water and prevent erosion. With the existing topography and mitigation measures specified no significant run-off problems are expected. However,in areas where slopes have the potential for erosion, such as the"drainage swale"and the cut through the woods for the water supply line the following design and erosion control methods will be utilized: a. Clearing and grading will occur only as necessary. The smallest practical area of land will be exposed at any one time during construction. In that manner construction will be completed rapidly and no large areas are left bare and exposed for long periods. In the sloped areas where the water main line will run, and the building that contains motel units 37-46) hay-bales will be staked around the periphery of the cleared area trapping sediment which may run off. Additionally mulching and netting will be placed on the slopes to enhance revegetation and prevent erosion. b. Cleared areas left unconstructed for an extended period of time will be seeded and mulched in order to establish a temporary ground cover and minimize potential erosion and topsoil loss. c. Permanent final vegetation and structures will be installed as soon as practical surrounding the drainage reserve area and areas where soil is disturbed to reduce the potential threat of erosion and/or runoff. d. When construction starts,topsoil from cleared areas will be stored on-site. As soon as possible it will be resppread and seeded to establish ground cover in exposed areas. On grades over 8%, a mulch will be applied with seed to hold soil in place. 2. GROUNDWATER The increased quantity of runoff generated on-site by impervious surfaces will be mitigated by utilization of a stormwater collection system and one on-site drainage Rev. 0-1, 11/95 5 -2 reserve area to be sized in accordance with the Town of Southold's criteria. This system is one that most nearly simulates the natural system, that is one that has features to detain storm runoff and to provide the maximum infiltration for natural purification. To reduce nitrogen loading from fertilizers, low-maintenance grass and restoring land to its natural state by planting native shrubs and trees will be recommended. This is most practical in buffer areas located on the perimeters of the Beachcomber Motel R expansion site and drainage reserve area. The mitigating measures employed to reduce nitrogen loading at the site are the reduction in actual density as compared to that allowed under zoning and SCDHS standards at the site. The development has been reduced from the 86 units previously contemplated to 46 units in the proposed plan. In addition,low water use and nitrogen use landscaping will be provided. If necessary, farming can be curtailed on the 32 acre farmland area. This will have the greatest impact on nitrogen loading by reducing current levels by 88%. The site will not be further developed (beyond the proposed action)unless public water is available and/or a sewage treatment plant is constructed to offset impacts on water use or nitrogen loading. The water supply system will be designed and operated to minimize the impact of the wells on the location of the saltwater/freshwater interface. The wells will be adequately separated (60 to 100 feet) so that there is little interference between them and that the pumpage can be distributed to reduce stresses on the interface. It is recommended that the use of the wells be alternated to minimize impacts on the interface. 3. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY Impacts to vegetation will be mitigated by expeditiously planting natural vegetation in cleared areas after the motel units are built and by restricting clearing to only necessary areas. Construction will be scheduled to avoid sensitive wildlife cycles when possible. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 5 - 3 V. MITIGATING MEASURES TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION B. HUMAN RESOURCES 1. TRANSPORTATION It is recommended that a stop sign be installed on Duck Pond Road and the intersection with Vista Place. The stop sign would cause northbound traffic on Duck Pond Road to stop before either proceeding around the curve towards the Beachcomber or across to Vista Place (Figure 5-1). It is also recommended that the brush be cleared back from the corner where the new stop sign should be placed. This will provide for greater intersection sight distance, in particular for traffic proceeding southwest up the sloped gradient of Duck Pond Road. 2. COMMUNITY SERVICES The construction of motel units will meet with all building requirements and will include: the use of construction materials that prevent fire hazards, the incorporation of sprinklers and alarm systems into building design, the installation of utility services to the new units underground, and the incorporation of water saving fixtures (i.e.water saving shower heads and toilets into the facility design. A 400 gpm fire well will be installed on the property in the vicinity of the proposed motel units(see site plan). Figure 5 - 1 'o < �c Birch ° Duck �a p Recommended n STOP sign x location v 0 o. SII Oregon Rd not to scale Rev. 0-1, 11/95 5 - 4 VI. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED VI. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED Despite mitigating measures to minimize adverse effects resulting from the construction of the Beachcomber Motel II motel units certain environmental impacts will be unavoidable. These unavoidable adverse effects will result from short-term construction activities. Unavoidable short term impacts will be associated with: site grading, excavation of foundation areas, construction of the drainage recharge area, installation of utilities, construction of the driveway and parking areas, and construction of the motel units. Short term impacts that cannot be fully mitigated are: o Soils will be disturbed on site by grading, excavation and mounding activities during site construction. o Even with proper mitigating measures some minor temporary increases in soil erosion may result from construction operations. o On site vegetation (grasses, weeds, and shrubs) will be removed to allow for construction of. motel units, driveway/parking areas, underground utility lines, and the drainage reserve area. Approximately 0.2 acres of relatively mature trees will be removed for the purpose of well water supply construction. o The construction of the drainage overflow line on Duck Pond Road. Minor releases of air contaminants will occur from construction equipment and worker vehicles during construction. Emissions of fugitive dust may occur during dry periods as a result of construction operations. Slight increases of noise levels will occur during construction. Construction activities, equipment operations and disturbed lands at the site will be visible during construction. Long term impacts may include the replacement of agricultural land with open space/vegetation. Slight increases to traffic will be generated during summer months by vehicles utilizing the motel. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 6 - 1 V//. AL TERNA T/VES VII. ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS Three alternatives to the proposed action were assessed for feasibility and relative environmental impact. They are described as follows: A) Alternative A is the No Action Alternative which would leave the site in its existing state with no further development (Figure 3-17). B) Alternative B, consists of 46 motel units with 2 buildings placed in the clearing south of the existing Beachcomber Motel and 2 buildings placed in the R/R zoned portion of the farm field (Figure 7-1). C) Alternative C, consists of 46 motel units with all four buildings arranged in a U-shaped cluster within the cleared area behind the existing cabana (Figure 7-2). Table 7-1 compares these alternatives to the proposed action. A. Alternative A This alternative involves leaving the 48.2 acre site in its existing state/use: 32 acres of farmland, 9.7 acres wooded, 5.4 acres open field/grass and 1.1 acres occupied by the existing motel/accessary buildings and pavement. Positive impacts of this alternative will include preservation of the existing habitats. The current wildlife and vegetation will remain intact. The Applicant will continue to rent to the farmer, and the farmer will continue to raise potatoes. Portions of the site will remain wooded, and the cleared area will probably continue to be maintained by the Applicant as a mowed field where motel guests can engage in recreational activities. The current traffic situation will be unchanged. There are detrimental impacts from the no action alternative. Less tax revenue will be earned than if the site were developed, and the property will continue to be underutilized. Beneficial economic impacts to the community,both during construction in Rev. 0-1, 11/95 7 - 1 BARRETT B ONAC C I HYMAN & %NWEELE APPROX/MA TE ZONING UNE WNF 0 � Io of O RSR AC Z ) \ J U S o I DEPOT � RCM ALTBRNA T�' B SCALE 1" = 3OO-& FIGURE 7-1 PAGE 7-2 BARRETT BONACCI HYMAN & / .VANWEELE APPROXIMA TE I ZONING LINE a o � J= IO OVQ' 2 \\ / o R R AC n / DEPOT LANE RCM ALTERNA T� C SCALE 10 = 300'f FIGURE 7- 2 PAGE 7.3 TABLE 7-1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ALT A ALT B ALT C Proposed No 46 Motel 46 Motel Action Action Units Units Farmland (area in acres) 32.0 32.0 30.8 32.0 Farmland (%of site area) 66.4% 66.4% 63.9% 66.4% Wooded (area in acres) 9.5 9.7 9.4 9.3 Wooded (%of site area) 19.7% 20.1% 19.5%% 19.3% Grass (area in acres) 4.4 5.4 5.0 4.7 Grass (%of site area) 9.1% 11.2% 10.4% 9.8% Unvegetated (area in acres) 2.3 1.1 3.0 2.2 Unvegetated (%of site area) 4.8% 2.3% 6.2% 4.5% Regrading (area in acres) 3.7 0.0 4.6 3.3 Regrading (%of site area) 7.7% 0.0% 9.5% 6.8% Paved (area in acres) 1.1 0.4 1.8 1.0 Paved (%of site area) 2.3% 0.8% 3.7% 2.0% GW Usage(gpd) 5,810* 5,147 5,810* 5,810* GW Recharge (inches/year) 19 19 19 19 Nitrate loading ** ** ** (lbs/day total site) 1.5 2.15 1.5 1.5 * without farming(with farming 7,947) ** without farming(with farming 6.3) Rev. 0-1, 11/95 7 - 4 the form of jobs and use of materials and after when additional tourists may stay for longer periods of time increasing their likelihood of spending money within the Town will not be realized. Current agricultural irrigation usage will remain at approximately 2,137 gallons per day. Total Nitrate loading will be 2.15 lbs/day of which 1.4 lbs/day will remain from farm fertilization; groundwater quality may continue to be impacted by chemicals used in the growing of potatoes. B. ALTERNATIVE B This alternative provides 46 motel units as does the proposed action. However,two of the units would be located in the south west comer of the Resort Residential zoned portion of the property (Figure 7-2). The other two units would be located in the southern most portion of the grassy clearing behind the existing cabana. These units would require the construction of an internal road through what is now farmed land. The private road would connect from Olivia Lane. Parking for the units would be located on the south side of the southern most units and on the north side of the units in the grassy cleared area. A foot path would run through the woods to give access to connect the units to the main complex. When compared to the proposed action this alternative results in a slight decrease in the amount of area that was farmed. Due to the internal road and placement of the 2 motel units there would be approximately 1.2 acres less available for farming than the other alternatives and the proposed action. As with the alternative C and the proposed action it is planned the existing farmed portions of the property would not be planted and would revert to open space/woods. This alternative would require the highest amount of paving, 1.8 acres, and the highest amount of regrading,4.6 acres,compared to other alternatives. Negative impacts may result in the loss of farm land. However, this will be replaced with natural habitat native to the area as the farm will be allowed to lay fallow. Economic benefits to both the Town of Southold and the local community may be realized from increased tax revenue,jobs created during construction,as well as increased spending Rev. 0-1, 11/95 7 - 5 by tourists who stay in the community. This alternative results in a demand for the same amount of water usage as the proposed alternative of 14,925 gpd of water used during the average tourist season. The drainage reserve area will be in the same location as the proposed action. This alternative will require on site septic systems, that will be constructed as required by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services,Division of Waste Management. Approximately 14,925 gpd of groundwater will be utilized,offset by a minimum recharge of 19 in/year. Nitrogen loading will be 1.45 lbs/day. Traffic generated from this alternative project will be identical to the proposed action. However approximately half of the traffic use will be diverted through Olivia Lane towards the 2 southern most motel units. C. ALTERNATIVE C This alternative is similar to the proposed action, in that all 4 motel buildings (46 units) are placed in the grassy clearing. However, the unit that is closest to the water has been moved south. This arranges the buildings into a U-shaped configuration that parallels the existing cleared grassy area. Again the units will be utilized for seasonal tourists. This alternative precludes infringement upon that area vegetated with xeric species and slightly less regrading than the proposed action. This alternative will not result in the 2500 square foot (12.5 feet wide by 200 feet long) shifting of the northeast tree line in the cleared portion of the property which is associated with the proposed action. Farmland or fallow land would remain on approximately 32 acres of the site. A total of 9.3 acres of wooded area would remain in its natural state as compared to 9.7 acres in the no action alternative and 9.5 acres in the proposed alternative. Approximately 4.7 acres would remain grassy/cleared as opposed to 5.4 acres in Alternative A and 4.4 acres in the proposed action. It is anticipated that approximately 3.3 acres of the site would require regrading and 1 acre would be paved. The groundwater usage, nitrate loading and traffic Rev. 0-1, 11/95 7- 6 would all be similar to the proposed action and alternative B. Beneficial impacts would be derived from short term construction jobs, increased tax revenue to the Town of Southold and increased money spent in the community by tourists who would stay at the completed Motel. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 7- 7 VIII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES VIII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The Beachcomber Motel II expansion will commit resources currently used as agricultural soils, groundwater,vacant undeveloped land, farmland, energy sources and construction materials. Development of the proposed motel expansion may preclude the use of 32 acres of its farmland for the growing of crops. This soil may be committed to open space in perpituity There are projected adequate quantities of groundwater available for the Beachcomber Motel II expansion. It will utilize approximately 14,925 gallons of water per day during the tourist season. Fuels will be used by construction vehicles operating during development of the motel expansion. Operation of the motel units will commit oil and electricity reserves. Use of these energy resources is minimal and will not significantly deplete the existing nor protected reserves of these fuels and energy sources. The motel expansion will involve the commitment of construction materials such as sand, gravel and lumber. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 8- 1 IX. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS IX. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS This section will discuss the Beachcomber Motel II and its relationship to tourism and recreation, a major component of Southold's economic base. This section also describes what is loosely termed the "multiplier effects" of the project. These are the jobs,wages,and consumer purchases related to the project's construction phase as well as its final implementation or"steady state" form. A. Tourism and Recreation The Town of Southold depends upon tourism and recreation as a major component of its economic base. For this reason,it is important that this industry be guided and promoted to insure that the qualities that make Southold desirable are maintained. The proposed Beachcomber Motel R expansion is consistent with the recommendations of the Southold Town Stewardship Task Force report and the Town of Southold Master Plan update. The eastern Long Island towns of Southold, Shelter Island, Southampton and East Hampton contain the majority of the resort areas in the region. There are almost 5,500 hotel rooms in this area and 70% of those units are for seasonal use. Within the Town of Southold there are twenty-one hotel/motel establishments with a total seasonal capacity of 1,064 persons. Southold's hotel and motel inventory is summarized below. Total Year Round Seasonal No. Units Ca aci No. Units Capacity No. Units Cal2aci 21 497 1,310 6 101 246 15 396 1064 Source: LIRPB, Commercial Development Analysis, 1991 The Beachcomber Motel II will add 46 units; an increase of 12% to the seasonal units within the Town of Southold. B. Employment Although the travel-related industries are a major source of jobs, they are not necessarily a source of high-paying jobs. These industries are characterized by above-average concentration of part-time and seasonal employees and this results in Rev. 0-1, 11/95 9- 1 relatively low average annual salaries. Many of Long Island's travel-related industries are characterized by unusually high multipliers and therefore have a major impact upon the Long Island economy. This reflects the fact that the travel-related industries have extensive and complex linkages with many other Long Island industries so that any increase in travel-related spending is multiplied considerably through successive rounds of respending to stimulate the economy. One linkage in the Town of Southold is to the relatively new phenomenon of wine travel. On Long Island,winery-hopping has become an important new tourist attraction. For example,Pindar Vineyards,in Peconic not only produces 50,000 cases of wine a year, but also attracts some 500 people a day in summer to tour the winery and sample wines. The Long Island wineries have excelled at promoting themselves, individually and through the Long Island Wine Council. Popular parties at the Hargrave Vineyard in Chtchogue and at the Windows on the World restaurant and South Street Seaport in Manhattan have carried the Long Island message to the affluent New Yorkers who spend summers and weekends on Long Island's east end,where all but one of the wineries are situated. The Long Island Regional Planning Board includes in its Action Plan for Tourism the following suggestions which are designed to achieve more intensive use of Long Island's travel-related facilities. 1. There is an already substantial interest in Long Island's vineyards. Long Island's grape growers are attempting to encourage a regional identity for the North Fork as a major wine-producing area. Organized wine-tasting tours and other "happenings" centered around the vineyards would enhance tourism and solidify Long Island's identity as a major wine-producing area. It would also boost multi-season tourism because fall it the most popular season for trips to the vineyards. 2. There is considerable interest in seasonal events such as apple picking or fall foliage tours. Long Island's hotels, motels and resorts can sponsor fall foliage "getaway"weekends during which significant discounts on hotel rooms,car rentals,and selected recreational activities would be offered. Source: Promoting Tourism and Business Travel on Long Island,Pearl M.Kramer,Ph.D., Chief Economist, LIRPB Rev. 0-1, 11/95 9- 2 The growth and promotion of Long Island's wine industry therefore suggest that the hospitality industry will also benefit. This is however,not without innovative marketing strategies and higher service standards in order to retain and expand market share. The Beachcomber Motel II lies within a ten mile radius of the North Fork's 13 wineries. Most are concentrated in Cutchogue and Peconic. Both are mutually beneficial to the local economy. Beyond the economic and commercial implications,the vineyards add an Old World touch to the bucolic East End. When the development is finally completed the local market area will realize additional economic benefits. Permanent jobs are created which carry with them aggregate wage income and gross output. These flow directly as economic stimuli to the local economy. In addition to these permanent jobs,income and output have secondary or induced impacts which affect the economy of Long Island as a whole. The following analysis describes construction phase and steady state growth impacts. C. Construction Phase As the Beachcomber Motel II is built, construction, transportation, and service jobs will be created which will inject money into the local economy in the form of consumer income. Estimates of the construction stimulus to the local economy are conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BIS). Since 1959, the BLS has surveyed labor and material requirements for various types of construction activity. The studies are designed to measure the total employment impact of construction activities. Total employment includes labor at the construction site (on-site) and labor required to manufacture, sell, and transport the materials, equipment, and supplies used in construction (offsite). The studies provide information on the amount of labor time required to complete various types of construction activity per $1,000 of construction contract cost; cost of material,equipment, and supplies; distribution of costs; and occupational requirements. The estimated employee hours created per$1,000 of contract expenditures (in 1980 Rev. 0-1, 11/95 9- 3 dollars)for multifamily housing(Most representative activity of the Beachcomber Motel II construction) is as follows: Construction industries Other industries Trade,Trans- portation All All industries Total On-site Offsite Total Mfg. and services Others 48.5 20.2 17.9 2.3 28.3 15.8 9.4 3.1 Generally speaking, direct local impact is related to wages drawn from (a) on-site construction employment, and (b) related trade/transportation/services employment. The Beachcomber Motel II has an e3dsting construction value of$ 2,208,000 million based on and estimated value of$ 80.00 per square foot for 27,600 square feet for the proposed 46 units. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 9- 4 X. APPEND/CES X. APPENDICES A. Bibliography B. Personal Conversations/Consultations C. Technical Exhibits D. Correspondence I.etters/Receipts APPENDIX A BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A BIBLIOGRAPHY Ball,Thomas,L.,1973,Central place theory as a mixture of the function pattern principles of Christaller and Lasch•some empirical test and applications,Doctoral Thesis,The University of Iowa. Beccasio,Angelo D.,et.al.,1980,Atlantic Coast Ecological Inventory User's Guide and Information Base, Biological Services Program,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Washington,D.C. Black,Peter,1981,Environmental Impact Analysis,Praeger Publishers. Brady,Nyle C., 1974,The Nature and Properties of Soils,MacMillan Publishing Co. Inc.,New York,New York Bull,John,1975,Birds of the New York Area,Dover Publications Inc.,New York,New York. Burchell,Robert W.,Listokin,David,and Dolphin,William R.,1985,The New Practitioners guide to fiscal implant analysis: Center for Urban Policy Research,Rutgers University;New Brunswick,New Jersey. Buttke,Carl H.et.al.,1987,Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,ITE Publishing No. IR-01613,Washington D.C. Cassars,Aasine R.and Harnne,Howard, 1991,Anglers Guide to Long Island,Nu-Stat Graphics,Inc., Bayside,NY. Connor,P.F., 1971,The Mammals of Lone Island,New York,Bulletin N.Y.S.Mus.Sci.Serv.No.416,78 pp. Cornell Cooperative Extension,1998,Suffolk's Agricultural Industry,Riverhead,NY Crockett,James Underwood, 1972,Flowering Shrubs,Time-Life Books,New York Cox,Donald D.,1985,Common Flowering Plants of the Northeast Their Natural History and Uses,State University of New York Press,Albany,NY Decker,Daniel J.,and Goff,Gary RI,1986,Valuing Wildlife Economic and Social Perspectives,Westview Press/Boulder and London DeGraaf,Richard M.and Rudis,Deborah D.,1983,Amphibians and Reptiles of New England,The University of Massachusetts Press,Amherst,Mass. DeGraaf,Richard M.and Witman,Gretchin M.,1979,Trees Shrubs and Vines for Attracting Birds,U.of Mass.Press,Amherst,Mass. Department of State, 1980,Land Resource Preservation,Albany,NY Doriski,T.P., 1986,Water Resources Investigation Report 86-4189,United States Geologic Survey. Dove,Louise E,Franklin,Thomas M,and Adams,Lowell W., 1985,Plant and Wildlife in Your Backyard, American Forests,March Issue. Rev.0-1,11/95 A-1 BIBLIOGRAPHY(Continued) Dvirka&Bartlucci&Malcom Pirne,Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, January, 1987. Emlen,John T.and Archbald,David,1967,Birds of Northeastern and Central United States and adiacent Canada,Doubleday and Company Inc.,Garden City,NY ERM-Northeast, 1983,North Fork Water Supply Plan Suffolk County,New York. Faust,Joan Lee,1967,The New York Times Book of Trees and Shrubs,Alfred A.Knopf,NY,NY Freeze,R.A.,and Cherry,John A.,1979,Groundwater,Prentice-Hall Inc.,Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey. Graves,Arthur H., 1992,Illustrated Guide to Trees and Shrubs A Handbook of the Woody Plants of the Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada,Dover Publications Inc.,New York,NY. Gorden,S.,1985,Computer Modeling and Environmental Planning,Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,New York,NY. Hicks,Tyler(Ed.),1985,Standard Handbook of Engineering Calculations 2nd Ed.,McGraw Hill,New York, NY. Holzmacher,McLendon&Murrell,1970,Comprehensive Public Water Supply Study Suffolk County,New York, CPWS-24. Hostek,Albert, 1983,Native and Near Native,Shannon&Sons Inc.,Ronkonkoma,New York. Hughes,Henry B.F.and Pacenka,Steven; 1985,BURBS-A Simulation of the Nitrogen Impact of Residential Development on Groundwater.Water Resources Institute Cornell University Center for Environmental Research,Ithaca,NY Koppelman,Lee E,1978,Lone Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan-208 Study,2 Vol.Long Island Regional Planning Bd.,Hauppauge.,NY Koppelman,Lee E,1982,The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program(NURP),LIRPB, Hauppauge,NY. Knobel,Edward,1977,Field Guide to the Grasses,Sedges and Rushes of the United States_,Dover Publications Inc.,New York,New York. Lemmon,Robert S.,1952,How to Attract the Birds,Doubleday,Garden City,NY Lone Island Almanac,1987,Long Island Business,2150 Smithtown Avenue,Ronkonkoma,New York Long Island Regional Planning Board(LIRPB),1978,Long Island Regional Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan,Hauppauge,NY LIRPB, 1984,Nonpoint Source Management Handbook,Hauppauge,NY Rev.0-1, 11/95 A-2 BIBLIOGRAPHY(Continued) MacFadyen,A.,1963,Animal Ecology:Aims and Methods,Pitman Publishing Corporation,New York,344 pp. McClymonds,N.E.and O.L.Franke,1972,Water Transmitting Properties of Aquifers on Lone Island,New York,Professional Paper 627-E,United States Geologic Survey. Mitchell,Richard S,and Sheviak,Charles J.,1981,Rare Plants of New York State,New York State Museum Bulletin No.445,Albany,NY. Moriarty,Barry,M.,1980,Industrial Location and Community Development,The University of North Carolina Press;Chapel Hill,North Carolina Morton,William B.,1992,Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Development,NYSDEC, Albany,NY. Muenscher,Walter Conrad,1987,Weeds Cornell University Press,Ithaca,New York. NYS DEC, 1978,6NYCRR Part 617 SEQRA NYS DEC Ground Water Classifications Quality standards and Effluent Standards and/or limitations Title 6 official compilation of codes rules and regulations Part 703,Albany NY. New York State Soil&Water Conservation Committee,et.at.,1991,Guidelines for Urban Erosion& Sediment Control (New York),Empire State Chapter Soil and Water Conservation Society,Syracuse,NY. Odum,Eugene P.,1971,Fundamentals of Ecology,W.B.Saunders Company,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania. Peterson,Roger Tory,and McKenny,Margaret,1968,A Field Guide to Wildflowers Houghton Mifflin Company,Boston,Massachusetts. Petrides,George A., 1972,A Field Guide to Trees and Shrubs,Houghton Mifflin Company,Boston, Massachusetts. Rau,J.and Wooten,D.,1980,Environmental Impact Analysis Handbook,McGraw Hill,New York,NY. Reschke,Carol, 1990,Ecological Communities of New York State,New York Natural Heritage Program,NYS Department of Environmental Conservation,Latham,NY. Salvato,Joseph A.,1992,Environmental Engineering and Sanitation,Wiley Interscience,New York,NY. Smith,Robert, 1974,Ecology and Field Biology,2nd Ed.,Harper and Row Smolensky,D.A.,H.T.Buxton and PX Shernoff,1989 Hydrologic Framework of Long Island,New York, Hydrologic Investigation Atlas HA-709,United States Geologic Survey. Smyser,Carol A.,1982,Natures Design-A Practical Guide to Natural Landscaping,Rodale Press,Emmaus Pennsylvania Source Book of Health Insurance Data 1984-1985,Public Relations Division,Health Insurance Association of America, 1850K St.N.W.,Washington,D.C.20006 Stokes,Donald W.,1979,A Guide to Bird Behavior Volume 1 and 2 Little Brown and Company,Boston Rev.0-1, 11/95 A-3 BIBLIOGRAPHY(Continued) Stokes,Donald W.,1981,The Natural History of Wild Shrubs and Vines.Eastern and Central North America Harper and Row Publishers,New York,NY. Suffolk County Department of Health Services,1982,Report on the Occurrence and Movement of Agricultural Chemicals in Groundwater: North Fork of Suffolk County. Symonds,George W.D.,and George J.McLeod, 1958,The Tree Identification Book,Toronto Canada. Symonds,George W.D.,1963,The Shrub Identification Book William Morrow&Company,New York,NY U.S.Department of Agriculture,1970,Controlling Erosion on Construction Sites,U.S.Govt.Printing Office U.S.Department of Agriculture,1980,A Guide to: Conservation Plantings on Critical Erosion Areas, Syracuse,NY U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census, 1980,1980 Census of population:New York,New York U.S.Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics,1982,Labor and Material Requirements for Commercial/Mixed-Use Building Construction,Washington,D.C.:U.S.Government Printing Office U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA),1994,The Long Island Sound Study-The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan,Stamford,Connecticut. Viertel,Arthur T., 1982,Trees Shrubs and Vines,Syracuse University Press,Syracuse,NY. Warner,John W.Jr.,et.al.,1975,Soil Survey of Suffolk County,New York United States Department of Agricultural,Washington D.C. Zube,Ervin H.and Zube,Margaret J., 1977,Changing Rural Landscapes.University of Massachusetts Press,Amherst,Massachusetts Rev.0-1, 11/95 A-4 APPENDIX B PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS/CONSULTATIONS APPENDIX B Personal Conversations/Consultations Reference B1 McBride,R., Potato Farmer, Cutchogue, NY. Telephone conversation 31 October 1994. B2 Moyer, D., Cornell Cooperative Extension, Riverhead, NY. Telephone conversation 4 November 1994. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 B - 1 APPENDIX C TECHNICAL EXHIBITS APPENDIX C - 1 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT BEACHCOMBER II CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK A S I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. POB 1522, ROCKY POINT,NEW YORK 11778 Beachcomber II, CRA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New York CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT ARCHIVAL RESEARCH BEACHCOMBER 11 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE SOUTHOLD TOWNSHIP, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK NOVEMBER 1993 ASI POB 1522 ROCKY POINT, NEW YORK 11778 ASI Al Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New York BEACHCOMBER MOTEL II DEVELOPMENT SITE ARCHIVAL AND DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH DATE : NOVEMBER 1993 AUTHOR AND PRI NCIP��)IfyVTIGATOR: PROF. ROBERT J. KALIN SIGNED: ' - I - DATE: ROBERT J. KALIN PROFESSOR, SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGIST EXCEEDS NATIONAL PARK AND NEW YORK STATE STANDARDS, NEW YORK STATE CERTIFIED PRESIDENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. POB 1522, ROCKY POINT, NEW YORK 11778 ARCHAEOLOGY SEAL /Ali c-i 1, AS! A2 Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage 1A, Cutchogue, New York ABSTRACT The Beachcomber. II Motel site has been evaluated, by means of a study of historic maps, documents, archival information, physical inspection, and by interviews with local informants to assess the potential for cultural sensitivity. The evidence gathered by this study supports a recommendation of further assessment in the form of a Stage IB study, to determine the physical presence or absence of significant cultural resources in the impact area. LONG ISLAND SOUND MONTAUK POINT SUFFOLK COUNTY PROJECT AREA ATLANTIC OCEAN @18 MILES Figure 1. Project area general location map. ASI A3 Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New York TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT.........................................................................................A3 INTRODUCTION................................................................................A5 OBJECT i V ES.....................................................................................A5 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION...............................................A7 DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH.......................................................A9 HISTORIC CHRONOLOGY OF SITE.......................................... A14 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................A17 RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................A17 BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................A18 ADDENDA.........................................................................................A20 ASI A4 Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New York INTRODUCTION The following report is the result of a cultural resources documentary search and field inspection study of the Beachcomber II Motel project, proposed for a portion of the existing Beachcomber parcel situated east of Duck Pond Road, and south of Long Island Sound, Cutchogue, Southold Township, Suffolk County, New York. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study are to determine the potential for recovery of significant historic and/or prehistoric cultural resources; this achieved by means of reference to standard historical resources such as: recent and historic maps, local archives, New York State archives, maps, prehistoric site-lists, personal interviews with local residents, local folklore and oral history, in addition to other sources. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The property, part of an approximately 48 acre proposed motel expansion, consists of three separate parcels (Suffolk County Tax Map #s 1000-83-2-1, 1000-83- 2-2, 1000-83-2-17) comprises an existing motel, one-storey-restauraunt, swimming pool, sandy beach, access driveway , parking lots, as well as a pond, natural surface water drainage area, woodland, brushy areas and maintained lawns. The elevations vary from about 5 feet above mean sea level (msl) to about 50+ feet above msl. The motel and proposed construction site is located on a partially filled and leveled area extending south of the beach and east of Duck Pond Road, in the town of Cutchogue, Township of Southold, New York. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposal, as figured by Barrett, Bonacci, Hyman and Van Weele, Engineers (See proposal site plan) calls for the construction of four one-story motel units, one on the south end of the parcel, one to the north and two in the eastern corner of the parcel. A ring-road with associated parking spaces will provide access to the units. As presently proposed, the site plan would impact approximately one to one and one- half acres of woodland, poorly drained woodland, and former lawn for the construction of the buildings. Additional area is expected to be impacted as a result of the construction of the ring-road and parking lots. See: Beachcomber Motel plan: Barrett, Bonacci, Hyman and Van Weele, project number 86-30, plan date: 7/29/93. ASI A5 Beachcomber/1, CRA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New York LONG ISLAND SOUND _70, DUCK 50, POND ROAD MOTEL POND POOL WOODED fff CABANA 100, Figure 2. Beachcomber Motel and vicinity. After Barrett, Bonacci, Hyman and Van Weele, project number 86-30. Plan date 7-29-93. ASI A6 Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New York ARCHAEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION T000graphv Elevations vary from about 5 feet to more than 50 feet above mean sea level (msl) near the east end of the parcel. Soils The soils of this parcel belong to the Plymouth C and Cut and Fill B. (See Map S Warner, et. al. 1975.) Drainage The parcel is mostly well drained. A portion of the site has a small pond seemingly fed by surface water drainage and partly surrounded by small areas of poorly drained land. Vegetation A mixed hardwood forest covers portions of the parcel, while maintained lawns, plantings, a wet area, plowed and fallow farmland, and brush cover other areas. Forest Zone The original forest zone of the area was probably Northeastern Oak-Pine Forest (See Kuchler 1970). Man-Made Features Man-made features include the above noted structures, interior access roads, a pool, cleared areas, lawns and plantings. Alterations The property has been altered by past clearing of original forest and filling of parts of the marsh and pond area by the McBride owners during the late 1950s. There is topographic evidence that suggests that some parts of the parcel, particularly in close vicinity of the motels structures may have suffered from soil and subsoil diversion or removal that could have altered or destroyed buried cultural evidences, were they present. However, on the periphery of this area there is little evidence of disturbance. ASI A7 Beachcomber 11, CAA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New York Conversations with the tractor operator who worked on the site support this observation. Previous Field Reconnaissance Surveys No previous CRA studies have been reported for this parcel. EXISTING STRUCTURES The existing structures are all contemporary and have no historic or cultural significance. VISUAL INSPECTION A visual inspection was conducted in September 1993. A small pond surrounded by a narrow strip of natural wetland occurs in the southwestern corner of the property. Second growth forest of mixed hardwoods surround the Beachcomber Motel clearing. The wooded areas and those on the periphery of the clearing reveal little evidence of soil disturbance that would affect the potential for recovery of cultural evidence. ASI A8 Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New York DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH I. TEXTS All major references were reviewed such as W. Beauchamp (1900), A. C. Parker (1920), Ritchie (1969), Smith (1950), Ritchie and Funk (1973). II. REFERENCED MAPS: 1. U.S. Coastal Survey Map 1838 2. The Chase Map of 1858 . 3. The Beers Map of 1873. 4. US Coastal Survey 1884. 5. Hyde 1896. 6. USGS Shelter Island Quad. 1904. 7. Hyde 1906. 8. Belcher-Hyde Map of 1909. 9. Dolph and Stewart 1929. 10. USAMS Mattituck Hills 7.5 Min. Quadrangle 1942. 11. USGS Mattituck Hills 7.5 Min. Quadrangle 1956. III. SITE FILES AND EARLY RESIDENCE SITES (a) Prehistoric Gonzales and Rutch (1979) categorize the region of the subject property as an area of "intensive aboriginal habitation" (Gonzales and Rutch 1979:13). Saxon ( 1973) reports two Paleo-Indian fluted-point sites in the general North Fork area. (See Saxon 1973). Parker (1920) makes reference to several sites in the Cutchogue area, attesting to the activity of the prehistoric natives in that area of the island. Parker notes a Stockade south of Cutchogue (#12), a village site near the shore east of Cutchogue (#13), and a burial site east of Southold (#14). Thompson (1977) records a number of unfortified village sites in the general vicinity. 1) Reference to the NYS Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation Office, Albany, New York, small scale Archaeology Sensitivity Map (Updated 3- 86) indicates several prehistoric sites in the general vicinity of the subject property. Other sites have been recorded from the general area in recent years. ASI A9 Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New York 2)The NY State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation Office and the New York State Museum, Site File Office has no information regarding sites located within one-mile of the subject property. 3) A "Indian village site" is purported by local residents to have been located somewhere in the general vicinity of the pond . (b) Historic Reference to the NYS Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation Office, Albany, New York, Archaeology Sensitivity Map (Updated 3-86) indicates no known historic sites in the general vicinity of the subject property. Map references and recollections of long-time residents of the area note the existence of a "fisherman's shack" on the site sometime after World War II. It was razed sometime in the 1950's according to informants. (c) Personal Interviews: Mr. Howard Wells (excavator and tractor operator residing in Mattituck, New York). Mr. Wells a long-time resident of the area reports that the Duck Pond project was his very first excavation job with a new tractor he purchased in 1957. He states he operated the machine on portions of the parcel of Mr. (Mickey) McBride, east of Duck Pond Road and south of the beach, for a good part of 1957 and 1958. He claims to have moved over 20,000 cubic yards of fill on the site. Most of the fill was removed from high ground to the east of the parcel and transferred to the low marshy area ( the pond site). " Much of the topography is filled land there. 1 saw no evidences of Indian artifacts on the portion of the site I worked. The south side of the pond was not owned by Mr. McBride and so I did not work on that area and that area was not filled or disturbed during the period I worked there". Mr. Bill Wilhelm, resides at Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, New York. Mr. Wilhelm has resided on the property overlooking the pond site for the last 23 years. He and his family arrived there in 1970 and engaged Mr. Howard Wells to clear the property and prepare it for construction. Wilhelm reports that Wells had a lot of stories to tell about the area and also worked on the Duck Pond property. "The Beachcomber Motel was built before I got there, but it was a shabby affair, unlike the present structure. There is a local tradition around here that the pond was the site of an Indian encampment. My son collected arrow heads in a number of areas in the immediate vicinity and up on the hill to the west". ASI A10 Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New York Mr. Robert J. Deroski, aged 54, has resided in Cutchogue, New York all of his life. He has stated that a pond existed at the site. "The area around the pond was filled. I have heard that it was a place where (Indian) artifacts were collected, but I have not collected them myself or have 1 seen the materials". MAP ANALYSIS (Reproductions of all maps referenced appear in the Addendum.) 1. U.S. Coastal Survey Map 1838. This excellent map provides a clear picture of the site in 1838. It figures a pond, about 220 feet wide and 240 feet long (about an acre in area), and located about 150 feet from shore; its long axis is figured as trending southeast-northwest. The map indicates that the pond was located at the terminus of an east-west trending elongate depression or valley, which may have figured in its geological formation. The surrounding area is indicated in such a way as to suggest that it had been cleared of vegetation and planted to crops or used as pasture. Fenced property lines are noted which bear approximately S 45o E (magnetic) or roughly parallel to the existing subject property lines. The eastern shore of the pond was figured by the cartographers at about 332 feet west of a steeply sloping hill located on the east side of the parcel. The man-made features noted on the map are comprised only of fence lines; these surround Duck Pond in a rectangular enclosure comprising an area (400 X450 feet) of approximately four acres. No residences were noted near-by. See Addendum Map 1. LONG ISLAND SOUND DUNE? 10' ______ ff 50' FENCE cT ',;l POND _ )}A" vvv J� tl J 1 100, f� � f \ 1838 RECONST111.16TION AFTER USCS. Figure 3. Beachcomber Motel vicinity in 1838, after 1838 USCS. ASI A11 Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New York 2. The Chase Map of 1858 . This map figures the general area in the mid 19th century. It includes the locations of some lot lines and early roads such as Oregon Road (North Road). Unfortunately it provides no clear information on the subject area. The map was defaced by outlining Township lines earlier in this or late in the last century and is relatively useless for specifics in areas close to the coast. However, the residences of Garvey, Hazzard, Corwin and Carey are noted south of the subject property. Hazzard and/or Garvey may have owned the subject property at this date. See Addendum Map 2. 3. The Beers Map of 1873 This map figures the location of all the major roadways and many residences and family names in the area. No structures are indicated within the study area. However, the Garvey, McBride, Corwin, and Newbolt domiciles are noted (from east to west direction) along Oregon Road just south of Duck Pond Point. The Garvey and/or McBride families may have owned the subject parcel at this date. No roadway served the subject property at this date. See Addendum Map 3. 4. US Coastal Survey 1884. The map indicates no structures or residences in the near vicinity of the subject parcel. The pond is figured as a body of water about 150 feet long and 150 feet wide (or about one-half acre) surrounded by marsh. Scattered trees have grown in the low area to the east of the pond, suggesting that this area has been abandoned as pasture. Much of the surroundings are indicated as cleared of forest, presumably they continued to be devoted to pasture and to crops. See Addendum Map 4. 5. Hyde 1896 No structures are figured within the present day Beachcomber Motel parcel. The location of Duck Pond Point has been moved somewhat further to the west on this map than it should have been, however the residences of the Garveys, McBride and Newbold are noted in their relatively correct locations along Oregon Road, from these we can infer the actual location of Duck Pond Point. At this date the McBride (and/or Garvey) family were probably the owner(s) of that portion of the shore area that was to later become the subject property. See Addendum Map 5. 6. USGS Shelter Island Quad. 1904 This map indicates the Duck Pond Road and its location for the first time. No houses or other structures are noted along its course. The topography of the area is accurately figured in this first "modern" map. See Addendum Map 6. 7. Hyde 1906. No structures are indicated within the subject parcel. Probable owners of the subject property at this date reside along the north side of Oregon Road (North Road) and are listed (from east to west) as: Bernard Garvey, O. McBride, and C. Garvey. See Addendum Map 7. 8. Belcher-Hyde Map of 1909 The map indicates the locations of the John AS! Al2 Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New York Lindsay, Garbey (sic), and Newbold residences on the north side of North Road (Oregon Road) and their property lines north to the Sound shore. At this date (1909) Charles Garbey and Owen McBride appear to have owned all of that parcel that was to become the Beachcomber Motel parcel. To the east of the Charles Garbey parcel was the Newbold property which at this date bordered on Duck Pond Road which had apparently been constructed sometime between 1896 and 1904. See Addendum Map 8. 9. Dolph and Stewart 1929. This map notes the properties of Garney (sic) and McBride. No other details are figured. Duck Pond Road is also noted. See Addendum Map 9. 10. USAMS Mattituck Hills 7.5 Min. Quadrangle 1942. This map figures the location of a structure at the terminus of Duck Pond Road in the approximate location of the present day Beachcomber Motel restaurant. The structure is small and may have been a fisherman's shack or a seasonal recreational structure. Most of this shoreline area south of the beach had become forested by this date. No evidence of a pond is indicated. See Addendum Map 10. 11. USGS Mattituck Hills 7.5 Min. Quadrangle 1956. Sometime in the interval between 1942 and 1956 the structure noted to occur on the subject parcel was razed or removed; at this date (1956) the site has no structures. The map indicates a depression, separated from the Sound by a sandy bar and beach, this feature is of the size and in the location of the former pond, but no wet areas are noted. The map indicates a relatively level area to the east of the former pond site, in the approximate location of the present-day Beachcomber Motel restaurant. The map indicates a diminution of the wooded land noted in the earlier map. See Addendum Map 11. ASI A13 Beachcomber//, CRA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New York HISTORIC CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY The earliest settlers who came to what is now Cutchogue came from the east, from Southold; they arrived here between 1648-1650 when the long lots of western Southold, which stretched from the north shore to the Peconic River were divided up among the townspeople. Soon trading and bartering and buying of lots provided families with sufficient sized parcels to operate subsistence farms on which they settled and soon prospered. The early settlers cut the forests to clear the land, and also to exploit wood for fuel for sale to fuel hungry surrounding cites, such as New Haven, New York, and Boston. As they cleared the land they plowed it and planted grass to pasture cattle and sheep. The more fertile land was planted to field crops such as rye, wheat, corn, vegetables, and flax, all mostly for home use. In the fall, fattened cattle were driven along the north shore to the market centers in the western end of the island. As they slowly wandered to the west through field and forest, they were concentrated at convenient way places for control and counting. To accomplish this they were "baited" with fresh hay and salt-licks at strategic locations where native forage and water were available. One of these was a large depression along the north shore route known then and now as Baiting Hollow. From here some may have been driven on to the west to cross Red River, a shallow creek through which they had to wade--now known as Wading River. From here some driven south by the cattle drovers and were penned up at Horn Tavern on Middle Country Road from which they may have been driven west to cattle auctions found along the middle highway, or some were loaded onto sloops at Wading River where they were carried to other ports to the west end of the island and even to distant places such as the West Indies. After the close of the Revolutionary War economic, agricultural, and political problems surfaced. There were residual political scars left as a result of the different attitudes of the settlers toward the War; there were scarcities of crop seeds, and breeding-stock caused by the War; the Hessian soldiers brought a European wheat disease in the grain that they carried here--the Hessian Fly--which caused almost complete crop failure. Also crop yields were down as the virgin soils which were farmed year after year had by this time become depleted. Scarce animal manures were used on corn and hay fields and vegetable patches, leaving pastures without fertilizer. Soon many of these soils were so poor, they had to be abandoned. As a consequence, farmers were forced to continually clear more land--even those with only marginal potential for successful productivity. It may have been about this time that the subject parcel was cleared, probably for pasture land. Early in the 1800s, in a search for a means of fertilizing their fields, farmers began exploiting the spring runs of Menhaden along the north shore. These fish were captured by means of nets-- long beach seines. Each net length was woven from local flax by a family which had a corresponding share in the catch. The flax grown on the ASI A14 Beachcomber ll, CRA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New York farm was spun and then woven into nets by the women. The men carried the nets in skiffs out to deep water--sewn together by the several members--then returned to the shore where the net lines was hauled in. The catch of fish was divided up and carried to the farms where it was broad-cast over the fields. Sometimes it was buried in hills of corn and squash. The fish were often buried in a furrow at the side of a field, and later, after rotting though the summer, the resulting material was spread over the field for the winter wheat crop. Farmers soon found that fish meal was not good for all crops. They learned that repeated applications of fish manure would decrease their grass crops; some found that applications of wood ash would remedy this problem. In about 1844 the Long Island Rail Road extended to its line to Greenport. Farmers soon realized that their market crops could be sold profitably in densely populated New York City-- a place which at this time required increasing amounts of fresh fruit, vegetables and other foodstuffs. The rail line spurred agriculture on the eastern end of Long Island. At an early date an ice house was located along the rail road, to serve the needs of farmers sending tender crops and produce into the city. The ice was probably cut from the Peconic River just south of the rail road. With these improvements farmers sought additional acreage to clear and to plant crops. Later in the 19th century, and into the first half of this century, more acreage was brought under intensive crop cultivation--probably including some parts of subject property. The Beachcomber property was probably cleared of forest sometime in late colonial times. Actual evidence of agricultural activity occurs early in the last century, probably by members of the Carey, Corwin, and Hazzard families, who were early settlers of the area. By about the 1840s this section of the township was relatively densely populated and actively farmed. However, no structures were built on the Beachcomber parcel during this period. Our earliest information on the subject site is found in the first half of the 19th century, which indicates the site as a level area with a pond of about one acre or more in extent on a low lying area just south of the beach. The area surrounding the pond is separated from the east, south, and west by low hills, through which a narrow valley trends off to the east. In the first half of the 19th century the entire area was utilized for agriculture, and trees were scarce, having probably been cut for fuel and to clear land for crops and pasture. The pond was fenced, probably to control access by cattle. Property lines are noted which bear approximately parallel to the existing subject property lines of this day. At this time the eastern shore of the pond was drawn on the map (USCS 1834) by the cartographers at about 332 feet west of the steeply sloping eastern highlands, indicating that the pond probably extended to the east about 100 or 150 feet further than it does today. Our first evidence concerning the ownership of the parcel occurs from the latter half of the 19th century; at this time maps indicate that farming families residing along ASI A15 Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New Yak Oregon Avenue held parcels which extended north to the Sound shore. No structures are indicated within the study area at this period. The lot-line evidences suggest that the Garvey and/or McBride families may have owned the subject parcel and surrounding properties at this time. By the late 19th century (1884) the pond is mapped as a body of water of about one-half acre surrounded by marsh. Evidence suggests it had been abandoned as pasture land and had been permitted to grow up into woodland. Sometime after the turn of the century Duck Pond Road was constructed, probably within the Newbold parcel east of the Garvey and McBride lots. During the interval between 1904 and 1942 a small structure, possibly a fisherman's shack or recreational structure was raised at the terminus of Duck Pond Road. Later it was burned or razed, so that by 1956 the property was again unencumbered by structures. During this period the pond had apparently dried up or had been partially filled by blowing sand or moving dunes. Sometime after 1956, the McBride owners hired Mr. Howard Wells of Mattituck, an excavator, to partially fill the low marshy area south of the beach. Mr. Wells reports that in 1957 and 1958 he moved over 20,000 cubic yards of fill from the east side of the parcel to the south in order to partially fill the pond. Since the McBrides did not own the entire parcel upon which the pond was found only a portion of it was filled. The McBrides sold the parcel to investors who held it briefly and sold it again until it finally became the property of the Aliano family, sometime prior to the 1970s; they constructed the Beachcomber Motel on the site. At the present time the pond covers an area of less than one-tenth of an acre. ASI Ars Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New York SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT AND POTENTIAL FOR PREHISTORIC SITES Evidence gathered for this report suggests the possibility of recovery of prehistoric cultural material on portions of the parcel. CONCLUSIONS The parcel is in a general area of intensive prehistoric activity and habitation. The pond presently located on the site was much larger in the past than it is at present, and in former times could have been used as a source of fresh water by prehistoric native Americans. The Beachcomber parcel and pond figure in a local oral tradition as the site of an "Indian camp". Informants report that artifacts ("arrowheads") have been recovered in the local area by residents. The property has been largely cleared, filled and altered by construction over the decades since 1957, however, areas of undisturbed soil remain which, given the foregoing, have potential to reveal archaeological resources. RECOMMENDATIONS A Stage IB, field reconnaissance study of limited areas on the site is recommended to evaluate the local tradition of an encampment site, and field observations which suggest the possibility of archaeological resources and potential for cultural sensitivity revealed by the archival and documentary research. GOALS OF ADDITIONAL STUDIES Based on the results of the Stage IA study, ASI recommends that a field reconnaissance study be performed to address the potential for recovery of prehistoric evidences by a standard program of subsurface tests and systematic surface observations. ASI A17 Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New York BIBLIOGRAPHY Barrett, Bonacci, Hyman and Van Weele, Mao of Beachcomber II , project 1993 number 86-30, plan date: 7/29/93. Bayles, Richard M. 1874 Historic and Descriotive Sketches of Suffolk County, W.A.. Overton, Port Jefferson, New York. Flint, Richard F. 1957 Glacial and Pleistocene Geology, John Wiley and Sons. Fuller, Myron L. 1914 The Geology of Lona Island. US Geological Survey Professional Paper#82, US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Gonzales, Ellice B. and Ed Rutch 1978 Suffolk County Cultural Resources Inventory, Drawer AR, Stony Brook, New York. Halsey, William D. 1966 Sketches From Local History The Yankee Peddler Book Co. Southampton, New York. Kuchler, A.W. Potential Natural Vegetation In: The National Atlas of the 1970 United States, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. pp 89-91. Pelletreau, W. S. 1903 A History of Long Island. Vol. I and 11. Lewis Publishing Co. New York City, N.Y. Prime, Nathaniel S. 1845 A History of Long Island. Robert Carter Publishers, 58 Canal Street, New York. ASI A18 Beachcomber Il, CRA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New York Ritchie, William A. 1961 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. New York State Museum and Science Service, Bulletin # 384. The Univ., of the State of New York, State Education Department, Albany, New York. Saxon, Walter 1973 The Paleo-Indian on Long Island, N.Y. State Bull. of the Arch. Association. March 1973 (Reprinted in: Coastal Archaeology Reader, 1954-1977, vol. 11, SCAA, Stony Brook, New York. Tooker, William W. 1911 Indian Place Names on Long Island. Reprinted 1962. Ira Friedman Port Washington, New York. Warner, John, et. al. 1975 Soil Survey of Suffolk County New York, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 20250. ASI A19 Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage !A, Cutchogue, New York ADDENDA ASI A20 r i .a"•• "b. 1�• / A� L •,: _ - - -1-------- i - - - \'1 -- �-- � �„Il�rdlf-avr�:sr."� '�i 1 46 .H♦:. 1 ,11, 1 _,__. •*. _ /rte . , 1 � PROO AREA / «��"`YstJ r ;.�• NraA w�rr ' ) n-J/roti t V �{ c' .., r•rrr.J•l' � t�. .,� • , rM ' r i . i J .... 'v.Y=4•�• .. to .n. ti • . j♦ !i _y '�" i "• •"� ♦J " "' t f :i a ♦ 11ry �� R," . .. .- •r„^"r.�,' , r ft= • .`�)� � M/' / fit`\, .- xw �Wu m {. - • r...r.tn., :}+..:iRr.r.,. y .O�C t ,{ ',1 .A Ap qtr — _),.. .-��:."' � �.♦,,.., , M• >)r • ♦ � g f 1 •. �.,, � • . •IT°+' IITI'11,1GIT.�: rt�.. f +`�� .ek4♦r+'� Ix / � �\\ ) •��kM. iltl = po 1, �y, 4 •! /+Yr n.bd 'Pf • .. t �1,M1. Alf. 1 ' - � � fhC\ S Ir � � A. ♦'rY.aP IA 11 .1 Nvvt��< pf - hl.,4r qr� � . Rf♦hinl+ �i i' 1� � i�� 1 � ,�i�J�l'�111 O )' R IS –�__ n_ W:rresT++.• MANOR H I LLS r u C K ] s it` ro th, c'7Y. i • �` , _ o ?i ✓TRra're If f) 4 sZ*<. S'. 1 K 44r.p r�tioc*ck 4 rf t?�L r�ogeSi'°c;%1�1�p' n • •1 aza»� , I �r�'rr �1J/ '♦` 1, , r_a s,It.rrrNr.� P��r ��.h- r♦ pr1-;r: I"r. l r`a�4a`I/',�"1,�jloe`�wpF*�wrJ�+5��r4.e 0i�t)e ��d." ♦t\r X.Lrurc - a T'c. `♦�1SS C..° er Rln.r ♦ ra' '� ♦ !r nrr`,l X44 4 - (��r(.N II.ZlJrrun � 4 r• alri do "�f- le\V .,7. .d�q �.rp�c°4.i`�� ic`;Ilxru°°k II Uo ei� I' R(nr. tV'" 11 irs`yri I • 4�id D(' - .. .r ,l I af. ` "f.�{ E-r'.rE'.r-P,y"-sy"�.. ".��y_...-<.0�`''a�EE h� 'I� � ° Pr 1r 4R) .r• •rI M T .'F' . Z• v4 i I� II I A., ^ I \ re r JL•1',? `e� ](pf f. , r,. •r. TGIF J '2'v� `�� 1 � .` 1vn �C..r'�\ <r rl.. x� -�C r , .. ,<rrt•� Rs •i i 4S l r'�—dfn�,pn x,\` 0 uorc. �h�4 �.oAYI' N. r t,J hF'll ' 1'•Tbarfbrd 1 • 01 p 1 n J�J m . oA t. I 0 ) i� 1 \ �7l rcn • o I, dso. _� °/% QErt. , ' ! r.B Vic•" 1 LlTdul�C.r.' urh '—�d•l.R7us� .� (' � ers sP,r 1 La a ,, , Kiwrhle+ `; H 21Xr � uD%R� ck rm Ia D I $T 11010x ' � t�..7Srrkill I1� D IS r. T N ° 14 1•»°nryun ,J.I/ rl�rsI .lFa. l P.Oetrc7 1 III ygl/Nl`�Iya e ✓W .2 -1j 29° p dX ! v u_! Rr \ glib p i aS� o '.I C �.6 4lC E tr R! I q,1 y ..l • ufcsGAu,' ,,,.Ib �V D 1\.S T NO \ Bt1e a �F 111` • illy r\� l CY ly Dmgrf. r8 YXrrrnc m•t) I b n'oor • d •J f'I'IIDAarron J�f - /' f 4 0 r trap�p6� 4f ''�G7hXCureY(o'ru. •\�11I�lC �a,...s.• ` 8 d ffc �` I♦ IETdJ'P.CCoarrJrrh7ir n r ].r ,o°rryISBG "er ♦'rY c rYl,•.iyr n+rus e '1 i• P�f«f��?�`qy�aC•' 1trPr�:c9�t i 95ra 1r KS'4' v :r Cf) N99 t• c r r. fFr 5 °An i n •N �� print,♦� Keasu. •.�` • • • 'P�yc[I pyNar Hyl SY'`.u,rtd .vol�C'/+a7�rch ' �,f1 ` p�rrh' ral •�Ili�b°p �.�' I �/ 6�rm • q Cr r 4 J��yr/r fN' dl dB. 1 er - i' R" eu Y Ary ''pia sP(J bClpp'C[•4A _. �w°r1A r /�/�/� r.Jl�'�t rhl Jl ' Trtfleill^ , •'� )[• :. % 5 9�PB iria} aa.pgp Srl T P d`c IJieeve- , i� %�4 •11 c.'I'Trd r Id � pA';� •' ,L�• c S](°o �p9 fdt . / nrr•n�r�A �JfnHorron S 0` ° c 4 � 5 � • / ♦ � "It k ��Evl: =�T�� 1'r /6.SFRe✓e l e"° ,. Y yue • �11Narros (� 6rNi rrrr� ` Irlr �' R �, ♦ A .7 . could;yi'�'ua..1�.. °.�+pr] � .� r• e•. '1 P , rce bE' / L S] 7.0'' / cl.fonht+n'a• 1^ 6w d T [a 1 _ r ]InTllt ST • J �`��fTT1 . rte !!VI•i 1 ( A .{•/�• p'a9�'9..•{lp �( P;IA] �C �S,� �,:n � cr's1 pre '�S rnorp R/2; TnPt�'p•dX.'ti 1?T�•�r3 , 1 \� I'I�II:Rdimon r p�;. �`tS'L�rr„A 6� �.,48'�irF1 � `^ LA >-p,r. S�G� {� .` rv`°��.$( � ( rR�v.r• i .,// �, .s Ic ��c�t�,, � ( 74'" � a .yn� ♦p a-runr �f! 8`�r �+/�•d�SI {• � )�rl, n r�ct• . ;.rra. �1 �� - r. l 1 p v" FRdti RI.L\VILi3 > '• • rwp _ CUT DINP LJervungsv y r J - -G P E. A- r z r c o �NT T c" BAY ✓ wr �y, I��1'�I , �� I�, �} 7 TI f% �� rv5Trd711/1 I � � PROJECT ARE \ A lip w• 1�. ,n \ \ \" \ . \ if �t'• n ' . �..,---.� IS 99 1 I �?�a 1 � � 1 \ \\ \ \ F F \?. \ V . '\••I:�VIsJ�i-f\T i• y,;1 O� 11 \ \ • �1 cn utw . .gy.w..a.u.w w T D 91 g 6< r 7), f U � E l\nclorst�. +2 4�'�rd w +i a i PR®JEC ARTA fart U) f° • f3 ,6 + [ \J. S'q `.. -- fzy ♦5't• 15...iP. •^ [.f n- � g;i N m tl �y ° I` .r.G �•P'4''9`,° Sd r.g' • lU 9 5 .1 � � �'y.�y •�S• �S c.9° �' � r.,.•,r..:•.•r .falr,n fn 6Yc 4e. )' c� 5 4 tG°\ ; K .` .� • q /c• �/ T y..• ,a it f 6 5 5 +`' rU S0N fTTYtA ~.i• .. �- ."'... F�. :� A^s P i g f5 +� 6 b,^` .k�. ,fe HO ^t 1f4�'�1::•:r' ley..f:�• 1 :•[ ':1, ��`;• ,. •tip ➢ick\'onA14�i3 L' ! i T it a �?4 �i bi f".i ` • <f •., 'o•..: �' f ••�� i M ,4 ..1.�� • tri u��o��l 61i �\.5 e �e 4 �S t` k3 3 t iv `a 7 [ E av a 4 �.°� • < '�Ft �°�t•� �]�� f] • . �t 4 S • ZUNI G t� � fS. � 4 �° a � � t`' .•y�' r ;'.. •;ti:� 1 :j ! Ily +,e4 ` ` s.. tt 1 F� Shy `jF ^ p .9C Szk 'fj L~ f\`f,.'- V:v •/ fj "; �•\ . °+ • I ��. 2 `(�F:^ b� �\oru�� fI a. 9 of oas( t1" i n d.�e<� �. � - +.x.uv.. 0° Y_. ��U\'�'\'4� t _ V < r�eom • •Y•1•• • w0•T ,Y I.•.'O y :Jwn.d rwrN.f1 yH\ . v++ff n ,gIC..Iw..~v:��'41 V S O v I•l/ O L D �_ •\ <.t y\ IYW(rcxn�' 7(n, )Y L..YE •� �SC°A i` 4:TvY. �v.L[�4.. v� R�� _ t 1114��.. f� ✓✓� �� 6' (t P..J.I• 4�i t ) ,� ° [ � `rrr '. �j/��w 11l i;, E t.�Eto � n .A � \ ,r. � � < c i�gS � •� •t _ i r rr1 s..(.a ao: '[ d /�. �q+* er^...... Y6r•� ..�.0 •! �. •f.\`.'`�S[�°� �k .*,��' ii.r. .�A..r•• *r,��., r•..A.11 ti. awn(^..� NMI' i r... f. : NORT �i��-�_ CIO KVJ 63 7i i N�1�I A h .tom ,- i .'- �v' ,^j ti I � IS t• /h /1 TT T /� TJ A' '[�I. ' I 1A ax PRpp ftOJL``-- CTA 4, 4x. 9 e 10 7 B 314x' S . 6Y�r 4�r 3'74' 4 10 is 10 .9 Ya ,.0� 6< 4ya- 11 6 5 $ 15 6Y2 16 - 9%4 . Gkx 6 14 15 14 1/ L IIplg '�v tT 4x 7 11 Ducl��'anlT 3 t< �Y2+ 6 r 3Y2x 9 6yz y 12 six ax 10 ,^' +.'� .��" 4 4 ;•r SAX Y. .y •.•`Y ,�Y �,�, 4. ,.� cn M xIt" 4 s� 0 L',s " + r� ,�5, ��Y'Q "GG k < Y•'tf p ` 3�+/'� 4x 9 G +t N 10 "A� S��'r�� z�1+g �� ` ..✓4,.% �,y'4�.# v ♦ 6r' p � a 3 Fy c'�2 yd'!t' •F.l+Ll<r1' N• ��y. U� '�'. ��i�.Z� 5 ';.4a� A�Fy i� �~ � ��N:�� E,o ud"i � �, ,�' .f . ,�B t�+�i vt,;; ♦ �� n u , Sq ro f � •� � ��h. � > a� ��; � ��=afy<• c , rcJ,f S 9�.�.. 4;�' ��tFy y,; �p�.� i K �V 4 0�:1''- �� I' :"a�1� � �+� 'p pit• p 4 v .�.�M e1' k;,• � •c w t• 't/ T t n.. p �t dna 0� it e V E s r eroo 1.f a 3 s sr e >�� a• > ''j .o. � M A: q { x �` ',(� w,f. p'f A r. r. � �' q r �'' ,• 'r r„ - ��. 1•., A. .v� r � �••� •'��y� r';�,�.r�. S.D�'� • A'r°'e.. Tp�` • �a�11! ..,m� •Nr[ti i'°''t..<�• x.4v .r �K v:• ,1�i`'.'.��1 ♦ •" H• :,�. 4 S W � � 'C.� �?ti, 4�[l,�k, Ilt4� �'L� , � �If•� i� ` 1ohb�':, Y 7 �� - - R S + Z �baF � � � •t. �, ��If`��a��'. ~••� �j j�� •r.�b.� � 9 �IL 16 v :hSJ 'iNv" •.� c]. ..tis. S i .t 13 �C ei '�{'iJ i�i.:' 4 •e 'co •1�'•.r'' .� •� Ei � R • u� a. O'�..: ! .G. _ i '3 1 3` .� v� a°. ` px, •u�"h� 7 C ,fh� �� I d ' 0 3 13 1 '��, ei•y�<„9" `••pl ��• 1 4 4n'q'' f •7 q yylyy _ 2 IF , �_�. e, f �.�•.i..+k,yd y�� 1 f , . .•a ' _�'wµs' a.c ��''� ,9 L -t , , 2 T ARE Ail Ilk a1 . .'•,i:�. �3 f �,t ASI PAGE #28 PROJECT AREq sr H I L L 5 Oaa U C T U G v o °� H I L L S Q K /Yic fart tom+ 4 l w ' �° E t o k o f `l Oo .a h A.Cox r•lNicRPrt 4Q .� ; ti 'U .J �_r4 _ f'" ?�Mohoney a0 '6 C AE.Pob,;�sen l h �l R oA Qium � 0 U p ti y - Formon �. Q � • - j \ 0 b Q a H-Go1es - _•� - ZuhuaRi V \ t Barger �� lYB RePK OQZH Zuhoek!, > Homi&Vo7 ATER V I " r9 ChudioA Noeotka r � J Moae c aha CC� ti 1� 5 6.Terry W P.Ru/ond/f-tlutbi% Bib/a.rki T' M`Brde M �1 �! Shore Acre N!,?abmsan L serkoski Chudio� B6Tuthi/ Nortowicz MSido/ opo ,�` 4,5;2,e/man R✓Monafion ck ,per To//e wood 1TMu//e fSotEar� WHSotfrr� Lreihrw H•ST th%/moo r Qa ton Esl Biawar 'n�o��'E y wE7 quq £st �y!OTuthi// C.F.Ha//oc% P.Ru/cid d.B T�thj// /�artOn PC ene sk, A.SQowns �' r S lTM.Lipton Bayer�ondo/phi! '(yA1hR 2 1 - ✓.B.Ooy ton i 6HortonEJt " �r2 f ,/orombea.F! - a car •C o 4 - h a U `C�p m `� ✓.IY.Tuthi//`_.`o �� ,� � � �? � �� `��° � � is ° '� � • �? z° Secko � v fon,i/i l G.HorCon,Eo! _ c, .Nrk p y v art. •` �cHBTulhi// w. � '•r �T,y 'ilojem'/r, - � -( a .F. N �.Fo ✓.17orwvi, _ C "[ - r�eM �mP rwiiy �5 r+A E MATT(7-UG d41�`:�s��. -4, . Y � a -t *';ear•'"' ��- \ _ �M k fA R w 'S j. •J� W� Z t r ' j. DINA bo s g / s of ff• � •Jr ` 41 WBtE i PAS E #30 ; iae t,,,naptic,w .n s ; �rwr.r..� •w�, at wa a[ F,-•Y - 'S'% ? VF ..«T�' L"'P2Ntfu ' e�,,.w�Tk t Yf'•3�•�! "i4r. ;. -. lia''N in III I J9 /6 dip j 32 / /5 � IJ 12, i /5 a - J6 6 55 a 55 - 22Du0k 40 713 ]; CT,ABS 33 13 .. 25 I♦ �'� \"\ ,, agora ] r • � /P of -'.. \ �\ \ _ `\ _ 9 All ?� \ p ,A 12 d p 21 a,\9 \ o o � as \ o � as ss % /' � • .� tj 50 a 12 • *,5 � " ^�. /.,, Baa V A ..Ai q ' .-. /��'' ' v Watelwilleo \ s Vz y 2,1 � ♦ ... , Qo 1 as \ 't �✓�. f.""�\ _f f •• as , aye -. 32.30" "ITUCK(JUNC.N.Y.181 D.e M/. • �i mo•_' :{w w•vrt. .••xI1S/CK /.D Ml.� 7: - - R/KRNEAO 1] M/. ROAD CLASSIFICATION �.. Heavy-duty— Lightduty— soon 6000 •. 700o t a w „ I I• Medumduty - Un4npraed did........ :.�.1j - x r t � !-, � ��"}^w7�,.G�'�,'e1, '`t•. -aG4' S day �'w'Y�.t' - f> PAS E #31 P�LpE PTION-N,S� 09 ry n Q 9 2 o New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau o NEW YORK STATE 5z Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-237-8643 Orin Lehman Commissioner October 7, 1993 Robert J. Kalin, SCCC Archeological Services Incorporated P.O. Box 1522 Rocky Point, New York 11778 Dear Professor Kalin: RE: SEQRA Beachcomber II Motel Southold(T) , Suffolk County 93PR1557 The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has received the documentation you provided on your project. As the state agency responsible for the coordination of the State's historic preservation programs, we offer the following comments. A search of our archeological inventory shows no known archeological sites within a one mile radius of the Beachcomber II site, as indicated on your submitted map. If you have any questions or comments on this matter, please call me at 518/237-8643, ext. 280. Sin rely, Z't mes Warren. rogram Assistant Field Services Bureau JPW:tr W09888/100693 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency C,or01.0 on recvcle0 caner Beachcomber Il, CRA Stage 0, Cutchogue, New York CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT STAGE IB FIELD RECONNAISSANCE BEACHCOMBER II CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK A S I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. POB 1522, ROCKY POINT, NEW YORK 11778 ASI B1 Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage fB, Cutchogue, New York BEACHCOMBER II CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK FIELD RECONNAISSANCE DATE : MARCH 1994 Date of this file: APRIL 15, 1994 AUTHOR AND PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: PROF. ROBERT J. KALIN SIGNED: DATE: ROBERT J. KALIN PROFESSOR, SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGIST EXCEEDS NATIONAL PARK AND NEW YORK STATE STANDARDS, NEW YORK STATE CERTIFIED PRESIDENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. POB 1522, ROCKY POINT, NEW YORK 11778 ARCHAEOLOGY SEAL ASI B2 Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage .B, Cutchogue, New York ABSTRACT The parts of the proposed Beachcomber II development site to be impacted by construction in Cutchogue, New York has been evaluated for presence or absence of cultural resources. A methodological surface examination and a subsurface protocol which included digging and analyzing subsurface tests revealed no significant cultural materials in the restricted areas studied. � LONG ISLAND SOUND MONTAUK POINT SUFFOLK COUNTY PROJECT AREA ATLANTIC OCEAN @1S MILES Figure 1. Map showing general location of the study area. ASI B3 Beachcomber II, CRA Stage !B, Cutchogue, New York CONTENTS ABSTRACT AND LOCATION MAP...............................................B 3 LISTOF FIGURES............................................................................B 5 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................B 6 OBJECTIVES....................................................................................B 6 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION...............................................B S GENERAL METHODS......................................... ...........................B11 SUBSURFACE STUDY AND STRATEGY..................................B12 FIELDMETHODS.............................................................................B13 SUBSURFACE SUMMARY............................................................B14 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................... ...........B14 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................B16 ASI B4 Beachcomber II, CRA Stage !B, Cutchogue, New York LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. General location map ...................................Page B3 Figure 2. Location map ................................................... Page 137 Figure 3. Map of test areas............................................Page 1311 Figure 4. Sketch of artifact recovered..........................Page B12 Table 1. Field Data.........................................................Page B13 ASI B5 Beachcomber!!, CAA Stage !B, Cutchogue, New York INTRODUCTION The following report is the result of a cultural resources field reconnaissance study of restricted portions (areas A-E) of the proposed Beachcomber II development site, at the Beachcomber Motel parcel, Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, Southold Township, Suffolk County, New York. OBJECTIVES The objective of this study is to make an assessment, by means of surface observation and subsurface testing (shovel tests), regarding the presence or absence of significant cultural evidence within the defined impact areas (A-E) of the subject parcel. See Figure 3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The property, part of which is the subject of this report, is an approximately 48 acre proposed motel-expansion site which encompasses three separate parcels (Suffolk County Tax Map #s 1000-83-2-1, 1000-83-2-2, 1000-83-2-17) and has an existing motel, one-storey-restauraunt, swimming pool, beach, access driveway , parking lots, as well as a small vernal pond, natural surface water drainage area, farmland, woodland, brushy areas and maintained lawns. The elevations vary from about 5 feet above mean sea level (msl) to about 50+ feet above msl. The motel and proposed construction site is located on a partially filled and leveled area extending south of the beach and east of Duck Pond Road, in the town of Cutchogue, Township of Southold, New York. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposal, as figured by Barrett, Bonacci, Hyman and Van Weele, Engineers (See proposal site plan in Draft Environmental Impact Statement) calls for the construction of four one-story motel units, one on the south end of the parcel, one to the north and two in the eastern corner of the parcel. A ring-road with associated parking spaces will provide access to the units. As presently proposed, the site plan would impact approximately one to one and one-half acres of filled land, presently maintained lawn and small portions of woodland, poorly drained woodland, and former lawn for the construction of the buildings. See: Beachcomber Motel plan: Barrett, Bonacci, Hyman and Van Weele, project number 86-30, plan date: 7/29/93. AS! B6 Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage !B, Cutchogue, New York LONG ISLAND SOUND '. —BEACH _ 10' DUCK �� 50' POND /J , ROAD MOTEL / 111 (j/ r PONDPOOL �/ WOODED CABANA 111111 •� 100' Figure 2. Beachcomber Motel and vicinity. Atter Barrett, Bonacci, Hyman and Van Weele, project number 86-30. Plan date 7-29-93. Structure designations are intended to show approximate locations only. ASI B7 Beachcomber//, CRA Stage !B, Cutchogue, New York ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION Topography Elevations vary from about 5 feet to more than 50 feet above mean sea level (msl). The higher elevations occur in the south and east areas. Soils The soils of this parcel belong to the "Plymouth C' and "Cut and Fill B" series of soils. (See Map 8 Warner, et. al. 1975.) Drainage The parcel is mostly well-drained. A portion of the site has a small pond partially surrounded by poorly drained land. Vegetation Maintained lawns on filled land, landscaped areas and foundation plantings covers most of the area, while woodland , farmed areas, patches of Phragmites, and under storey vegetation mantle other areas. Forest Zone The original forest zone of the area was probably Northeastern Oak-Pine Forest (See Kuchler 1970). Man-Made Features Man-made features include the above noted structures, as well as an interior access drive, a swimming pool, cleared areas, recreational areas, lawns and plantings. Alterations The property has been altered by past forest clearing and filling of parts of the marsh and pond area by the McBride owners, during the late 1950s. There is topographic evidence that suggests that some parts of the parcel, particularly in close vicinity of the motel structures, may have suffered from soil and subsoil disturbance or removal that could have altered or destroyed buried cultural evidences, were they present. However, on the periphery of this area there is little evidence of disturbance. ASI B8 Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage !B, Cutchogue, New York Conversations with the tractor operator who worked on the site support this observation. See Beachcomber II, Stage IA report. Previous Field Reconnaissance Surveys No previous field Cultural Resources Assessment studies have been reported for this parcel. EXISTING STRUCTURES The existing structures include the Beachcomber Motel facility, cabana, pool, and detached individual motel units; the structures are all contemporary and have no historic or cultural significance. VISUAL INSPECTION A visual inspection was conducted in September 1993. A small apparently seasonal pond surrounded by narrow band of predominately Phragmites vegetation occurs in the southwestern corner of the impact area (northwest of over-all parcel). Second growth forest of mixed hardwoods surround the Beachcomber Motel clearing to the south the largest portion of the over-all parcel . The wooded areas and those on the periphery of the clearing reveal little evidence of soil disturbance that would affect the potential for recovery of cultural evidence. ASI B9 Beachcomber tt, CRA Stage !B, Cutchogue, New York LONG ISLAND SOUND Ex 10' DUCK50' POND Q1 ::.. ROAD MOTEL0"' WOODED POND POOL SURFACE FINDS 100, ® i � (flake, cora, p Test Hole ........... . CABANA rl�\� stone tool') C ......:::: .......... :Q� 3 1 .. post ® Boulders E Proposed SURFACE FIND Pro P ::0::::::::A; /(point base) Well Site 4 Al 3 See illustration in Figure 4. Figure 3. Map of study areas A-E, test hole locations, and positions of surface finds. FIELD SURVEY DATES AND CONDITIONS The field survey was conducted on March 24 and 25 1994. FIELD TEAM The survey team consisted of the author and principal investigator of this study and Mr. John Kalin and Mr. Carlton E. Welch, both of ASI. ASI B10 Beachcomber 1l, CAA Stage !B, Cutchogue, New York DISPOSITION OF ARTIFACTS OR OTHER EVIDENCES Any cultural materials removed from the property for further study or identification are temporarily stored at the ASI facility at Rocky Point, New York. They are ultimately returned to the owner or, if appropriate, are submitted to the Southold New York State Archaeological Association Museum, Southold, New York for conservation. GENERAL METHODS A. SYSTEMATIC SURFACE SURVEY: Systematic observations of the surface were conducted by walking oriented transects along magnetic azimuths, each separated by 25 foot intervals. Close visual inspection was made of soil subsoil exposures. 1. RESULTS OF SURFACE OBSERVATIONS The systematic surface survey revealed evidences of stripping, grading, and filling. Glass, aluminum, plastic and other materials are found scattered over the parcel in a manner and density consistent with its use as a summer recreational area. Four (4) prehistoric evidences were recovered including two formal stone tools and two evidences of tool manufacture. The recoveries included a point-base of milky quartz, recovered from the surface of the farm field within impact area E; and a preform (rough-out) point or cutting tool of milky quartz, a pebble core, and a waste flake which were recovered from the area between areas A and B. See Figure 3, page 10. ASI B11 Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage !B, Cutchogue, New York •' is uuunnuuuuuu 1 inch Figure 4. Sketch of coarsely flaked milky quartz prehistoric formal tool recovered from the surface of Beachcomber Motel property between study area A and B. B. SUBSURFACE STUDY: 1. STRATEGY: Soils evolve with the climatic and cultural history of the parcel. Cultural and other evidences may be buried within the soil and preserved there. These materials, and the cultural information they may embody, can be recovered by disinterment and separation from the enclosing soil by sieving, by cleaning, and finally identification, evaluation, counting, sketching, measuring, and recording. Since only portions of the entire solum may be available for study, or it may be impractical to test the entire soil mantle, sampling of discrete areas by shovel tests within the impact area is necessary. Shovel test sites were made in those areas mantled by relatively undisturbed soil as well as in areas that were obviously graded. In general tests were located within the impact area in such a way as to prevent concentration of testing in areas possessing any particular characteristic of soil, topography, or disturbance level in preference to those lacking these characteristics. From these data a determination of the presence or absence of significant cultural ASI B12 Beachcomber!!, CRA Stage !B, Cutchogue, New York materials may be generated. 2. FIELD METHODS Field crew members located designated test zones following magnetic azimuths determined by reference known points and to a hand-held Suunto compass. Distances were estimated by pacing and by chaining. Test holes were dug at predetermined locations within the proposed impact areas, designated: A, B, C, D, E Each shovel test hole was dug at least 0.3 meters wide (1 foot) and about 0.6 to 0.7 meters (2 to 2.3 feet) or more in depth. All tests were dug to undisturbed, glacial, culturally barren sub-soil. At each test the excavated soil was analyzed for cultural evidence by sieving and studying any residue retained on a 0.64 cm (1/4 inch) wire mesh screen. Soil volume tested was approximately consistent from test to test. The percent granular soil material coarser than 0.64 cm (1/4 inch) was estimated from the granular material retained on the screen. These materials were characterized as to their texture. The soil stratigraphy exposed in the test hole side-walls was examined at each probe and a stratigraphic sketch made where appropriate. Counts were made of all cultural materials recovered or observed. TABLE 1 NO. TEST NATURE AND NO. SOIL DESIGNATION RECOVERIES TEXTURE % GRAVEL REMARKS 1 D1 CN* SANDY LOAM @1 % NONE 2 D2 CN SANDY AND GRAVELLY FILL @25% NONE 3 B1 CN SANDY SOIL @1 % NORM SOIL PROFILE 4 B2 CN SANDY LOAM @1 % SAME 5 133 CN SANDY LOAM @1 % NONE 6 134 CN SANDY LOAM @1 % 7 Al CN GRAVELLY SAND @25% 8 A2 CN GRAVELLY SAND @25% 9 A3 CN GRAVELLY SAND @25% 10 E1 CN CLAYEY LOAM < 1 % 11 E2 CN CLAYEY LOAM < 1 % 12 E3 CN CLAYEY LOAM < 1 % 13 E4 CN CLAYEY LOAM < 1 % FARM FIELD 14 C1 CN SANDY FILL @10% GRADED AREA 15 C2 CN SAME FILLED ASI B13 Beachcomber 11, CAA Stage !B, Cutchogue, New York *CN or culturally negative SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE TESTS A total of 15 test holes were dug in mostly undisturbed soils. Some tests were dug in filled or graded areas. All test were dug to culturally barren soil or subsoil and analyzed for the presence of cultural materials during the subsurface test phase. Of these all were culturally negative, having no cultural evidences. No culturally significant materials were observed or recovered in the subsurface. No prehistoric evidences were encountered. See Table 1, page B13. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED No significant problems were encountered during the study that could have influenced its results. FEATURES REPORTED No features were observed or reported. CONCLUSIONS After thorough surface and subsurface testing, ASI concludes that proposed impact areas A-E have no significant cultural resources. Consequently, disturbance to these areas as a result of construction activities would impact no culturally significant materials. However, the recovery of cultural evidences from the surface, as well as the distribution and character of these finds, coupled with complimentary documentary information and testimony generated during the Stage 1A study, strongly suggest the existence of a prehistoric site or site remnant somewhere within the general area. It is also probable that past stripping and grading activities may have removed or displaced cultural material in the study area. The general study area has been drastically altered by past soil stripping operations. Relatively small areas of undisturbed soil occur along the margins of the proposed Beachcomber II site. Proposed impact areas A, B, and D begin in the soil stripped zone and intrude into areas of relatively undisturbed soil. Proposed impact area E is located wholly in an area of relatively undisturbed plowed soil. Proposed impact area C falls entirely within an area of stripped and filled soil. The location and distribution of subsurface tests in part reflects the character and level of soil disturbance. ASI B14 Beachcomber II, CRA Stage !B, Cutchogue, New York Surface finds were encountered in three relatively widely scattered isolated locations outside of the impact areas. No cultural materials were encountered in the subsurface. Large parts of the proposed impact area are comprised of stripped or stripped and filled soils. These were found to be barren of any cultural evidences. A point-base and a bifacially worked (turtle back) preform or "rough out' point or hand tool were recovered from the surface as well as a small pebble-core and a debitage flake. These were encountered on the surface near the interface between the soil- stripped area and undisturbed areas between impact areas A and B, and in the vicinity of Area E. RATIONALE These conclusions are based upon a thorough methodical surface inspection and.a thorough subsurface study of soil and subsoil. GOALS AND SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL STUDIES No further study is recommended for proposed impact areas A-E. ASI B15 Beachcomber 11, CRA Stage !B, Cutchogue, New York BIBLIOGRAPHY Kalin, Robert J. Beachcomber II Archival Study, Stage IA, 1993, ASI, Rocky Point, New York. Kuchler, A.W. Potential Natural Vegetation In: The National Atlas of the 1970 United States, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. pp 89-91. Warner, John, et. all. 1975 Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York. U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 20250. ASI B16 APPENDIX C-2 VEGETATIVE SPECIES IDENTIFIED OR BELIEVED TO BE FOUND ON THE BEACHCOMBER MOTEL PROPERTY APPENDIX C- 2 FLORALINVENTORY TREES and SHRUBS FOUND ON THE BEACHCOMBER MOTEL II PROPERTY Bayberry Myrica penWvanica Blackberry Rubus allegheniensis Black cherry Prunus serotina Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Black Pine Pinus nigra Black Tupelo Nyssa s ]vim atica Choke cherry P.virginiana Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus vir ingi iana Gray Birch Betula populifolia Multiflora Rose Rosa multiflora Northern Arrowood Viburnum recognitum Norway Maple Acer pllatanoides Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides Raspberry Rubus idaeus Red Maple Acer rubrum Rugosa Rose Rosa rugosa Shadbush Amelanchier arborea Shining Sumac Rhus conallina Smooth Sumac Rhuslg abra Staghorn Sumac Rhus hina Sugar Maple Acer saccharum White Birch Betula pubescens Rev. 0-1, 11/95 C-2 (a) APPENDIX C- 2 (continued) VINES American Bittersweet Celastrus scandens Oriental Bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus Japanese Honeysuckle Lonicera 'a�ponica Catbriar Smilax ]g aura Roundleaved Catbriar Smilex rotundifolia Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinauelfolia Poison Ivy Toxicodendron radicans Grape vine Vitis labrusca Bitter nightshade Solanum dulcamara Rev. 0-1, 11/95 C- 2(b) APPENDIX C- 2 (continued) WILDFLOWERS, GROUND COVERS Beach pea Lathyrus maritimus Bluecurls Trichostema dichotomum Blue Wood Aster Aster cordifolius Broomsedge Andropogan virginicus Butterfly Weed Asclepias tuberosa Cocklebur xanthium strumarium Common burdock Arctium minus Common chickweed Stellaria media Common Chicory Cichorium in bus Common Evening Primrose Oenothera biennis Common flax Linum usitatissimum Common Mullein Verbascum thapsus Common Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum Common Yarrow Achillea millefolium Crabgrass Di it¢ aria sQ Deptfod Pink Dianthus armeria Dusty Miller Artemisia stelleriana Frostweeds Helianthemum canadense Goldenrods Solida o 'uuncea 1ggantea S.wp-- Golden Heather Hudsonia ericoides Hairy Bush Clover L. hirta Heath Aster A. simplex Rev. 0-1, 11/95 C-2 (c) APPENDIX C -2 (continued) Indian Hemp Apocynum cannabinum Japan clover L. striata Jewelweed Impatiens capensis Lambs-quarters Chenopodium album Milk Purslane Euphorbia supina Milkweed Asclepias syriaca Mustard Barbarea sp. Orange Milkwort Polygala lutea Oz-eye Daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Panicled Aster A. spectabilis Panicum Panicum lip. Pigweed Amaranthus sp. Pinweeds Lechea sp. Pokeweed Phvtolacca americana Quack grass AgroMon repens Queen Anne's Lace Daucus carota Ragweed Ambrosia artemissiifolia Reed grass Phragmites communis Round-headed Bush Clover L. capitata Sea Rocket Cakile edentula Seaside goldenrod Solidago sempervirens Seaside spurge EuEhorbia polyganifolia Showy Aster A.junciforms Slender-leaved Bush Clover Lespedeza vireinia Smartweed Polygonum sp. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 C- 2 (d) APPENDIX C-2 (continued) Spotted Knapweed Centaurea maculosa Strawberry Fragaria_virginiana Stinging Nettle Urtica dioica Thistles Cirsium V. Venus' Looking Glass Soecularia perfoliata White Heath Aster A. ericoides Wild Indigo Baptisia tinctoria Foxtail species Aordeum V. Yellow nutsedge QMerus esculentus Rev. 0-1, 11/95 C- 2 (e) APPENDIX C- 3 AVIFAUNA SIGHTED OR CAPABLE OF UTILIZING THE BEACHCOMBER MOTEL II PR *American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis American Kestrel Falco sparverius *American Redstart Setophaea ruticilla *American Robin Turdus mieratorius *Bank swallow Riparia riparia *Barn Swallow Hirunda rustica Black-backed gull Larus marinus *Black-capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus *Blue Jay Qyanocitta cristata Bobwhite Colinus vireinianus *Brown headed CowbirdMolothrus ater *Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum *Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis *Cedar Waxwing Bomb, cy illa cedrorum Chipping Sparrow S inizella passerina *Common Crow Corvus brach [hhynchos *Common Flicker Colaptes auratus *Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Common Tern Sterna hirundo Downy Woodpecker Dendrocopos pubesiens Eastern Kingbird T arms Warmus Eastern Meadowlark Sturmella neelecta Eastern Phoebe Savornishp oebe Eastern Wood Peewee Contopus virens Field Sparrow S izellaup silla Rev. 0-1, 11/95 C- 3 (a) Appendix C- 3 (continued) *Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis Herring Gull Larus argentatus Horned Lark Eremophila alyestris *House Finch Carl2odacus mexicanus House Sparrow Passer domesticus *Killdeer Charadrius vociferus *Mocking bird Mimus polvglottos *Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Orchard Oriole Icterus sspurius Purple Finch Carpodacuspurpureus Red-bellied WoodpeckerMelaneroes carolinus Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus *Red-Winged BlackbirdA e_g laius phoeniceus *Rofous-sided Towhee Pipilo caghrojhthalmus Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia *Starling Sturnus volaris Swamp Sparrow Melospiza peorg_iana Tree Swallow Iridoprocue bicolor Tufted titmouse Parus bicolor Whip-poor-will Cacrimulgus vociferus White Breasted NuthatchSitta carolinensis Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina White crowned sparrowZonotrichia leucol2hrys White-throated Sparrow Z. albicollis Rev. 0-1, 11/95 C- 3 (b) APPENDIX C- 4 MAMMALIAN SPECIES WHICH HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED OR MAY BE FOUND UTILIZING THE BEACHCOMBER MOTEL 11 PROPERTY Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus *Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus *Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Eastern Mole Scalol2us aouaticus House Mouse Mus musculus Meadow Jumping MouseZapas hudsonius Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus Opossum Didelphis marsupialis *Racoon Procyon lotor **Red Fox Vulpes fulva Short-tailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus *White-tailed Deer Odocoileusvir.inp ianus * Identified on site ** Observed on adjacent property Rev. 0-1, 11/95 C-4 (a) APPENDIX C- 5 REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS THAT MIGHT BE FOUND ON THE BEACHCOMBER MOTEL II PROPERTY Eastern Box Turtle Terrapene caroling Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis Milk Snake Lampropeltis trian u� lum American Toad Bufo americanus Rev. 0-1, 11/95 C-5 (a) APPENDIX C-6 Beachcomber ll, Cultural Resources Assessment Addendum, Cutchogue, New York CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT STAGE IB FIELD RECONNAISSANCE ADDENDUM BEACHCOMBER it CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK R A S I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. POB 1522, ROCKY POINT,NEW YORK 11778 ASI 61 Beachcomber ll, Cultural Resources Assessment Addendum , Culchogue, New York BEACHCOMBER Il, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK FIELD RECONNAISSANCE Completion date of this file: October 6, 1995 AUTHOR AND PRINCI F VESTIGATOR: PROF. ROBERT J. KALIN SIGNED: u-�-- DATE: ROBERT J. KALIN PROFESSOR,SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/GEOLOGIST, NATIONAL AND NEW YORK STATE CERTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGIST PRESIDENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. POB 1522, ROCKY POINT, NEW YORK 11778 (516)331-5980 FAX(516) 744-6617 ARCHAEOLOGY SEAL 9� ASI B2 Beachcomber ll, Cultural Resources Assessment Addendum , Cutchogue, New York ABSTRACT An additional twenty-five subsurface tests were dug within the proposed impact area of the Beachcomber II project, off Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, Southold Township, Suffolk County, New York. The proposed impact area including all proposed roads and areas where surface artifacts were collected has been evaluated for presence or absence of cultural resources by means of methodological surface examination and a subsurface protocol which included digging and analyzing the soil from a total of twenty-five subsurface tests dug along the course of the proposed roads and other areas. The surface study and subsurface tests revealed no significant cultural materials. No culturally significant evidences were observed or recovered. LONG ISLAND SOUND SITE d MONTAUK 3POINT SUFFOLK COUNTY ATLANTIC OCEAN H @18 MILES Figure 1. Map showing general location of the study area. ASI B3 Beachcomber ll, Cultural Resources Assessment Addendum , Culchogue, New York OBJECTIVES The objective of this study is to make an assessment, by means of additional surface observations and subsurface testing (shovel probes), regarding the presence or absence of significant cultural evidence within the projected impact area of Beachcomber II (road courses) and in those areas where surface evidences were encountered. FIELD SURVEY DATES AND CONDITIONS The field survey was conducted on 10-1-95. The general conditions were satisfactory throughout the study period. FIELD TEAM The test probes were dug by Mr. Carlton E. Welch, ASI senior field technician, under the direction of the principal investigator. DISPOSITION OF ARTIFACTS OR OTHER EVIDENCES Cultural materials removed from the property for further study or identification are temporarily stored at the ASI facilities at Miller Place, New York. If appropriate for preservation, they are submitted (with the permission of the owner) to the New York State Archaeological Association Indian Museum, Riverhead, New York or another similar repository for conservation. At the subject property no cultural materials were removed from the study area, all materials were identified in the field, counted, and recorded on ASI field forms and then reinterred in the test hole from which they were removed. ASI B4 Beachcomber 11, Cultural Resources Assessment Addendum, Cutchogue, New York STRATEGY AND METHODS A. SURFACE OBSERVATIONS: Systematic observations of the surface were conducted by walking along the course of the proposed internal roads and in areas where cultural materials were recovered in the Stage IB study. Particular attention was directed to all exposed soil surfaces in existing grassed areas and other clear patches in vegetated areas. Evidences recorded during this phase of the study were several pieces of brown and green contemporary bottle glass, plastic fragments, and several aluminum tabs from soft drink containers. These materials were left in place. 1 . RESULTS OF SURFACE OBSERVATIONS The field walk-over survey, as noted above, revealed no significant surface cultural evidences or additional prehistoric materials. Observations over the site revealed that the major portion of the study area is stripped of topsoil. B. SUBSURFACE STUDY: 1. STRATEGY: Soils evolve with the physical, climatic and human history of the parcel. Cultural and other evidences may be buried within the soil and preserved there. These materials, and the information they represent, can be retrieved by disinterment and disengagement from the soil by sieving, and cleaning. Subsequently, they are identified, counted, and recorded, and finally evaluated for cultural significance. For these purposes it is often impractical to test the entire soil mantle, thus, soil sampling is necessary. At the Beachcomber II proposed expansion site, shovel probes were located systematically along the proposed internal roadway at 50 foot intervals in such a way as cover the entire proposed impact area and to prevent concentrations in areas possessing any particular characteristic of soil, topography, or disturbance level in preference to those lacking these characteristics. In addition, several additional tests were dug within the area where surface reconnaissance had revealed evidences of a prehistoric nature. This strategy provided a random representation of the soil and subsoil and their cultural content--or lack of it within the proposed impact area, as well as additional tests in a selected area of potential sensitivity. See Figure 2, a full-scale certified map (Beachcomber Motel II, 7-29-93, Barrett Bonacci Hyman and Van Weele, scale 1" = 50) included with this report. 2. FIELD METHODS The field crew followed a designated transect along the course of the proposed project as staked by the NRCS staff. Distances were estimated by pacing. Test holes were dug along each transect at paced 50' intervals. Most tests were dug within areas ASI B5 Beachcomber ll, Cultural Resources Assessment Addendum , Cutchogue, New York of stripped or scoured soil, although patches of thin native soil were identified in several areas. Surrounding positive test probes with evidences of potential cultural sensitivity, additional tests ("iron cross tests") were planned at one-meter intervals. None were required at the Beachcomber If site. Standard shovel tests were dug to undisturbed, glacial, culturally barren sub- soil. At each hole the excavated soil was analyzed for cultural evidence by sieving and studying any residue retained on a 0.64 cm (1/4 inch) wire mesh screen. The volume of soil dug and screened was approximately consistent from hole to hole. The percent granular soil material coarser than 0.64 cm (1/4 inch) was estimated from the volume of material retained on the screen after sieving a standard volume of soil. These materials were characterized as to their texture. The soil stratigraphy exposed in the test side-walls was examined at each probe and a stratigraphic sketch made at selected tests. Counts were made of all cultural materials recovered or observed. DATUM A formal datum was established at the northeast corner of the existing (motel) structure. This position served as origin for all subsequent surface measurements. See Figure 2. CULT EVIDENCE CN 16.7°/ 83.3% Graph 1. Distribution of culturally positive and negative (CN) subsurface tests. ASI B6 Beachcomber ll, Cultural Resources Assessment Addendum , Cutchogue, New York TABLE 1--FIELD DATA--SUBSURFACE TESTS TH SOIL CULTURE % COARSE REMARKS 1 SANDY LOAM GL(1 )/PL(1) 0.1 THIS SOIL 2 PEBBLY SAND CN 0.5 FILL 3 PEBBLY SAND CN 0.5 SCOURED SURFACE 4 PEBBLY SAND CN 0.5 SCOURED 5 PEBBLY SAND CN 0.5 SCOURED 6 SANDY LOAM CH(1)/AL(1) 0.1 THIN SOIL 7 PEBBLY SAND CN 0.5 SCOURED 8 PEBBLY SAND CN 0.5 SCOURED 9 PEBBLY SAND CN 0.5 SCOURED 10 PEBBLY SAND CN 0.5 SCOURED 11 PEBBLY SAND CN 0.5 SCOURED 12 PEBBLY SAND CN 0.5 SCOURED 13 PEBBLY SAND ROCK STT(1) 0.5 SCOURED 14 PEBBLY SAND CN 0.5 SCOURED 15 PEBBLY SAND CN 0.5 SCOURED 16 PEBBLY SAND CN 0.5 SCOURED 17 PEBBLY SAND CN 0.5 SCOURED 18 SANDY LOAM CN 0.1 SOIL 19 SANDY LOAM CN 0.1 SOIL 20 SANDY LOAM ASPH (1) 0.1 SOIL 21 SANDY LOAM CN 0.1 SOIL 22 SANDY LOAM CN 0.1 SOIL 23 SANDY LOAM CN 0.1 SOIL 24 SANDY LOAM CN 0.1 SOIL 25 SANDY LOAM CN 0.1 SOIL ['Note:See Figure 2 (an enclosed full scale map) for test hole locations. Number in parenthesis is the count of individual materials recovered, e.g. CIA (2) = 2 counts of charcoal. Also: ASPH = asphalt; CE _ ceramic; CO = coal; Cl = cinder; BR = brick, GRN = green; IRON = rusted iron fragments; SH = shell; W WARE = Blue willow ware.] ASI B7 Beachcomber Il, Cultural Resources Assessment Addendum , Culchogue, New York BEACHCOMBER RECOVERIES POSITIVE SUBSURFACE TESTS ASPH 16.70/6 CH 16.7% El AL 16.7% Ej GL 16.7% ® PL 16.7% ^s RK STT 16.7% FF rrrrr Y p I tr 1�3�i lria J Graph 2. Data recovery from subsurface culturally positive tests. All materials were reinterred. No culturally significant recoveries were made. Note:ASPH= road asphalt,CH=charcoal, RK STT=rock shatter, PL=plastic, GL=glass, AL=aluminum. SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE TESTING During the subsurface testing phase a total of twenty-five (25) aligned, random soil probe positions were occupied in areas proposed for disturbance or construction, or in areas where cultural evidences had been recorded from the surface during an earlier study. at each location a test probe was dug to culturally barren subsoil. The soil from each test was analyzed for presence and nature of cultural materials. Of these, four (4) out of 25 probes or nearly 17% of the total held cultural evidences of recent or contemporary association (See Graph 1). The tests which held cultural evidence revealed a light subsurface scatter of contemporary materials such as asphalt road surfacing, charcoal, aluminum, glass and rock shatter, this latter probably derived from grass cutting activity. The character of the recoveries are all compatible and congruous with the known use and recent history of the tested area. No additional recoveries of a prehistoric nature were made in the area where surface evidences were encountered. No culturally significant materials were recovered. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED No significant problems were encountered during the study that could have influenced its results. ASI B8 Beachcomber Il, Cultural Resources Assessment Addendum , Cutchogue, New York FEATURES REPORTED No significant cultural features were observed and none were reported. CONCLUSIONS A systematic surface and subsurface survey of the proposed road plan at the Beachcomber II site revealed no prehistoric or significant historic era evidences or other culturally significant materials on the surface or within the subsurface or the proposed impact area. Much of the proposed impact zone has been stripped of topsoil. Additional observations and testing in the area where surface materials were observed during the previous study revealed no surface or subsurface prehistoric cultural evidences. We conclude that the property has suffered so severely from excavation, grading, soil stripping, and construction processes in the past that little or nothing of the native soil and incorporated archaeological evidences have been preserved. RATIONALE These conclusions are based upon a thorough methodical surface inspection and a thorough systematic subsurface study utilizing hand-dug tests of soil and subsoil (tested to well below plow zone); both aspects of this study revealed nothing of cultural significance. GOALS AND SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL STUDIES No further study is warranted. ASI B9 Beachcomber ll, Cultural Resources Assessment Addendum, Cutchogue, New York FIGURE 2. MAP ENCLOSED ASI B 10 APPENDIX D LETTERS OF CORRESPONDENCE APPENDIX D - 1 TC�IMmal k S Y Southold. N.Y. 11971 TELEPHONE OtL`1 WICKHAM, Chairman 765-1938 --RANK S. COYLE ;ENRY E. RAYNOR. Jr. -REDERICK E. GORDON March 13,, 1978 - �AMES WALL Southold Town Board Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board at a regular meeting held January 30, 1978. RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board approval of the petition of Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski, Case #238, for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M-1" General Multiple Residence District on property located at Cutchogue , New York, 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. Yours truly, Muryel Brus Secretary APPENDIX D - 2 WHEREAS, a petition was heretofore filed with the Town Board of the Town of Southold by Nicholas Aliano & Patricia Krupski . ................. . ............... ........... requesting a change, modification and amendment of the Building Zone Ordinance including the Building Zone Maps made a part thereof by chong- "A" Residential General , ing from .and„Agricultural District to ..."M-l" Multiple Residence District the property described in said petition, and WHEREAS said petition was duly referred to the planning Board for its investigation, recommendation and report, and its report having been filed with the Town Board, and thereafter, a public hearing in relation to said petition having been duly held by the Town Board on the ......Ilth....day of ................. .................... 1978...., and due deliberation having been had thereon hJOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the relief demanded in said petition be, and it hereby is GRANTED, SUBJECT, HOWEVER, TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS : That no buildings shall be permitted to be constructed in the area embraced within 200 feet measured perpendicular to the western boundary line of the premises described in the applica- tion. DATED: MAY 23, 1978 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK APPENDIX D - 3 P T D S Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 February 21 , 1985 Mr. Aliano: Enclosed herewith is your rec pt for the filing fee on the site plan for the "Beachcomber Motel" located at Cutchogue . I have scheduled you on the March 18, 1985 agenda for a pre-submission conference . Your appointment is at 8 : 00 p.m. , in the Town Hall . Diane M. Schultze Secretary 1 TOWN CLERK 1 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD j It S olk County, New York 516 - 765.1801 N9 14794 ' j � 1 j Southol� N. Y. 11971y 7 j IVED OFc i _Dollars E� oY 1 1 � - •oL �`� j F �' Ci4� _ ' cZ 1 )Judith T. Ter y, Town Clerk / 1 j Cash (] Checker i y - _ �JLA�o soallo I tNAP 0� _ , VPL TC. FACfa<_c ,;BE2 EIV7"�2P �E*S: !NC tox.e, 4 W CUTCHOOUE N. Y. po d- i _. - g t ' -. .. .tip �p pp 9 s�L iq .b f rvam Acres it � N f •). J /.�:y-.-_ - .y Ar , "sE. -• /O + .. j.• - _ _moi. �.�_ >� � PrD�ic aeC 2-Jfer.. I � .u. 1 mr/f6 m h Zonc 3 b1-1. -- r" _ _• .sJ.A z tobo. maf'' r F_ 89 z1,2,17/vfai y9. —' moo V - -� Ir (Cxrsl nq). / 4Ib i IO ,.- , :.:-:•,y � L t<.cc c -r,e,ucsn, dys'cina ! - `- b _-_I . . . - ._ _ .. iZ1 ! ac.z c as.ft T r _ ae to 3z,00C z9.000 �p a � I � ` I r'H.v V. ;reC .onc .',.r rva tcYJ 7. -� - 546.f4 S. Z'i J" N. � A4 ' o APPENDIX D - 4 PLANNING B6ARD TOR J� OF SOU'"IT) SUF%K CO. Y ti Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 AGENDA March 18, 1985 30 p.m. Public Hearing on the question of approval of the minor subdivision of the Estate of Charles Simon, 4 lots on 39 .5 acres at Wells Road Peconic . 45 p.m. Mr. James Bitses has requested an appointment to discuss his proposal for a minor subdivision of "Old Towne Park" for 4 lots on 11 .6 acres , located at Main Bayview Road, Southold. .,00 p.m; Mr. Nick Aliano has scheduled a presubmission conference to discuss the site plan of Beachcomber Enterprises , to construct apartments behind the existing motel at Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue. j p.m. Mr. Peter Stoutenturg , as agent, has scheduled a pre-submission conference to discuss the site plan of Thomas Yasso for the construction of an addition for refrigeration storage at Wiliston Beverage , Main Road, Mattituck. 30 p.m. Dr . Joseph Lizewski has scheduled a presubmission conference to discuss the site plan for construction of two private racquet ball courts located at Main Road , Cutchogue , application is before ZBA. 45 p.m. Mr. Alfred Bouffard has scheduled a presubmission conference for a site plan to construct an industrial building atWestphalia Avenue Mat`ttuck. Application is before Zoning Board of appeals . 00 p.m. Mr. Garrett Strang has scheduled an informal appointment to discuss the site plan of Herbert Mandel for the construction of 2 attached two-family residences at Rocky Point Road, East Marion. )minick Varano- Board to make recommendation to the ZBA, following a field ispection, on this 3 lot subdivision on 5 . 4 acres at Indian Neck Rd, Peconic . 11 at Cutchogue-Board to review and refer this site plan to the Building ,partment, this is for construction of a storage building. )ard to set April 1 , 1985 at the Southold Town Hall as the time and place for ,e next regular meeting of the Planninq Board. APPENDIX D - 5 P D T LD S Y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 March 27 , 1985 Mr. Nick Aliano Ashley Lane Shoram, NY 11786 Re : Beachcomber Enterprises at Cutchogue Dear Mr. Aliano: In order for the Board to complete their review of the above mentioned site plan, would you please forward six (6) copies of your survey to include the items on the enclosed list . If you have any questions , please don' t hesitate to contact our office . Very truly yours , BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIMMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze ,Secretary enc . TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, PLANNING BOARD INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND MULTI-RESIDENTIAL CHECKLIST Project: Beachcomber Enterprises Nick Aliano Prepare site plan on 24 " X 36" sheet Give name, address , and telephone number of applicant Show key map Indicate the use of the proposed construction show each building area (existing and proposed) show zoning and ownership of subject and adjacent properties show dimensions necessary for the construction and inspection of the site Show location, dimensions and purpuse of any easements, or abandonments to be filed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy certify plans with seal/signature by NY State licensed Enginner, Architect, Landscape Architect, or Land Surveyor show landscape calculations and design (minimum required % of lot area) show proposed grading of site using contours and spot evelations in Town datum show proposed top of curb elevations show first floor elevation show existing topography to a point of 50 ' beyond the boundaries of the site show location of test hole and date of same show all paved areas to be bordered by continuous curb • show test hole to 2 ' below the deepest drainage structure show drainage structures to be installed 2 ' above ground water roof runoff to be piped directly into leaching pools with minimum 6" PVC SDR 35 Show location of all proposed drainage structures show location and size of all existing drainage structures and street drainage . Show drainage calculations for storage of a two (2) inch rainfall for street frontages and all on-site areas . Page 2 define contributory areas used in design calculations show calculations of runoff coefficients for any contributory areas show pipe sizing caluclations connecting pipe sizing calculations connecting pipe between all pools to be minimum of 15" CL IV or 11 CMP 1_ 10 ' interval between leaching structures required (OD to OD) Arrange leaching facilities to afford equal distribution of surface runoff. Domes are not included incalculation of storage requirements show pipe inverts , pipe size, slope, and casting elevations show any existing streams , drainage ditches or culverts show street width, bearings and curbe data show cross section of street andparking field inprovements descirbe condition and type of surface on all adjoining streets show existing street plan and profile indicate specifications for asphalt paving and concrete work show existing edge of pavement to be saw cut prior to paving install curb return at entrance show parking requirement calculations show parking space and aisle dimensions show handicap parking spaces and building access show existing and proposed utilities 0 APPENDIX D - 6 P O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 February 14, 1987 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 ear Sirs : Please find enclosed six prints of the revised Beachcomber Motel Property site plan . Sincerely, Henry E. Raynor, Jr. -ER:ml _- c APPENDIX D - 7 P S�FFOL��, D T LD � r � S y Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 March 5 , 1987 Mr . Henry E. Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Re : Site plans for : Aliano at Greenport / Beachcomber at Cutchogu'e� Adams at Mattiuck Dear Mr. Raynor: With regard to the above mentioned site plans , the Board recuests that they be amended to include all of the site plan elements pursuant to Section 100-134 of the Town Code, prior to further review. Would you please , also, have the amended plans stamped and signed by the engineer. Upon receipt of same , we will sc:-:edule these proposals on the next available agenda. Enclosed, for your review, is a copy of the checklist for the site plan elements . If you have any questions , please don ' t hesitate to contact cur office. Very truly yours , BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. , CHAIRMAN SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD By Diane M. Schultze, Secretary enc . APPENDIX D - 8 - Stcien d N��t�a��A.ssocietrs consulting engineers January 20, 1988 Mr. Robert Jewell, P.E. Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Division of Wastewater Management County Center Riverhead , New York 11901 Re: Aliano Beachcomber Dear Bob: Enclosed herewith are two (2 ) prints each of the following items in connection with the above referenced project: 1 . Sketch Plan indicating three parcels of land at Duck Pond Road in Cutchogue. Parcel "A" is the existing Beachcomber Motel and parcels "B" and "C" are the subject parcels of this applica- tion. Parts of both of these parcels are zoned for motel usage (shaded portion of plan) . 2 . Preliminary Development Plan indicating 147 motel units that Mr. Aliano wishes to construct on part of parcels "B" and "C" . Parcel "A" is the existing Beachcomber Motel, which is not part of this project. There are no immediate plans for development of the portions of parcels "B" and "C" which are zoned residential-agricultural . The residential portion of parcel "C" could yield approximately ten (10 ) homes. At our meeting with you last August, it was discussed that the motel development would require community water and sewage. We are assuming that a sewage treatment plant would be required since Article 6 does not permit the use of denitrification systems for projects requiring the filing of subdivision maps. It was also . discussed that the sewage treatment plant would accomodate only the motel development, since the Beachcomber Motel is not part of this project, and because any single family homes built on parcel "C" would be on lots greater than 40, 000 square feet. Similarly, the community water system would serve only the motel complex. The engineering for this project has not progressed to the point that, locations for the community water and sewage systems have been determined yet. We would appreciate your department ' s input regarding the concepts mentioned above so that Mr. Aliano can begin assessing the feas- ability of this project. Mr. Robert Jewell, P.E. -2- January 20 , 1988 If you have any questions or require further information from our office in order to evaluate this project, please feel free to con- tact me at our office. Thank you in advance for your help and cooperation. Very truly yours, Steven J. Hyman, P.E. cc: Mr. Henry Raynor y APPENDIX D - 9 ----- ---- -_---- _ —__ E— - Slewit J.HymaH Associates consulting engineers May 5 , 1988 Mr. Nick Aliano Ashley Lane Shoreham, New York 11786 Re: Beachcomber Motel Health Dept. Status i Dear Nick: At my meeting with Bob Jewell and Pete Akras of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services recently, the following items were discussed: 1. Jewell stated that since a community water system would be required for the proposed motel units, it would be wise to begin a test well program so that an adequate potable water supply could be demonstrated to the Health Department. Jewell thought that this should be the first step since there was some doubt in his mind whether or not there was good quality water available underneath the site. It didn 't make ' sense to hiYn,'to spend time on other aspects of the project until the S.C.D.H.S. approves the water quality and quantity. 2 . In the event that the water supply proved adequate, Mr. Jewell suggested that a water company be formed and donated to either the Suffolk County Water Authority or the Town. The Health Department feels more comfortable dealing with large purveyors of water as opposed to some of the very small water companies that have neither the manpower or funding to properly operate and maintain their systems. 3 . Regarding sanitary sewers, both Mr. Jewell and Mr. Akras stated that the motel units would have to be served by a sewage treatment plant. There is the possibility that the Health Dept. would not require the single family homes (should they be proposed ) to connect to the treatment plant, but that is not a decision that they would make at this time. i!,l� 1� (c;:++ 1.. 'nr 'i .' !Pr• , `,i G,' !;: � .nl, i, Pi I ', ii9j51(i. Ii 3;t%G Mr. Nick Aliano -2- May 5 , 1988 4 . Mr. Akras brought up an interesting point. He stated that if you were willing to covenant that the 28acre ' residential portion of the property would remain undeveloped, and if your water company were donated to either the Town or the S.C.W.A. , PERHAPS a sewage treatment plant would not even be requiired for the proposed motel units. The Health Department would consider allowing a sanitary appication rate of 600 gpd/acre which would yield the following: Assuming units < 600 square feet : 42 acres x 600 gpd/acre x 1 unit/150 gpd= 168 units allowed Assuming units > 600 square feet but < 1200 square feet: 42 acres x 600 gpd/acre x 1 unit/225 gpd= 112 units allowed i . As you can see, this opens up new possibilities to consider. Please keep in mind, however, that Jewell and Akras made no commitments regarding allowing 600 gpd/acre. They did say that getting the Town or S.C.W.A. to operate the public water system would go a long way towards allowing the 600 gpd/acre. After you have reviewed the above please give me a call and we can discuss any of the above items in more detail. Very truly yours, . i v U Steven J. Hyman, P.E. cc: Mr. Henry Raynor I major markets as listed in the table below) - may be excluded from the density calculation. If the project design sanitary flow rate exceeds the allowable sanitary flow rate a community sewerage system is required except where the project design sanitary flow does not exceed 300 gpd. In cases where a community sewerage system is not required a conventional subsurface sewage disposal system may be approved provided all other design standards can be met . 7 . DETERMINING MINIMUIi DESIGN SEWAGE ,FLOW RATES Minimum design sewage flow rates are derived from occupancy ratings and/or from the following table: Structure Use Design Sewage Flow Rate Single Family Equivalent 300 gallons per day (gpd ) Two Family Residence 600 gpd Accessory Apartment to a single --, 150 gpd mss family unit (up to 400 sq. ft) G Motels with kitchenettes , apartments , condos , mobile homes , trailers , `�---- - —� co-ops , etc . up to 600 sq. ft. of 150 gpd/unit gross floor area. ^ ^ 601 - 1200 sq. ft . of gross 225 gpd/unit floor area greater than 1200 sq. ft. of 300 gpd/unit gross floor area Motel unit less than 400 sq. ft. 100 gpd/unit Motel unit greater than 400 sq. ft . 150 gpd/unit PRC unit less than 60'0 sq. ft . 100 gpd/unit PRC unit greater than 600 sq. ft. 150 gpd/unit Boarding School/Rooming House 75 gpd capita Tourist Camp 60 gpd/site I , it General Industrial Space 0 . 04 gpd/sf gr . floor arE Office' Space 0 . 06 gpd/sf gr. floor arE Theater 3 gpd/seat II _6i II' d APPENDIX D - 10 o5�FF0(Kl' oma, L Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 1 1971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ,July 3, 1989 Henry Raynor Raynor-Suter Hardware 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Presubmission Conference Beachcomber Motel SCTM #1000-083-2-1, 2,p/ol7 Dear Mr . Raynor, The Planning Board has reviewed your proposal for the expansion of the Beachcomber Motel as proposed at your June 23rd meeting with the Town Planner . The following concerns should be addressed when the site plan application is submitted. 1 . in 1978 , a change of zone was granted for land behind the motel . There was a stipulation added that there be no buildings within 200 feet of the westerly boundary of the property. 2 . There is some concern as to the location of the community well and package sowage treatment plant outside the R.R-Resort. Residential zone in the AC Agricultural Conservation 'Lone wn.ere the applicant owns additional property. Appllcanz ' s plans for the remainder of the property have not been made i'ur`iher , theaj`pl lcant must di c s an}' proposed t^13 ler supply project with the Suffolk County Water Authority. Enclosed please find a site plan application form. It is suggested that you fill out a long environmental assessment form for the environmental review. If there are any questions, please contact this office. Veruly Yours nnett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Frank Murphy, Supervisor Members of the Town Board Zoning Board of Appeals Victor Lessard, Building Department APPENDIX D - 11 P. 0. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 July 7, 1989 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Aliano, Beachcomber Site Plan 1000-83-2-1, 2, p(/o 17 Dear Mr. Orlowski : In response to your letter of July 3, 1989 with regard to the concerns expressed by the Board: 1 ) The change of zone stipulations for a 200 ' westerly boundary set back has been accomodated in the submission to date . 2 ) The community well and package sewerage treatment plant are located as a result of planning with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. These are both being designed to accomodate the proposed RR dis,trictrdevelopment as well as to supply future ample facilities should the property be subdivided to the lout::. We have further contacted the Suffolk County Water Authority to discuss any proposals which they may have pertaining to this property. With these stipulations resolved, I would request a formai presubmission conference for this project as your earliest available meeting . Sincerely, Henry E. Raynor, Jr. HER:ml CC: Aliano r � APPENDIX D - 12 P. O. Drawer A _ Jamesport, NY 11947 Aujust i.5, 1989 BY HAND Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Aliano, Beachcomber. Bite Plan 1000-83-2-1, 2, pV(o 17 Dear Mr. Orlowski: In response to your letter of July 3, 1989 with regard to the concerns expressed by the Board: 1) The change of zone stipulations for a 200' westerly boundary set back has been accomodatedin the submission to date. 2) The community well and package sewerage treatment plant are located as a result of planning with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. These are both being designed to accomodate the proposed RR district: development as well as to supplynfuture ample facilities should the property be subdivided to the south. We have further contacted the Suffolk County Water Authority to discuss any proposals which they may have pertaining to this property. With these stipulations resolved, I would request a formal presubmission conference for this project a your earliest available meeting . Sincerely, _ Henry E. Raynor, Jr. HER:ml CC: Aliano Encs: Site Plan Application Filing fee Long Environmental Assessment Form 12 prints of Site Plan -__--__ POND ENTERPRISES, INC. 1110 ASHLEY LANE SHOREHAM, NY 11788 �] 1S 6P/f./+821Q PAY i0 F .n,�Iv �.Qx+ $iFAYTOORDIRf w°�✓ v DOLLARS i ,Mo n,®Y verouccou.M.aa..1.....,..e..A.. i��ee ~40 2 140 54641: 61 000467 311' (.0 D Ln S Southold. N.Y. 11971 - (516)765-1938 APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN - Date of Application Filing-Fee Date Recd New Use Change of Use Re-Use_Extension of Existing Use Revision of an Approved Site Plan_(Date of Approval ) other Specify kk*kk*****x******* Name of Business or Site Beachcomber Motel Location of Site e/s Duck Pond Road, Cutc ogue, NY 1 Address of Site, if available same Name of Applicant Nicholas A rano j �, ,ii r: t H kRNP SI,I Address of Applicant Duce Pond Road, Cutc ogue, NY 11935 Telephone 7 -63 0 Person to be responsible for Construction owner Telephone 7 -6370 Applicant's interest in site-check one: Owner of Land x Under contract to purchase_ Owner of Fee Title to Land Address Telephone Site Plans Prepared. by License No. Address Telephone ********kk***kk*k*k** Total Land Area of Site Sq.Ft. Zone District RR Existing Use of Site vacant Proposed Use of Site Motel Gross Floor Area of Existing Structure(s) sqft. sqft. Gross Floor Area of Proposed Structure(s) sqft. sgft. Percent of Lot Coverage by Building(s) 1 Percent of Lot for Parking (where applicable) % Percent of Lot for Landscaping(where applicable) per code Datum(Specify)U.S.G.S. Other Has applicant been granted a variance and/or special exception by Board of Appeals Case Number Name of Applicant Date of Decision Expiration Date Will any toxic or hazardous materials, as defined by the Suffolk County Board of Health, be stored or handled at the site? no If so, have proper permits been obtained? Number and Date of permit issued NO ACTION IEY.CAVATION OR CONSTRUCTION) MAY BE UNDERTAKEN UNTIL APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN BY THE PLANNING BOARD. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Nicholas Aliano being duly sworn, deposes and says that he resides at in the State of New York, and that he is the owner of the above property, or that he is the Ow k-0 of the (Title) (Specify whether Partnership which is hereby making application; that the or Corporation) owner or his heirs, successors or assigns will, at his own expense, install the required site improvements in accordance with Article XIII of the Code of the Town of Southold for the area stated herein and that there are no existing structures or improvements on the land which are not shown on the Site Plan; that title to the entire parcel, including all rights-of-way, have been clearly established and are shown on said Plan; that no part of the Plan infringes upon any duly filed plan which has not been abandoned both as to lots and as to roads; that he has examined all rules and regulations adopted by the \ Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and will comply with 1 same; that the plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered or changed in any manner without the approval of the Planning Board; and that the actual physical improvements will be installed in strict accordance with ltthhe plans submitted. Signed ,A (Owner) Sworn to before me this MyK day of vJ=1917) �_ (N ar u ) Signed VINCENT I. KRURSKI, JR. (Partner or Corporate Officer and Title) NOTARY PUBLIC, SI.I..1 Naw York No. 52-4612]40 Qualili.J In Suffolk Counly Commb.bn Expk..Nwr.F-*" PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document Is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effer on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considere as Parfet the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review.Provide any addition; information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It Is expected that completion of the full EAT will be dependent on Information currently available and will not Involy new studies,research or Investigation.If Information requiring such additional work is unavailable,so Indicate and specif each Instance. NAME OF ACTION _ lite Plan LOCATION OF ACTION(Include Street Address,Municipality and County) QIIrk Pond Road, c o ue Town of Southold NAME OF APPLICANTISPONSOT BUSINESS TELEPHONE Henry P., RAynnrj Jr. (Agent- or is o 15161 298-8920 ADDRESS P. 0. Drawer A CITYIPO James ort STATE ZIP CODE NY NAME OF OWNER(It dllterenp 11997BUSINESS TELEPHONE Nicholas Aliano 1 I - ADDRESS Ashley Lane CITYIPO Shoreham STATE ZIP CODE NY DESCRIPTION OF ACTION 11786 Please Complete Each Question—lndicale N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ❑Urban ❑Industrial ❑Commercial ❑Residential(suburban) @Rural(non-farm' ❑Forest OAgriculture ❑Other 2. Total acreage of project arca: I acfes. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Orushland (Non-agricUIrnall 14, f acres acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) 1� acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 21, 25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegelated(Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres Other(Indicate type) acres acres acres 3. What is predominant soil types) on project site? topsoil, sand, gravel a. Soil drainage: ❑Well drained 100 °s of site ❑htodcratcly well drained °s of site ❑Poorly drained °s of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of 5011 are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? acres. (See I NYCRR .770). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? hlyesNNo a. What is depth to bedrock? 0 (in feel? I - f 2 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: %3010% 85 ,o ®10-15% 15 0110 ❑155. or greater 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the Slate or the National Registers of Historic Places? Dyes ®No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ❑Yes ®No 8. What is the depth of the water table? (in feel) + 10' to + 35' 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ❑Yes WNo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Oyes MNo 11. Does project site caitain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? ❑Yes [3No According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual lard ferns on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) ❑Yes L3No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ❑Yes ERNo II yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to file community? ❑Yes UNo 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: n/a a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name n/a b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? Eyes ❑No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? 13yes []No b), If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ®Yes ❑No _ 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? ❑Yes LYNo 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of lire ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? ❑Yes ®No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous Wastes? Oyes ®No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (($it in dinnensious as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor + 45 acres. . . b. ['reject acreage to be developed + acres initially; ±I`� acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped Z LID acres. d. Length of project, in miles: (If appropriate.) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed m, �j L Number of off street parking spaces existing ; proposed . per Town Code g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour + '9S O-(upou completion of projecol h. If Lresidential: Number and type of sinu g nits ,7 Q�}y o;r One Family Two family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately I, Dimensions (in feel)of largest proposed structure height; width; length. per Code j. Linear feet of frontage along a public Ihorough(am project will occupy is? 750 ft. not to - - exceed 125' 3 2. [low much natural material(i.e., rock, earth, etc.)will be removed from the site? 0 tonslcubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ®Yes ONo ON/A a. If yes, for what intend,;: purpose is the site being reclaimed? lawn 6 landscaping,. b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation?, byes ONo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? CfYes ONo 4. flow many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers)will be removed from site? 0 acres. 5. Will any mature forest(over 100 years old)or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Oyes IONo 6. If single phase project Anticipated period of construction 1s months, (including demolition). 7. 11 multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated 1 (number). 3 b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 6 month 199N year, (Including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. - d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? Oyes ONo 8. Will blasting occur during conslructlon? Oyes ®No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 50 ; after project is complete 5 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Oyes ONo If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal Involved? pYes ONo a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount domestic sewerage b. Name of water body Into which effluent will be discharged n/a 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑Yes BNo Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body Increase or decrease by proposal? Oyes MNo Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located In a 100 year flood plain? yes C%NO 16. Will the project generale solid waste? Oyes ®No a. If yes, what Is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? OYes ONo c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go Into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Oyes ONo e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project Involve the disposal of solid waste? Oyes ©No a. If yes, what Is the anticipated rale of disposal? tons/month. b. It yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? 91Yes ONo 19. Will project routinely produce odors(more than one Lour per day)? Oyes T7No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? Oyes LINO 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? Mes ONo If yes , Indicate type(s) electricity 22. If water supply Is from wells, Indicate pumping capacity gallons/minute. per SCDQHS 23. Total anticipated water usage per day gallwrslday. 24. Does project involve Local, State or federal funding? Oyes ®No If Yes, explain - 4 y i` 25. Approvals Required: Submittal Type Dale City, Town, Village Board UYes ®No City, Town, Village planning Board ®Yes ❑Nd site plan City, Town Zoning Board Oyes EINo City, County Health Department QYes ON, water 6 sewer A(• F Other Local Agencies ®yes ON, sc Pc Other Regional Agencies - ❑Yes ®No Slate Agencies ]Yes WNo Federal Agencies Dyes ®No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? WYes ONO If Yes, Indicate decision required: ❑zoning amendment ❑zoning variance Ospecial use permit ❑subdivision UsIIle plan ❑new/revisfon of master plan ❑resource management plan Bother 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? RR 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? RR 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ®Yes ONO 7. What are the predominant land use(s)and zoning cias RR �illi R40 &I f si(ications within a '/. mile radius of proposed action? 8. Is the proposed action compatib a will, adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 'I/ mile? ;QYes ONO 9. If the proposed action Is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any aulhorization(s) for the fonmalion of sewer or water districts? Dyes ®No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, Police, fire protection)? Uyes ONO a. If Yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? QYes ❑No 11. Will the proposed action result in the generation of Iraffic significantly above present levels? . a. If yes, is the existing road network adequa le to handle the additional traffic? 14Yes L7Yes ONO ONO D. Informational Details Attach any additional infornnatimnas may be needed to clarify your protect. If there are or may he any adverse avoid therm. impacts associated with your proposal, pica se discuss such in,pacls and (lie measures which you propose to mitigate or E. Verification I certify that Tile information provided above is ble to the best of my knowledge. Crh / 3 APPlicant/Sponsor Name Henry E. Raynor, ger '� 1 - g/ 5Z Signature Date August 15 1989 Title Accent forMAlianoi- 17 h�Klt with this assessment. 1f the-action is the Coastal Arca,and yen are n stale agency,co ngdcle the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding 5 APPENDIX D - 13 town Hall. 53095 Main Road O,y�• P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 3 , 1989 Henry Raynor Raynor-Suter Hardware 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel SCTM$ 1000-83-2-1, 2, p/17 Dear Mr. Raynor: The Planning Board has reviewed your proposal for the expansion of the Beachcomber Motel. The application is incomplete. The following changes must be made before the Planning Board can accept the plans. 1 . The scale of the map must be 1"=20 ' , not 1"=50 ' as shown. 2. Zoning is indicated on the map as M-1, this parcel is zoned (RR) Resort Residential. 3 . Future use of parcel "C" should be indicated. 4 . Drainage calculations must be shown. 5 . Parking calculations must be shown for the entire site. 6 . Percent lot coverage and percent landscaping must be shown. 7 . A lighting plan must be indicated. 8. Building profiles and floor plans must be shown. Building dimensions and heights must also be indicated. 9. Location of dumpsters, transformers etc. must be shown. 10 . Location and details of aprons , curbs, sidewalks, fencing ( type and location) , and grading, both present and proposed, with two foot contours (on site and 200 ' IL beyond the property line) must be shown, as required by Article XXv of the Zoning Code. 11. The total square footage of proposed building area must be shown on the plan, so that the site plan fee can be calculated. (The accuracy of the fee that was submitted cannot be determined because there was no indication of square footage of building area on the site plan. ) 12. The calculations for units allowable are based on public water and sewer. Reference is made to the Planning Board's letter of July 3 , 1989 requesting the applicant to discuss any proposed water supply project with the Suffolk County Water Authority. The Town has not received any written notification from the SCWA of negotiations with your client regarding the availability of public water. Further, transient motels are a permitted use by special exception by the Board of Appeals. An application must also be made to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Upon receipt of twelve ( 12) revised site plans that incorporate the above mentioned information, the Board will proceed with the environmental review. If you have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. -Very truly yours, --i t Or"rot3'ski�7r Chairman cc: Nichlos Aliano James A. Schondebare rgk w APPENDIX D - 14 P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 October 6, 1989 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Beachcomber Site Plan 1000-83-2-1, 2 & p/o 17 Dear Sirs : On August 15, 1989, the revised site plans, filing fee, site plan application and long environmental assessment form for the above referenced was submitted to your Board. At that time, we requested a presubmission conference. It is our understanding that under Southold Town Code, a presubmission conference is to be scheduled within thirty ( 30 ) days of receipt of the above. As more than thirty days have now elapsed, we would expect to be placed on the next agenda for a presubmission conference. Sincerely, Henry E. Raynor, Jr. HER:ml CC : Aliano APPENDIX D - 15 P. 0. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 October 15, 1989 Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Beachcomber site plan at Cutchogue Dear Ms. Scopaz : I am in receipt of your letter of October 3 and have notified Steven J. Hyman Associates to prepare the necessary amendments as request in your letter. As this correspondence from your office creating detailed review of this site plan, I am, unless I hear different in writing, considering this submission forthcoming a presubmission conference . With regard to Item 12, to date the Suffolk County Water Authority has not set is parameters for water supply on the property and the town has not received written notification. As you are well aware, there is no public water system in the area and be:sed upon the meetings already held with the county, it appears a satelite system for supplying this project is satisfactory to their needs. . As oer your request, 12 prints of the revised site plan will be forwarded in the near future. Sincerely, Henry E. Raynor, Jr. CC : Nicholas Aliano James Schondebare, Esq. APPENDIX D - 16 Town Hall. 53095 Main Road 0 P.O. Box 1 179 Southold. New York 1 1971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 20 , 1989 Henry Raynor P. 0. Drawer A Jamesport, N.Y. 11971 RE: Beachcomber Site Plan 1000-83-2-1 , 2 & p/o 17 Dear Mr. Raynor, The Planning Board has reviewed your letter of October 6 , 1989 requesting a presubmission conference regarding the Beachcomber Motel. The Board refers you to its letter of July 3 , 1989 in which reference is made to a presubmission conference that was held on June 23 , 1989 . Subsequent to that meeting, you submitted an application on behalf of your client. The Board' s October 3rd letter is based on the application itself . There is no need for a second presubmission conference. Upon receipt of the 12 items requested in the October 3rd letter, and the correct site plan fee, the Planning Board will continue its review. If you have any questions, or require further assistance please don' t hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours , Bennett Orlowski Jr. Chairman rgk cc: Nichlas Aliano APPENDIX D - 17 P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 November 8, 1989 Ms. Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Beachcomber Site Plan ( 1000-83-2-1, 2 and p/o 17) Dear Ms. Scopaz : In response to your letter of October 3, prior to undertaking the necessary 12 items listed as revisions of the above captioned site plan, please advise as follows = 1 ) Should we at present pursue the special exception before the Zoning Boad of Appeals prior to doing the finite engineering indicated in your correspondence? 2 ) Is the option available to us to proceed concurrently or will this tend to confuse the matter before the Board? 3) Should we proceed with the expense of extensive calculations and site plan elements prior to application to the Zoning Boad of Appeals? Please advise immediately as to the exact procedure necessary to forward our application in proper sequence. Sincerely, Henry E. Raynor, Jr. HER:ml Enc. APPENDIX D - 18 FOGrC Ln town Hall. 53095 Main Road Q • P.O. Box 11791 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 5 , 1989 Henry Raynor P.O.Drawer A Jamesport, New York 11947 Re: Beachcomber Site Plan Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM # 1000-83-01-2 and 17 Dear Mr. Raynor, This letter is to confirm our conversation of December 4th, in which we discussed the Beachcomber site plan. In your letter of November 8 , 1989 , you raised some concerns about how to proceed with the above-referenced application in light of the Planning Board' s October 3rd request for detailed revisions of the site plan. It is recommended that you apply to the Zoning Board for a Special Exception when you submit the revised site plans to the Planning Board. In this way, the two Boards can coordinate their environmental review of the applications. The information requested by the Planning Board in its October 3rd letter should be provided in the revised site plans so that the environmental impacts of the project can be accurately assessed. If you should have further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very Truly Yours, Valerie Scop Town Planner cc: Gerard Goehrigher, Zonig Board of Appeals VS APPENDIX D - 19 t�OSUf �� CSG w , o NNING BOARD MEMBERS h z SCOTT L. HARRIS _nnett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman C., Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. WardTown Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Boz 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 August 30, 1991 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Beachcomber Motel E/s of Duck Pond Lane on Long Island Sound, Cutchogue SCTM # 1000-83-1-2 and 17 . Dear Mr. Raynor: This is to acknowledge receipt on August 21st of your letter of August 15th in which you submitted copies of water studies for this property. A review of our file shows that we have not received any response to our letter of December 5, 1989; a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. Also included is a copy of the October 3 , 1989 letter which listed the revisions that must be made to the site plan before the environmental review can begin. If assistance is needed, please contact Valerie Scopaz of this office. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Enc. VS:vs APPENDIX D - 20 { L'rrD( YC ti ANNING BOARD MEMBERS rJ' ' "r J (x: '� SCOTT L. HARRIS rr Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. .�i Richard G. Ward ' 4 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald r' P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 October 1, 1991 Dennis Moran, P.E. Principal Public Health Engineer Bureau of Drinking Water Suffolk County Department of Health Services 225 Rabro Drive East Hauppauge, New York 11788 Dear Mr. Moran: Thank you for your response of September 20, 1991 regarding water supply options for the Beachcomber Motel in Cutchogue. Since we do not have an active site plan application before us, there are no further questions at this time. But, I would appreciate being kept informed of your department' s informal or preliminary comments to the applicant on the engineering report that was submitted for your review. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman VS:vs APPENDIX D - 21 320 Love Lane Mzttituck, NY 11952 December 30, 1991 Southold Town Building Department Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Beachcomber property of Nicholas Aliano Dear Sirs: Please find enclosed a copy of the proposed site plan for the above referenced property. It is our understanding that before proceeding with application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a "special exception" we must receive a "denial" from your department. Your prompt review of this site plan is appreciated. We await your response. H' relIy yEi.lov' r., HER:ml Enc. CC: Nicholas Aliano APPENDIX D - 22 " t JLf,i=ILE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK 5G�✓ A ROBERT J.GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES MARY E.RMBERD,M.D.,M.P.H. ACTING COMMISSIONER January 13, 1992 Dennis Kelleher, P.E. H2M Group 575 Broadhollow Road LPILP04NINIG Melville, NY 11746-5076 RE: Beachcomber II Report SOUTHOLD TMVN BOARD Dear Mr. Kelleher: This will confirm our past conversations and those with Mr. McLendon regarding the referenced 7/91 Water Resource/System Report. The Bureau cannot respond in an authoritative sense to proposals and alternatives from the standpoint of density-related Issues. The best way to determine the merits of your selected alternative would be to make application to the Wastewater Management Sectlon. However,300 gpd/acre is the sewage design allowance with an on-site water source. The central Issue for this Bureau at this point Is the conceptual basis for the non- community well system modifications. Conceptually,the well capacity needs were adequately addressed In this report. We concur with your recommendation that proposed Well #3 should be developed in such a way as to profile nitrate levels throughout the available aquifer segment. I do wish to point out, however,that In order to conform to our Private Water Systems Standards,the final well depth must have at least 40 feet of submergence Into the water table measured to the top of the screen. Mr. McLendon's proposal for a period of 6 hours pumpage and analysis at 2,4 and 6 hours Is acceptable and should be presented as part of the formal application. Since the proposed well exceeds 45 gpm a Long Island Well permit from NYSDEC will be needed. Data from other wells In the area confirms the likelihood that carbon filtration will be needed. Although your report doesn't address tre rtrnent sizing, the preliminary layout (Plate II) accompanying the report suggests an intent to provide a GAC unit sized to 15 minutes EBCT at the anticipated peak flow. BUREA U OF DRINKING WATER 225 RABRO DRIVE EAST HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 17798 Td-(516)853-7076 F.:(516)853-2927 Mr. Kelleher January 13, 1992 Page 2 Detailed plans and specifications will be needed prior to any construction,and the specifics of design will,in part depend upon the test well fin If you have any questions feel free to contact me. Very truI urs, C_ Pbul J. n P.E. Senior ublic alth Engineer Bureau f Drink g Water PJP/cls cc: S.C. McLendon, 1-12M Group Bennet Orlowski,Jr.,(Southold Planning Board) D. Moran i APPENDIX D - 23 'LANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman - �'•y3 f,:�=, ' . Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward ? * Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 January 23 , 1992 Michael A. LoGrande, Chairman Suffolk County Water Authority Oakdale, New York 11769 Re: Proposed Water Supply for Proposed Expansion of , Beachcomber Motel W/s Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM # 1000-83-1-2 and 17 Dear Mr. LoGrande: As per our agreement to keep your office informed of all proposals for water supply within the Town of Southold, I have enclosed a letter from Paul Ponturo regarding a proposal for the site noted above. The status of the application remains unchanged. The applicant has not responded to our requests for further information since 1989 . Consequently we have not been able to start a coordinated environmental review. If there are any questions about the site plan application, please do not hesitate to contact me. sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Enc. cc: Joseph Lizewski, Councilman & Chair, Groundwater Resources Committee Thomas Wickham, Councilman & Chair, Planning & Zoning Committee Mark McDonald, Chair, Water Advisory Committee Edward J. Rosavitch, Chief Engineer, Suffolk County Water Authority APPENDIX D - 24 320 Love Lane Mattituck , NY 11952 January 24 , 1992 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Main Road Southold , NY 11971 RE : Special Exception Application - Beachcomber property at Cutchogue , NY 1000-83 - 2 - 1 , 2 & 17 Dear Sirs : Please find enclosed the following : 1 ) Application in triplicate 2) Environmental Assessment Form - Short 3 ) Four prints of site plan 4 ) Filing fee 5 ) Z . B. A . Questionnaire We have not includes the notice to adjacent property owners as we will await your instructions to send these notices after you have reviewed the application , as per your instructions . Should any additional information be required , please don ' t hesitate to contact me . Sincerely, t 1�„ 1 my E .Aay r , r HER :ml Encs . CC : Nicholas Aliano TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION Application No. Date Filed: JO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK: 1 6i4e), Nicholas Alison of estan - shotah., NY once, ou se No. and Street am a a e, ]p o e, Telephone Number) hereby apply to THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS for a SPECIAL EXCEPTION in accordance with the ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE vi , SECTION 100 , SUBSECTION 6184 for the below-described property for 'the following uses and purposes (and as shown on the attached plan drawn to scale): Add additional units to existing motel. A A. Statement of Ownership and Interest. N;,hMas Al;, ____ is(acer) the owner(s) of property known ander refred to as en of n P d oaa Cutcho ue ouse o., Street, am et identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 83 lock 2 Lot(s) 1_,2, 17 which is not (is) on a subdivision Map (Filed "Map of " Filed Mapes-, and has been approved by the Southold Town Panning Board on as a [Minor] [Major] Subdivision). The above-described property was acquired by the owner on B. The applicant alleges that the approval of this exception would be in harmony with the intent and purpose of said zoning ordinance and that the proposed use conforms to the standards prescribed therefor in said ordinance and would not be detrimental to property or persons in the neighborhood for the following reasons: A motel use is pre-existing on this location and has been a compatible use since it's existence. The building locations would have minimal impact on visual surroundings and the Long ls]and Sound as buffering by wooded areas are both to south, east, west by Duck Pond Road and Nurth by Long Island Ssund. C. The property which is the subject of this application is zoned RR an [x ] is consistent with the use(s) described in the Certificate of Occupancy being furnished herewith. L ] is not consistent with the Certificate of Occupancy being furnished herewith for the following reason(s): [ ] is vacant land. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) ss.: ]gna ure S n to befor�m_ his�l day of��L) 19 otary Public) MAF:c.".0 n6NA Nqs/Il .:d!:m York Z82 (rev. 2/6/86) NY Caam'sWuExPv..Apr.24.19Z 3 14164 121871—Text 12 PROJECT I.D.NUMBER 617.21 S EO R Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I—PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1. APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME Nicholas Aliano Beachcomber site plan a. PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality Cutchogue County Suffolk 4. PRECISE LOCATION(Street address and road intersections,prominent landmarks,etc.,or prov,oe macro east side/end of Duck Pond Road S. IS PROPOSED ACTION: C3New LX ExDansion ❑Mddlflcatiowalteretlon 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: - add additional units to existing motel complex 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially 14 acres Ultimately 14 acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS, Op Yes ❑No If No,describe briefly 9. WIHHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ISI Residential I__I industrial ❑Commercial ❑Agriculture ❑ParkJForesVOpen space G Other Describe: 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL OR FUNDING,NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY(FEDERAL STATE -1OR LOCALI? OC:Yes No If yes,list agenoy(s)and perm,tlaoprovals Southold Town Planning Board , Suffolk county Department of Health Services , (s011tlTOld Town Trustees New York State Department of Environmental Conservatior$' 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE AOT-,;N HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? 11 Yes [IN, If yep,list agency name and Permdlapproval 12. AS A RESULT�O-FI PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT'APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? El Yes I"1 No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicantlsponsor name: Date 1 /24/92 NRY E . YN R , 1 ge Pt' .tor Aiiano Signature !V. It the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER t (Continued on reverse side ) The N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act recuires submission Of this form, and an environmental review will Le aaae Ly tnis ward before any action is taken. SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FO'L1 INSTRUCTIONS• (a) In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is not expected that additional studies, research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) I£ any question has been answered Yes the project may be sig- nificant and completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. _ (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that the project is not significant. - (d) Environmental Assessment 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically'alter more than 10 acres of land? _Yes . x NO 2. Will there be a major change to any unio_ue or unusual land form on the site? _Yes x No 3. Will project alter or have a large effect on an existing body of water? _Yes _X_No 4. Will project have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality? _Yes x No S. Will project significantly effect drainage flow on adjacent sites? Yes _ _.X_No 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered ' plant or animal species? _Yes x No 7. Will project result in a major adverse effect on air quality? _Yes = No S. Will project have a major effect on visual char- acter of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? _Yes xNo 9. Will project adversely impact any site or struct- ure of historic, pre-historic, or paleontological importance or any site designated as a critical - envirchmental area by a local agency? _Yes x No 10. Will project have a major effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? —Yes x No 11. Will project result in major traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation systems? _Yes x No 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odors; _ noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturb- ance as a result of the project's operation? Yes _ x No 13. will project have any impact on public health or safety? _Yes x No 14. Will project affect the existing community by directly causing a growth in permanent popula- tion of more than 5 percent over a one-year period or have a major negative effect on the '—Yes K No character of the community or neighborhood? 15. Is there public controversy concerningthe Project? Yes -No preparer-s Signature: _ Representi 28A 4/q5 ng: Nlrhnl - ni n Date: 1 /24 /92 NICHOLASALIAN MARGARET ALIANO I BOX 263. ASHLEY LANE ) 763 SHOREHAM, N. Y. 11766 PAY TO THE ORDER OF CFEMICAL oa DOLLARS Rout 25A 6 M&dp gyps) Rodw Point N.Y.11218 FOR ° A• 11'000 76 311' o'-02800012D. 8 i 3111 A &02 86u QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION A. Please disclose the names of ,the owner(s) and any other individuals (and entities ) having a financial interest in the subject premises and a description of their interests: (Separate sheet may be attached. ) ; C . � , n Oma- B. Is the subject premises listed on the real estate market for sale or being shown to prospective buyers? { _• } Yes { } No. (S£ Yes, please attach copy of "conditions" of sale. ) '-70`) C. Are there any Proposals to change ar alter land conteurs? { } Yes { } No For Foundations and +-.oade,a,,, D. 1. Are there any areas which contain wetland grasses? 2. Are the wetland areas shown on the map submitted with this application? IN 3. Is the property bulkheaded between the wetlands area and the upland building area? t'- 4. If your property contains wetlands or pond areas, have you contacted the Office of the Town Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? E. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea level? 7 (If not applicable, state "N.A. " ) F. Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences which exist and are not shown on the survey map that you are submitting? Y If none exist, please state "none. " G. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning your premises? _do If yes, please submit a copy of your building permit and map as approved by the Building Department. If none, please state. H. Do you or any co-owner also own other land close to this parcel? If yes, please explain where or submit copies of deeds. I. Please list present use or operations conducted at this parcel and proposed use ;- Autho ized 90Sgna ur and Dat 3/87, 10/ 1k FORM NO.4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. UPDATED C .O . Certificate Of Occupancy No. Z.1.7790. . . . . . . . . . Date . ,February 23 , 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THIS CERTIFIES that the building .MOTEL COMPLEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location of Property . „3800 DUCK POND RD . Cutchogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. j;e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . House No. treet Hamlet County Tax htap No. 1000 Section . 3.$ . . . . . . . .Block . ?. . . . . . . . . . . .Lot . 0.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Filed Map No. . . . . . . . .Lot No. conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated SEE REPORT pursuant to Wltich Building Permit No. SEE REPORT dated SEE REPORT was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is . . . . . . . MOTEL COMPLEX EAST SECTION WEST SECTION AND CENTER SECTION '( RESTAURANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The certificate is issued to . POND, ENTERPRISES .INC . NICHOLAS ALIANO, PRES . (0svner, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hCs]tt7CR!tW>WANXXXXX of the aforesaid building. Suffolk County Department of Health Approval . . . . .N/A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . .N/A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATLD : N/A tl r J 'r . . . � ?J�? . . . . . . Building Inspector nov. t/a1 APPENDIX D - 25 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ,r0\�S�FfU(� D(j SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Goehringer,Chairman c yAc Supervisor Charles Grigonis,Jr. W x Serge Doyen,Jr. p _ Town Hall,53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 James Dinizio,Jr. �l,� �t Robert A.Villa �l �� Southold,New York 11971 Fax (516)765-1823 Telephone (516)765-1809 Telephone(516)765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 12 , 1992 Mr. Henry E. Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Re : Beachcomber property (Aliano) County Tax Map # 1000-83-2-1 , 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: In accordance with our coversation on January 24 , 1992 , we are re- turning the following: A. Three (3) prints of the sketch plan dated 12/19/91 B. Aliano ' s check in the amount of $300. 00 C. Your cover letter with a short environmental assessment form. Should you need application forms for resubmission, please let us know. Very truly yours , LK: lam Linda Kowalski P. S . It is understood that you will file for site plan approval with the Planning Board at the same time that you file your application (s) with our office. APPENDIX D - 26 g�FFOL,� APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ONS COG SCOTT L.HARRIS y< Gerard P.Goehringer,Chairman Supervisor o Charles Grigonis,Jr. W Town Hall,53095 Main Road Serge Doyen,Jr. O P.O.Box 1179 James Dinizio,Jr. d�1J01 �a0� Southold,New York 11971 Robert A. Villa Fax (516)765-1823 Telephone (516)765-1809 Telephone (516)765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 28, 1992 Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Application for Special Exception - Nicholas Aliano & ano. Parcel ID #1000-83-2-1, 2, and/or 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: This letter will acknowledge review by our office of the above-referenced documentation concerning the proposed motels by Special Exception at the above sites. The documentation must be returned to you for the following reasons: ( 1) your documents on file with the Planning Board apparently are lacking information which prevents the Planning Board from proceeding further under the site plan review process. Please furnish the information requested by the Planning Board letters of December 5, 1989, October 3, 1989, and January 23 , 1992 {copies of which are attached for your convenience) . ( 2) this project appears to be within the jurisdiction of the Town Trustees under Chapters 37 and 97 as amended. Chapter 37 is the new Coastal Zone Management Law, and Chapter 97 is the Wetlands Ordinance, which now pertains to sound areas. It is noted that activities are proposed within 100 feet of the sound beach areas, and therefore applications must be filed with the Town Trustees at this time. Since the Coastal Zone Management Law requires a Type I declaration under SEQRA, determinations from the Town Trustees will be necessary. It is requested that you file and proceed jointly with the Town Trustees, the County Health Department, the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, the Southold Town Planning Board, and any other agencies which may require applications. ( 3 ) Ownership: the site plan maps indicate that there are five parcels, although the Town records show three: CTM Lot #1 owned by Pond Enterprises, Inc. ; CTM Lot #2 owned by Page 2 - February 28 , 1992 To: Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Re: Nicholas Aliano & ano 1000-83-2-1 ,2 , and/or 17 Patricia Krupski; CTM Lot #17 owned by Nicholas Aliano. It will be necessary to do one of the following: (a) combine and merge, the parcels, showing the total acreage on the site plan maps, or (b) submit a separate application for each parcel if they are remaining in separate ownership, or (c) file and proposed with a proposed subdivision from the existing three lots into five lots. ( 4) Existing Buildings and Uses: please provide us with copies of all Certificates of Occupancy, including: (a) a C.O. for parcel #17 with existing buildings, (b) a C.O. for Parcel #2 with existing buildings, (c) a copy of the C.O. report as referenced in C.O. #Z17790; ( 5) Bluff Setbacks: Please show setbacks proposed for all new buildings and structures from the top of the bluff (which appears to be an average between the 25 ft. and 50 ft. elevations above mean sea level) . The setback to the top of the bluff by code is required to be at 100 feet; ( 6) Neighbor Notices: Notices must be sent, together with the site plan attached to each, to all adjacent property owners for the entire 41+ acres by certified mail. (7) approvals are required by the Suffolk County Health Department and Water Authority, as deemed appropriate under the circumstances before a public hearing will be held by the Board of Appeals. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call our office. Very truly yours GERARD P. GOEtHRINGER i CHAIRMAN lk Enclosures APPENDIX D - 27 320 Love Lane Mattituck , NY 11952 March 6 , 1992 Bennett Orlowski , Jr . , Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold , NY 11971 RE : Site plan application of Nicholas Aliano 1000-83-2-1 , 2 and/or 17 Dear Mr . Orlowski : Please be advised that the correspondence from your office / to Michael LoGrande , Chairman of the Suffolk County Water Authority , dated January 23 , 1992 , does in fact contain an error . In reference to the statement that we have not responded to your requests for additional information since 1989 , the applicant has employed Barrett , Lanzisera , Beckman & Hyman as engineers and has diligently been in pursuit of approvals from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services . Your letter of January 23 , 1992 says that the applicant has not responded , however , you should note that your office had received correspondence from the Department of Health Services just ten days prior to with regard to this application . To date we are still processing this application befor the wastewater management section of the Department of Health Services . In your letter of October 3 , 1989 , it was requested that we go before the Zoning Board of Appeals as a transient motel is now a permitted use by Special Exception from that Board . We made application in January 1992 which has been refused as a result of this change in law by the Town Trustees as well as , I am told , a change in procedure for filing with the Zoning Board of Appeals . It is now my understanding that site plan compliance should be forthcoming in a preliminary fashion from your Board prior to proceeding before the Zoning Board of Appeals . Also , approvals from the Department of Health Services and Suffolk County Water Authority must be obtained prior to the Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing . Although this letter is at odds with the direction I received from staff (please note letter of December 5 , 1989 from your office ) , the Zoning Board of Appeals has given me a specific outline which we would be more than happy to follow in bringing this application to a successful conclusion . Bennett Orlowski , Jr . , Chairman Southold Town Planning Board March 6 , 1992 Page 2 I have also been given correspondence from the Zoning Board of Appeals office where the Planning Board staff has indicated there is no active site plan application before them (Letter dated October 1 , 1991 ) . Please note I feel this is an error as we have been tited up almost literally with the engineering from this project on a County level . To clarify our position , please note we are in active and diligent pursuit of a site plan approval . Now that we have direction from the Zoning Board of Appeals , we intend to pursue this course of action although it differs from the correspondence from your Board . Should you have any problems at all , please contact me / immediately as this application has already been convoluted through three agencies over three years . Sincerely , Henry E . Raynor , Jr . HER :ml CC : Nicholas Aliano ,, Barrett , Lanzisera , Beckman & Hyman Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Michael A . LoGrande , Chairman , Suffolk County Water Authority Dennis MOran , P . E . , S . C . Dept of Health Services APPENDIX D - 28 320 Love Lane Mattituck , NY 11952 March 6 , 1992 John M . Bredemeyer III , Chairman Southold Town Trustees Main Road Southold , NY 11971 Dear Mr . Bredemeyer : Enclosed please find a site plan for the proposed expansion of the Beachcomber at Cutchogue , New York . jWe have been advised by the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals that this action may come under your jurisdiction under Chapters 37 and 97 (Coastal Zone Management Law /. and Wetlands Ordinance , respectively) . Please advise as to whether this site plan requires application to your Board and if so , the procedures and applications to be submitted . Sincerely , Henry E . Raynor , Jr . HER :ml Encs . CC : Nicholas Aliano Barrett , Lanzisera , Beckman & Hyman Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals APPENDIX D - 29 320 Love Lane Mattituck , NY 11952 March 6 , 1992 New York State Deparrtment of Environmental Conservation SUNY - Room 20 Stony Brook , NY 11790 RE : Proposed expansion of Beachcomber at Cutchogue , NY Dear Sirs : Please find enclosed a proposed site plan for the expansion jof the Beachcomber at Cutchogue , New York . Please advise as to whether application will need to be made to your Board in order to obtain the necessary approvals to complete this project . Sincerely , Henry E . Raynor , Jr . HER :ml Enc . CC : Nicholas Aliano Barrett , Lanzisera , Beckman & Hyman Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Trustees APPENDIX D - 30 320 Love Lane Mattituck , NY 11952 March 13 , 1992 Holzmacher , McLendon & Murrell , P . C . 575 Broad Hollow Road Melville , NY 11757 ATTN : Dennis Kelleher , Vice President RE : Proposed expansion of Beachcomber motel at Cutchogue ` Dear Mr . Kelleher : With regard to your letter of January addressed to Steve Hyman , we hereby request that your prepare a full cost breakdown for water supply as required by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services as well as design and and cost analysis for leaching fields and septic requirements with regard to the above referenced project . Please note that the project has been reduced from 147 units to 86 units to avaid installation of! a sewerage treatment plant . As the agent for Nicholas Aliano , I would appreciate receiving a copy .of all correspondence generated from your office . S 'W Henry E . Raynor , Jr . HER :ml CC : Nibholas Aliano ,/ Steven Hyman , P . E". Southold Town Planning Board i Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Trustees New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York State Department of Health Services APPENDIX D - 31 � gQFFO(,�� TRUSTEES :;"�N. OGS, SUPERVISOR John M. Bredemeyer, III, President by,�� ,-, 9� SCOTT L. HARRIS Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President Henry P. Smith v- E. '` � ^�+ " Town Hall John B. Tuthill ` y �� 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson ��j01 110 v EO. Box 1179 Telephone (516) 765-1892 '= Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 23 , 1992 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel SCTM #1000-83-2-1 Dear Mr. Raynor: The Southold Trustees inspected the above referenced site and '_ site plan for the Beachcomber Motel and recommend the Proposed structure be moved an additional 50 ' landward than shown on the survey of Thomas J. Filazzo dated December 1991. ti Absent the ability to move the proposed building further I ..A landward, the proposal must fully comply with Chapter 37 of the Town Code: Coastal Erosion Protection. It would appear that the activity as planned is prohibited under that ordinance as falling too close to the bluff. Minimal bluff setbacks for this site are 50 ' for movable structures under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Law and 100 ' for building under the Zoning Boards jurisdiction. Closer setbacks than these will likely regVire variance applicationis). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, � John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB: jmt CC, Planning Board Zoning Board Building Dept. APPENDIX D - 32 HtNKY E. kHYNiJk JN. ec1.1 LUVE LHNE NHTTlTULKj N. Y. 1195'c: MAY 7, lb7_ i u: 'suW HOLU 1 NN T RUSTEW rc : bcHLHVUMbER MuTEL LNCLuoLD HEkEWP H ARE THREE LU?ILK Ur THE PSUPLOLD 511E PLAN ry:�ICPv:JLii ; u YUUR ItLuutST b. p"=Hoc HLVISE UP joUv Du 16JUN OF JURIOD1LTIUN Hb RCVERENLED 20 HY wR1Uk LET1ER. !'itii tii'•. YLU. APPENDIX D - 33 ��gUFFOC�-co 0 � o 'LANNING BOARD MEMBERS Z SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman ~' O Supervisor y� o� George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald � - P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L- Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold. New York 11971 Telephone 15101 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fuc 15101 765-1823 June ii, 1992 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Motel located on E/s Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue, N.Y. SCTM # 1000-83-1-2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: This is in response to your letter dated March 6, 1992, in which you raised a number of objections to information contained in prior correspondence from this office going back to October of 1989 . Your letter has been reviewed, along with the application file itself . We find the situation to be as follows: To date, there has been no Planning Board action on the subject application because the site plan that was submitted in August of 1989 was incomplete. Our letter of October 3 , 1989, explained what material was needed to complete the application. Further, in researching the file for this letter, we noticed that the application involves three parcels of property, each of which is in separate ownership. But, only one of the owners, Nicholas Aliano, owner of Parcel C, is named on the application form and on the site plan. The owners of Parcel A ( Pond Enterprises, Inc. ) and Parcel B (Patricia Krupski) must be included on the application for it to be valid. In sum, until the Planning Board receives a complete application submission; (one that includes the correct fee, technically complete site plans, and the consent of all the property owners to the proposal shown on the plans, ) the application that is in this office is incomplete, hence inactive. Your letter also discussed Section 100-61. of the Zoning Code which stipulates that a Special Exception must be obtained for a motel in the Resort Residential District. Our review of Lhe records, revealed that the motel use has been established on only one of the three parcels; Parcel A, which is owned by Pond Enterprises, Inc. Since the proposal is to expand the motel use onto Parcels B and C, both Patricia Krupski ( owner of Parcel B) and Nicholas Aliano (owner of Parcel C) must apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Exception. The application to the Zoning Board should be made concurrently with the site plan application or shortly thereafter. This suggestion is made because Section 100-254 B. ( 3) ( a) of the Zoning Code prohibits the Planning Board from granting site plan approval before the Zoning Board of Appeals has granted a Special Exception. Finally, with regard to your client' s application to the Department of Health Services for water supply and disposal permits, it has been our experience that their review of an application will not proceed beyond a certain point without a determination of environmental significance from this Board. Since we have not received a complete and valid site plan application for the expansion of the Beachcomber Motel, we have not been able to start the environmental review procedure, much less reach a determination of significance. I trust this clarifies the prior correspondence from this office. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Nicholas Aliano, Owner Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector John M. Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Trustees Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Dennis Moran, SC Dept. of Health Services Stephen Costa, SC Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans, NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, at Stony Brook APPENDIX D - 34 HLNRV E. RAYNOR Jii. 3;'W LOVE !_ANE MATTITUCK, N.Y. 119bc JUNI lc, 199c TU: bUUTHULU TUWN ZUNINL BOARD OF APPEHLS RE. SITL PLAN BI.ACHCOMBER MOTEL tr,LLOSG.D DATES (APPROX) OF !iUBJECT PROJECT DISCUStiION. b/10/91 CALLkI) HOLLY ON MEETING WITH I42M PERTAINING TU WATER AND SEWER ON PHIS LOCATION. *-LISSA TO CALL BACK rf/16/')( z COPIES OF 'i ITE PLAN TO !) BD SHOWING CHANGE IN DENSTI'Y PER SCDUHS. 4/`x/51 LETTER FROM P BD ASKING FOR RESPONSE Ot INFO'N ON ,e/H9 l LITER. ,, i i9l COPY LETTE" ki FROM P BD bI ! ING WE bHOUDL RTAkT WITH ZBA fRULE55ING H;. SPI-L. EXCI 4-'7ION rJEEDFD. lr/91 Pk,EPAREU ZBA APPIICATIONS AS TEAS BARRET OLMOST F1NItiH SLDUHS REVj:;ION�,. i/cic SUBMITTED PAPEkWO14K TO /BA. /5c LbH RETURNS APPLICATIUN N'= WILL NOT PROCESS UNTIL SLDOHb QUESTIUI145 RE'sOLVED, LUT UWIVERSHIP CLARIFIED. REUQESTED FROM Ft7'M WATER STUDY AND :;EWERAGE 6TUDY COSTS k SLoGHS. CONIES TU ZbH, otC P BD, TkUSITFFt;, AND SCUGHS LEI --Ei,' FROM DEC RtU(1FSTING MORE INFO. 4/5c LETTER FROM IkUS;TEEn J0 REVISE SETBACKS FOR MOTII b/9c CALL FROM LINDA Al ZBA FOR STATUS, BROUGHT UP TO DATE WITH INFO VARIOUS AGANCJLS. b/92 MEETING WITH V SCUNAZ TO (SET PROJECT 13ACK ON 'IRACK WITH r MD. IHIY STILL NEED PAT KHUPSKI'S SIGNATURE TO COMPLETE FILE. i./9r LETTER FROM TRUSTEE`. HIATING NO JURISDICTION ON r'RUPF HI Y. APPENDIX D - 35 TRUSTEES ��0- 4q � CpG SUPERVISOR John M. Bredemeyer, III, President �qti� y� SCOTT L. HARRIS ti Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President yx Town Hall Henry P. Smith ti., �++ t John B. Tuthill 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson '14 IF 0[ P.O. Box 1179 Telephone (516) 765-1892 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 18, 1992 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck NY 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel SCTM #83-2-1 Dear Mr. Raynor: After an on site inspection the Southold Town Trustees found that the proposed work as per plan dated December 1991 and dated as received May 11, 1992, is out of the Trustees jurisdiction. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office _Very truly yours, John M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB: jmt CC: Building Dept. APPENDIX D - 36 320 Love LaNE Mattituck , NY 11952 June 30 , 1992 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold , NY 11971 RE : Beachcomber site plan application 83 - 1 - 2 & 17 Dear Sirs : - Please find enclosed the signature page of the application which has been signed by Patricia Krupski and notarized . As we believe this is the last item needed to complete the application , we understand you can proceed with a SEQRA determination . Should this not be the case , please advise . Sincerely , Henry E . Raynor , Jr. HER :ml Enc . APPLICANT' S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK being duly sworn, deposes and says that he resides at in the State of New York, and that he is the .owner of the above propert_ or that he is the of the (Title) ( Specify whether Partnership which is hereby making application; that the or Corporation) owner or his heirs, successors or assigns will, at his own expense, install the required site improvements in accordance with Article XIII of the Code of the Town of Southold for the area stated herein and that there are no existing structures or improvements on the land which are not shown on the Site Plan; that title to the entire parcel, including all rights-of-way, have been clearly established and are shown on said Plan; that no part of the Plan infringes upon_.any duly._ . filed plan which has not been abandoned both as to lots and as to roads; that he has examined all rules and regulations adopted by the Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and will comply with same; that the plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered or changed in any manner without the approval of the Planning Board; and that the actual physical improvements will be installed in strict accordance with the plans submitted. Signed � ^— (owner) Sworn to before me this da//y of 19L ., � �' (No ry_Public) G! u0 ,'S:ety York Signed (Partner or Corporate Offi r and Title) APPENDIX D - 37 320 Love Lane 'Viatti uc!" 0 1 ' 90 July 21 , 199[ Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold , NY 11971 RE : Site plan application of Beachcomber at Cutchogue Dear Sirs : In response to your most recent letter , please let us reaffirm our position with regard to the inclusion of the parcel on which the Beachcomber motel currently exists . Please take note that we have not included this parcel as we are not seeking to construct or expand the existing motel . We seek to gain approval to construct units on the parcels owned by Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski , not the parcel owned by Pond Enterprises . We request that the Board act on this application soley with regard to the parcels owned by Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski . Should you have any questions or feel -the need to discuss this matter further , please don ' t hesitate to contact me . Sincerely , Henry E . Raynor , Jr . HER :ml CC : Nicholas Aliano APPENDIX D - 38 CD ,ANNING BOARD MEMBERS W SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman • �� Supervisor George Ritchie Latham. Jr. 'slp �0,ry�y. Richard G. Ward mac # ^" Town Hall. 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald �r P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (916) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 July 22, 1992 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Expansion of Beachcomber Motel located on E/s Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue, N.Y. SCTM # 1000-83-1-2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: This is to confirm our review of your July 16th correspondence regarding this application. We cannot proceed with our review of this application as you requested in your letter because the following items are missing from the application submission: - revised site plans at the 1" = 20' scale, - application fee - revised long environmental assessment form - signed affadavit from the principals of Pond Enterprises attesting that they are part of the site plan application. Since the motel proposal is an expansion of an existing facility, and the Board' s environmental and site review must include the existing motel, all three parcels must be part of the application and the site plan. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. / Chairman cc: Nicholas Aliano, Owner Gerald P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals APPENDIX D - 39 320 Love Lane Mattituck , NY 11952 July 31 , 1992 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold , NY 11971 RE : Beachcomber site plan application at Cutchogue , NY Dear Sirs ; As requested , please find enclosed the following : 1 ) Revised site plans 2 ) Updated Long Environmental Assessment Form 3 ) Affadavit from principals of Pond Enterprises We understand submission of the above referenced completes our application . We hereby request review of same . Should any further documentation be needed , please contact me at ( 516 ) 298-8420 . Sincerely , Henry E . Raynor , Jr . HER :ml Encs . CC : Nicholas Aliano Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Ashley Lane Shoreham, NY 11786 July 27, 1992 To Whom It May Concern: Let this letter serve as verification that we, Mr. and Mrs, Nicholas Aliano, the principals of Pond Enterprises and owners of the Beachcomber Motel, do hereby acknowledge the inclusion of the Pond Enterprises property in seeking Planning Board approval of the site plan application submitted for the adjacent parcels owned by Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski. Q 'Ali County of Suffolk ss. : State of New York Sworn to before me this day of 1992. NOTARY PUBLIC APPENDIX D - 40 G „ do � 'LANNING BOARD MEMBERS ei SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman ,� O �; Supervisor George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall. 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (5161 765-1813 August 6, 1992 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Expansion of Beachcomber Motel E/s Duck Pond Lane, on Long Island Sound Cutchogue, N.Y. SCTM # 1000-83-1-2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: This is to confirm our receipt of revised site plans, the updated Long Environmental Assessment form and the Affadavit from the principals of Pond Enterprises. If we receive the following two items which are needed to complete the application, by August 14th, we will be able to begin the environmental review coordination process on August 17th: 1 . Notarization of the Affadavit of Pond Enterprises. 2 . Application fee: $2 , 685 . When the environmental coordination process is started, this proposal will be sent to our environmental consultants for their review. An estimate of the cost of this review will be sent to you for payment before the work is started. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Valerie Scopaz of this office. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman APPENDIX D - 41 �p a -4 '-ANNING BOARD MEMBERS �n T a SCOTT L. HARRIS .;ennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman '--a✓ t Supervisor George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 August 18 , 1992 RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request for Expansion of Existing Motel by Adding 86 New Units in Eight Buildings S/E/c Long Island Sound and Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue, N.Y. SCTM #1000-083-1-1, 2 & 17 Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 ( State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1 . Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3 . Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the proposed site plan, and a long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: Beachcomber Motel - Expansion of S/E/c Long Island Sound & Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue, New York Description of Requested Action: To expand an existing motel that consists of thirty six motel units, three apartments, an office, a fifty seat restaurant and a swimming pool with a large cabana. The motel complex with the exception of the swimming pool and its cabana is on a separate parcel of 2 . 1 acres ( # 1000-83-2-1 ) . The proposed expansion will add eighty six new rooms in eight buildings , which will be placed on 14 . 1 acres of land. The 14 . 1 Description continued: acres and the motel lot are zoned Resort Residential. The remainder of the land involved in the project is zoned Agricultural-Conservation. The total amount of land under review is approximately 45 . 622 acres. The largest parcel is 31 acres in area and has a residence at its southern end. SEQRA Classification_: (x) Type I ( ) Unlisted Contact Person: Valerie Scopaz ( 516) -765-1938 The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) on this project. Within thirty ( 30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in writing whether or not you have an interest in being lead agency. Planning Board Position: (x ) This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. ( ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. (x ) other. ( See comments below) . Comments The enclosed site plan does not show the entire 31 -acre parcel. Also, the long environmental assessment form needs to be revised to include the fact that the property lies over a sole source aquifer ( # A. 2) . And there is some question as to whether the site has locally important scenic views ( # A. 14) . The negative answers to questions # B. 16 and 17 will have to be reconsidered during this review because there will be some solid waste generated by this proposed expansion. The responses to # B. 1.e, and l. f , and l.h and #B. 4. , were left blank. They will be completed during the course of this review and the answers disseminated to all coordinating agencies. cc: * Building Department, Southold * Board of Trustees, Southold * Board of Zoning Appeals, Southold * Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services - Mineo, Costa, Ponturo * Suffolk County Planning Commission * Department of Environmental Conservation, New York - Albany & Stony Brook (Evans) * Department of State, New York - Persaud, Walsh * Suffolk County Water Authority - LoGrande, Rosavitch * Maps are enclosed for your review APPENDIX D - 42 o�o��SUFFO(,�cQG` LANNING BOARD MEMBERS y x SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Oy • !� Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 August 18 , 1992 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Expansion of Beachcomber Motel E/s Duck Pond Lane, on Long Island Sound Cutchogue, N.Y. SCTM # 1000-83-1-2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following resolution was adopted at the Planning Board' s August 17 , 1992 meeting: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, start the coordination process on this Type I action. A copy of this site plan is being sent to our environmental consultants for their review. An estimate of the cost of this review will be sent to you for payment before the work is started. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Valerie Scopaz of this office. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman CC, Board of Trustees, Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, Southold Building Department, Southold _ Highway Department, Southold Department of Health Services, Suffolk County - S. Costa, V. Minei, P. Ponturo Planning Commission, Suffolk County - F. Dowling Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany - commissioner Jorling, and Stony Brook - R. Evans Department of State, New York - Mohabir Persaud Suffolk County Water Authority - M. LoGrande, E. Rosavitch Groundwater Resources Committee, Southold Planning and Zoning Committee, Southold APPENDIX D — 43 �gUFFO(4-C APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS �O� OG SCOTT L.HARRIS Gerard P. Goehringer,Chairman o y` Supervisor W x O Town Hall,53095 Main Road Serge Doyen,Jr. P.O.Box 1179 James Dinizio,Jr. j� �! '1, Robert A.Villa Ol Southold,New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516)765-1809 Telephone (516)765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 28, 1992 Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Aliano, Krupski & Pond Enterprises, Inc. Dear Mr. Raynor: In response to your letter requesting a date of a hearing in the above motel projects, please be aware that we are unable to estimate or confirm a hearing date until the following has been accomplished ( see ZBA letters of February 28, 1992 and June 30, 1992) : a) Declaration of Significance or Non-Significance by the Southold Town Planning Board under the SEQRA process - {we believe that the SEQRA coordination will be sent to us and other agencies, within the next week, and as a Type I Action would then be filed with the Department of Environmental Conservation according to state publication procedures) ; b) you will be forwarding a copy of the most recent status update concerning the Town Trustees application, County Health Department, and N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation at the time of filing your Z.B.A. application; c) a copy of the receipt showing the date of filing with the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, of the SEQRA designation should be filed as soon as it becomes available -- this will confirm that the SEQRA procedures have been initiated and the public comment period has started; d) it is expected that the ZBA, the public, etc. would then be notified under the notice requirements ( 30-day comment period) . The ZBA would at that time be in a position to coordinate comments and concerns. e) Once SEQRA has been finalized and a Declaration of Non-Significance or Significance issued, separate applications with the Z.B.A. should be filed for each parcel. As mentioned Page 2 - August 28, 1992 To: Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Re: Aliano, Krupski & Pond Enterprises, Inc. to you, the parcels apear to be in single-and-separate ownership, and the owners do not intend to be merge them into joint ownership. Several application forms with instructions were previously forwarded; three Special Exception application forms must be signed by the property owner(s) for the appropriate parcel(s) under consideration: three parcels, known as CTM Lot 1 by Pond Enterprises, Inc. ; CTM Lot 2 by Patricia Krupski; CTM Lot 17 by Nicholas Aliano - confirmed with copies of current deeds. f) once the above have been accomplished, it is expected that public hearings on the Z.B.A. applications will be advertised. Please keep us advised regarding the status of this project. Very truly yours, / GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski CC: Planning Board Southold Town Trustees Suffolk County Department of Health Services N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation (Environmental Analysts) APPENDIX D - 44 �d v5 q SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER .AUTHORITY Edward J. Rosavitch, P.E. Administrative Offices:4060 Sunrise Highway,Oakdale, NY 11769-0901 C (516) 563-0202 Chief Fax No.: (516) 569-5277 September 3, 1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. , Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Lead Agency Coordination Expansion of Beachcomber Motel SC T M 1000-83-02-01 , 02 & 17 Dear Mr. Orlowski : The Suffolk County Water Authority has no objection to the Planning Board of the Town of Southold assuming lead agency status in the above- captioned matter. However, given the magnitude of this expansion, the Authority would request that Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment Form be completed and corrected where necessary. The total anticipated daily water usage should be estimated based on the past experience of 36 motel units and 3 apartments. The impact on groundwater during the construction phase should be reviewed and restrictions should be put on landscaped areas. Very truly yours, cc G� E. J . Rosavitch, P.E. Chief Engineer EJ R:dmc cc: M. A. LoGrande W. C. Hazlitt � S. R. Dassler APPENDIX D - 45 o� °yA G LANNING BOARD MEMBERS Z SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman O Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. y��! Richard G. Ward FF ,� Town Hall. 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1833 September 8, 1992 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: . Proposed Site Plan for Expansion of Beachcomber Motel Ejs Duck Pond Lane, on Long Island Sound Cutchogue, N.Y. SCTM # 1000-83-1-2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: This is to confirm receipt of a check in the amount of $450 . 00 for the environmental review. Our environmental consultants have been authorized to begin their review. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Valerie Scopaz of this office. Sincerely, BennettOrlowski, Chairman APPENDIX D - 46 LANNING BOARD MEMBERS p SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman O fi_ Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. y'ho ap� � Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 September 9 , 1992 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Expansion of Beachcomber Motel E/s Duck Pond Lane, on Long Island Sound Cutchogue, N.Y. SCTM # 1000-83-1-2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: The enclosed response from the Suffolk County Water Authority is being sent to you for your information. If you have documentation about the actual daily water usage of the existing motel and apartment complex, it would be appreciated if you would send a copy of same. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Valerie Scopaz of this office. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encl. CC: E.J. Rosavitch, P.E. , Suffolk County Water Authority Charles Voorhis, Cramer, Vorrhis & Associates I APPENDIX D - 47 t APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS v�� SCOTT L. HARRIS Gerard P. Goehringer,Chairman Supervisor a Town Hall,53095 Main Road Serge Doyen,Jr. _ James Dinizio,Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Robert A. Villa ' : 3 Southold,New York 11971 V L Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516)765-1509 Telephone (516)765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM TO: Southold Town Planning Board (Attn: Chairman-), --- --- ---_ FROM: Board of Appeals ��jn�� DATE: September 14 , '1992 iul,ll a SUBJECT: Your SEQRA Coordination of 8-18-92 Site Plan - Aliano, Krupski & Others at Cutaho9up "'"'' r _,_; CTM Parcels 2 , 17 (& 1) of Section 83 , Block 2 This letter is in response to your coordination letter dated August 18 , 1992 and to confirm that we have no objection to your assuming lead agency status. At this time, however, we feel it is important to furnish the following as part of the record for your information and update, particularly in light of information received from the applicant that a preliminary conference has not been held before the Planning Board, or with the Building Inspector, as of this stage of the project: MOTEL UNIT DENSITY: The properties under which the site plan is being requested involves three parcels . which have not as yet been combined as one parcel under zoning. The parcels which are distinctly separate at this time are: Parcel #1, Section 83 , Block 2 is shown to be in the ownership of Pond Enterprises, Inc. and is improved by motel units. This parcel consists of approximately two (2 ) acres in size. The normal allowable density without public water and sewer per Art. VI ( 100-61) is 14 . 5 motel units. Parcel #2, Section 83 , Block 2 is shown to be in the ownership of Patricia Krupski and is improved with a one-story main structure with porch and accessory swimming pools. Page 2 - Septembert 5 , 1992 a To: Planning Boar, Lead Agency Re: SEQRA Coordination, etc. - Aliano & Krupski The area of this parcel is 11. 8+- acres of which approximately 10 acres may be in the RR Zone. The normal allowable density without public water and sewer per 100-61 is 72.7 motel units. Parcel #3 , Section 83 , Block 2 is shown to be in the ownership of Nicholas Aliano and is improved by a principal structure and accessory buildings. The area of this parcel is: 31. 6+- acres as per survey furnished to the Assessors Office, of which 4+- acres may be in the RR Zone. The normal allowable motel unit density for this parcel would be a maximum of 29+- motel units. ***The total areas noted above for Parcels 1, 2 & 3 should total 45 . 5+- acres, although approximately 14. 1 acres is located in the RR Zone and the remaining 31+- acres in the A-C Zone. The normal allowable motel unit density if Parcels 1, 2 and 3 are merged under zoning into one tract would be not more than 116 . 22 units for the RR Zone District land areas. The total number of units for is proposed at 122 which exceeds the above figures. Please note that the density calculations will be applicable to each parcel, as exists and the limitations are noted above. The total density in excess of that as authorized for each parcel will not be authorized under the Special Exception until such time as either a merger by deed and/or town covenants in legal form recorded with the Suffolk County Clerk are accepted by our office (and as may be required by the County) and submitted by the applicants, Patricia Krupski and Nicholas Aliano as individual property owners for the land areas which are under ' the proposed expansion. In the interim, the following questions are raised at this time and our office shall reserve further comment until responses to these items are confirmed in writing: a) what is the intent of use for that land area labeled 11C-2" owned by P. Krupski and land area labeled "B-2" owned by N. Aliano - particularly since it is located in the A-C Zone District. b) If dwelling uses are proposed for the land area in the A-C Zone District, please confirm number of units for dwelling use and whether it will be by cluster subdivision or major subdivision. If none, please confirm. Covenants will be required by the Town for these land areas as well. gage - September} 5, 1992 To: Planning Boar, Lead Agency Re: SSQRA Coordination, etc. - Aliano & Krupski c) Copies of Certificates of Occupancy for all principal buildings and all accessory structures and buildings is requested at this time as part of this project review. Please furnish our office with copies of same. d) Questions may be forthcoming concerning the existing and proposed future uses of the buildings within the A-C Zone. Please furnish map to show the buildings in this land area and confirming the acreage of land in each ownership and in each zone district for each owner. ' APPENDIX D� 48 CM E -4 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman Supervisor Gcorce Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. WardOl �;� y��'` Town Hall. 53095 Main Roa, Mark S. McDonald -�xc.r '- P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax 1516) 765-1823 uocetnber 28; 1992 MEMORANDUM TO ALL COORDINATING AGENCIES: RE: Beachcomber Motel Expansion SCTM 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue, New York Dear Coordinating Agency Reviewer: Please add the attached Clarification of Project Description, which is dated September 28, 1992, to the Lead Agency Coordination letter that was sent to you on August 18 , 1992. The clarification includes additional information about the proposal which will provide a better understanding about the relationship of the existing motel complex to the proposed expansion. This application involves three separately owned parcels. The owners of two of the parcels are part of a single application to develop their land as one unit. Although no additional development is proposed for the smallest parcel with the existing motel and restaurant, it is being included in the environmental review. Also enclosed is a copy of additional material that has been submitted by the applicant as part of the environmental assessment submission: a report entitled "Water Resource/System BEACHCOMBER II, Cutchogue, Town of Southold" July 1991. H2M Group. Data on existing water usage at the site is still forthcoming. It will be sent to you under separate cover. The Planning Board tentatively plans on making an environmental determination at its October 19 , 1992 meeting. Accordingly, we would appreciate receiving your responses by the 13th of October in order to give ourselves adequate time to review them. Questions about this project should be directed to Valerie Scopaz at 765-1938. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Board of Trustees, Southold ; Zoning Board of Appeals, Southold Building Department, Southold Highway Department, Southold Department of Health Services, Suffolk County - S. Costa, V. Minei -, P. Ponturo Department of Planning, Suffolk County - F. Dowling Department of Environmental Conservation, New York Albany, Commissioner Jorling and Stony Brook, R. Evans i Suffolk County Water Authority - M. LoGrande, E. Rosavitch Groundwater Resources Committee, Southold Planning And Zoning Committee, Southold * Person to whom copy of Water Report was sent. i t i -V G PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski. Jr., Chairman �s. Supervisor Gcoree Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward --.,f ~' w Town Hall. 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold. New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 September 28, 1992 CLARIFICATION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR: - Project Name: Beachcomber Motel - Expansion of : S/E/c Long Island Sound & Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue, New York SCTM # 1000 - 083 - 1 - 1 , 2, 17 . Description of Requested Action: To expand an existing motel that consists of thirty six motel units, three apartments, an office, a fifty seat restaurant and a swimming pool with a large cabana that holds five units, which the motel owner says are not rented out as motel units but have the potential to be used as such. The 1991 Water Resource System study includes water demands of these five units. A sign on the restaurant notes that it is not open to the public, but is for motel patrons only. The existing motel and restaurant are on a separate parcel of 2. 1 acres in area ( # 1000-83-2-1) that is zoned Resort Residential (RR) . The swimming pool and cabana with five units is located on an adjoining parcel of about 12 . 3 acres ( #1000-083-2-2) . The proposed ex ansion of 86 new rooms will be located on part of bot his 12. 3 acre parcel and another, adjoining parc 1 of about 33 . 8 acres ( # 1000-83-17) , each of which is in different ownership. These units will be placed on 14 . 1 acres of RR-zoned land. The total amount of RR-zoned land is about 16 . 2 acres, of which part is developed with the aforementioned motel containing thirty-six units and three apartments, a fifty seat restaurant, a swimming pool and a five unit cabana. The Town' s Zoning Code allows motel units in this district by Special Exception of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Code permits a density of one unit per each 6,000 square feet of land area where there is no public water or sewer. A density of one unit per each 4 , 000 square feet of land is permitted where there public water and sewer. The Planning Board has not endorsed the proposed density of new units in this proposal because we do not know how the current impacts of the groundwater resource demand by the well( s?) and septic system( s? ) for the existing motel, apartments, restaurant and poolside cabana units will be viewed by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services in conjunction with the anticipated demand for water and septic disposal for the expansion. The Health Department' s position will be distributed to all coordinating agencies when it is received. 1. The remainder of the land involved in this project ( about 29 . 42 acres) is zoned Agricultural-Conservation (AC) . There is a residence at its southern end. Thus, the total amount of land under review in this application includes all three properties, which incorporate approximately 45 . 622 acres of land in two zoning districts. APPENDIX D - 49 'LANNING BOARD MEMBERS W H SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman O • Supervisor George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward 1 �_z; Town Hall, 53095 Main Road @ Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARSouthold. New York 11971 TT]D-�1 OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF�OUTJJ LD20, 1992 Fax (5161 765-182_3 n Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel Cutchogue SCTM#1000-83-1-1,2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following resolutions were adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, October 19, 1992 . RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, take lead agency in its review of this Type I action. The Southold Town Planning Board will take additional time until its next meeting on November 2, 1992, to make a determination on the environmental significance of this Type I action pending the receipt of a report from its environmental consultants. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman APPENDIX D — 50 ( //LC VS CRAMER, VOORHIS 8 `ASSOCIATES P8 ENVIRONMENTA�AND,PLANNING CONSULTANTS Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. October 29, 1992 Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Review of Beachcomber Motel Long EAF SCTM No. 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 i Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue Dear Mr. Orlowski: As per the your request, we have completed a preliminary review of the above referenced project in accordance with your request. Tasks and completed activities are identified as follows: 1. Review Pan I LEAF The parcel has been field inspected by CVA, and the LEAF has been reviewed and amended as necessary. A copy of same is attached. 2. Prepare Part II LEAF The Part II LEAF checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional information concerning our findings is included below. 3. Environmental and Planning Considerations The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site and arca have been consulted. The project involves site plan approval to construct 86 units on a 14.1 acre parcel on the east side of Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, New York. The proposed site plan is included with the application and was prepared by Barrett, Lanzisera, Beckman and Hyman, project no. 8630, last revision 5-1-92. The subject site is primarily vacant with the exception of an existing pool, cabana, bocci court, miniature golf, and basketball area which is present in connection with adjacent lands operated as the Beachcomber Motel. All but the bocci court are proposed to remain. The site contains a flat meadow area surrounding the recreation complex. Southwest of this area is a deciduous woodlot which includes slopes well in excess of 35 percent. East of the recreation area is a slope including deciduous woodlands and xeric-oriented flora, with unstable soils and slopes in excess of 25 percent. There is a small apparently man-made pond located in the western part of the site, which includes surface water and is surrounded primarily by common reed. The proposed project calls for construction of 86 motel units accessed from a circular pattern driveway which surrounds the recreation complex. A total of eight buildings are proposed of which five will contain 12-units, two will contain 9-units, and one will contain 8-units. Seven of the buildings have a footprint of 30'x120' and one building will have a footprint of 30'x80'. It is noted that the 9-unit buildings (buildings 1 and 2) have 6-units, which appear to be 2-story, and could function as apartments having Pagel or3 54.2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Beachcomber Motel Long EAF Review floor areas of 1,200 square feet. All other units appear to have floor areas of approximately 600 square feet. The proposed project represents a major increase in intensity of use of the parcel. The Part II Long EAF (attached) provides an outline of several areas of significant environmental impact expected as a result of the project, and should be used in connection with this letter as a guide in addressing significant environmental issues. Based on our review, we believe that an Environmental Impact Statement is appropriate in order to assess impacts, provide a means of inter-au&ency coordination, and explore mitigation measures and alternatives. A brief discussion of anticipated impacts follows: 1. Buildings 1,2 and 3 are located in a steep slope area(>25%). Grade transitions of 20-25 feet are apparent across the length of buildings 2 and 3, and buildings 1 and 4 have grade transitions of 10-15 feet across the length of the buildings. This area is considered to be sensitive due to coarse erodable soils. The area must be avoided or developed in an extremely sensitive manner. As proposed significant excavation and associated soil de-stabilization is expected,and development would require extensive structure retainment or other measures to allow construction as proposed. The area is somewhat proximate to Long Island Sound, and de- stabilization could have ramifications in terms of transport of sediment to the existing site and potentially to the Sound. Additional consideration should be given to design in this area to minimize loss of vegetation,and reduce erosion and sedimentation. Design alternatives should be considered. 2. The project involves construction of 86-units on 14.1 acres. SCDHS indicates that motel units in excess of 400 square feet have a design flow of 150 gallons per day(gpd). This would result in a flow of 12,900 gallons per day which exceeds the allowable flow for 14.1 acres (4,230 gpd). The H2M report addresses this issue through temporary sterilization of adjacent lands of the owner until such time as public water supply is available, however, this should be incorporated into the site plan review process in terms of acreage proposed for use. In addition,the allowable flow would effectively be doubled if public water supply is available, therefore, the design flow would still exceed the allowable flow based on 14.1 acres,therefore,some portion of the adjacent lands must remain undeveloped in perpetuity. As indicated, the H2M provides some insight into these issues;however,coordination with SCDHS through the site plan review and EIS process would be beneficial. The applicant may indicate that use is seasonal and therefore sanitary flow and water use is less than design flow; however, once constructed the use pattern may change and the Town and SCDHS should address potential use based on design flow. 3. In addition to design flow and density, sanitary system design should be considered in terms of dispersal of sanitary waste,depth to water and design constraints for units in 15 foot elevation area,and nitrogen load with transport of contaminants to Long Island Sound. 4. Water use issues are critical in the Town of Southold. The H2M report provides insight into intended water supply. The report however is not consistent with the site plan, depicting alternate access roads and well field location which do not correspond with the site plan. In addition,due to the anticipated significant water use, potential movement of the salt water interface, need for well pumping control and distribution,water quality, and integration with the Beachcomber I project, discussion of water supply issues should be incorporated into the EIS CRANIER, V06RHlS /;ASOCIATES ENVIRONMENTALAND"p'k N1�G CONSULTANTS Page 2of3 Beachcomber Motel Long EAF Review process for inter-agency review and more detailed analysis by the lead and involved agencies. 5. The project will result in the removal of perhaps up to 2 acres of vegetation in a sensitive slope area. In addition, depending upon the location of the water supply system,additional acreage, possibly in the steep slope heavily wooded area may also be removed. Proper design, and clearing limitations should be considered. The significance of the small man-made pond should be considered and appropriate setbacks observed. 6. The impact on infrastructure and community services should be determined. The project will produce approximately 65 vehicle trips per hour during peak traffic hours on Saturday. The ability of the surrounding road system to accommodate increased traffic should be determined. The area roads are local/rural in character,and there are constraints noted in terms of horizontal and vertical alignment and traffic control signage on Duck Pond Road. Other demand for community services should be determined in connection with a motel use of this intensity. In summary, the above paragraphs provide greater insight into environmental issues, and in connection with the Long EAF Parts I and II, form the basis for a Determination of Significance. It is our recommendation that a Positive Declaration be issued in order to assess impacts, provide a means of inter-agency coordination, and explore mitigation measures and alternatives. If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours 4harles J. Vo his,CEP,AICD ��\\ /1/�Q _ CRAMER, VOORHI$ 12 0C ENVIRONMENT ala', { W1 GCONSULTANTS Page 3oC3 �J/o/ 'v, 617.21ISI ��" l Appendix A CeFy i .0 2 � State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOSOBTHotoTOWN PLANNING BOARD Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an omanner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. Itis also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmenta! analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affectin€ the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determinatior process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. " Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE—Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: Part 1 Part 2 ❑Part 3 C, Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: ❑ A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. ❑ B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions , Name of Action p 7� jOF �o ,nie n f�iw�,,y/Ne¢ ry04e Name of Lead Agency �— Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead AgencyTit of Resp risible Officer ( Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signa ureofPre er(Ifdifferentfromresponsibleofficer) 79-9 Z �@SVg9DV@?9 8Y, Date 1 PART 1—PR0JcCT INFORM - i0N Prepared by Project Sponse. NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant e: on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be consid as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additi information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not inv new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and spe each instance. NAME OF ACTION Beachicombpr Motel Site Plan LOCATION OF ACTION(Include Street Address, Municipality and County) nick- POnd Road. Mitchr)gue, Town of Southold NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE (Acrent for Aliano 516 ) 298-8420 ADDRESS CITYIPO STATE ZIP CODE IVY 11952 NAME OF OWNER(if different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE Nicholas Aliano ) ADDRESS c CITYIPO STATE ZIP CODE NY 11786 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Az0/'JSEV comsneurrloov Of B4O Norm ~/rx ON A Iy.I /ftJ2G 004&C *07.tc4air 70 &z/arr/vg 3S Mori�z v/v/rs. Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ❑Urban ❑Industrial ❑Commercial ❑Residential (suburban) Rural (non-fay ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Other r 2. Total acreage of project area: 14.1 acres. 710 $G RFI=/Ntry /NE APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) �.� lr acres D.$ acres Forested acres 3 acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres acres ----__ Water Surface Area acres acres_D / Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres acres Other (Indicate type) -n/GSCAPC'b acres , acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? topsoil, sand, gravel PIA /4r a. Soil drainage: IDWell drained 100 % of site ❑Moderately well drained °L of site ❑Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 1 of the N' Land Classification System? Ote acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? Dyes ONO a. What is depth to bedrock? —40O (in feet) 2 0150; or ; ter % �� 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or�tB�lQational Registers of Historic Places? Dyes �.UNo C '. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? Dyes ®No 8. What is the depth of the water table? (in feet) + 10 ft to + 35 ft 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? XYes JDNo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Dyes QNo 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? Dyes CRNo According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) Dyes IRNo Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open spaca or recreation area? Dyes CRNo If yes, explain / 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? Dyes C3No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: n/a a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name n/a SMAV. A4 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? OYes o W )O der ( a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ( Yes ONO P/rpy�D6b t" � ti Z b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ®Yes ❑No *2Af R6:poRr 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, _. Section 303 and 304? Dyes ®No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? Dyes JONo 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? Dyes ENO B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor ± 45 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 14 acres initially; 14 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped ?_ acres. i d. Length of project, in miles: (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed %; r I. Number of off-street parking spaces existing . V . ; proposed /3/ per town Code g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour Fn (upon completion of project)? (ps SA�/1i0� h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: JN07$Z VN/7S One Family Two Family Multiple FamilyCondominium t e� Initially Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure IV- height; —R width; 20 length._ per code j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? ft. .3C)? to exceed 125 ft 3 u v 11ucn natural materia ., rock, earth, etc} •: 11 be removed fro.- _,ie site? tons/cubic yard 3. Will disturbed areas be reel,; ed? CalYes ❑No ❑N/A 40 3tT�Cilr7Q�lh1I�D a. If yes, for what inten&(� purpose is the site being reclaimed? lawn & Landscao_ inq b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ]Yes ❑No C. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? IEYes ❑No r 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? �• 3 -t acres. S. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? ❑Yes Ckslo 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 18 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated 1 (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 6 month 1993 year, (including demolitior c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? ❑Yes ❑No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Dyes CKNO 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 50 after project is complete 9 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? ❑Yes RlNo If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? 6)Yes Ao a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount domestic sewerage b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged n/a 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes :CNo Type 30%eA atr 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? ❑Yes ®No Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? ®Yes nNo 16. Will the project generate solid waste? XYes [,�No a. If yes, what is the amount per month 2.58 tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? Xes ❑No C. If yes, give name 700714640 ski b/TLr ; location P�if97f7VC& d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ❑Yes Xo e. If Yes, explain / 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ❑Yes IRNo a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Eyes ❑No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Dyes (RNo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? Dyes nNo 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? nyes ❑No If yes , indicate type(s) electricity 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity ZCet gallons/minute. Per SCDOHS / 23. Total anticipated water usage per day gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? Dyes nNO If Yes, explain 4 -.pe Date. City, Town, Village Board ❑Yes y]No City, Town, Village Planning Board ZlYes ONO STIR PTAN City, Town-Zoning Board ❑Yes ENO City, County Health Department nYes ONO WATER & SEbiER Other Local Agencies Z7Yes ONO SCPC Other Regional Agencies ❑Yes ZINo State Agencies KlYes ONO —nys des SPDES Federal Agencies ❑Yes k7No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 . Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ®Yes ONO If Yes, indicate decision required: ❑zoning amendment ❑zoning variance ❑special use permit ❑subdivision ®site plan ❑new/revision of master plan ❑resource management plan ❑other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? RR 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? RR 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? -- b— u�virs r34nA�e C6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? L33Ye5 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '/ mile radius of proposed action? R-80 RR R-40 AC 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 1A mile? a❑Yes ❑t` 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? bvA77Agb 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? Yes 771, 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, ed/uc`ation, polis fire protection)? OYes ONO a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ®Yes ONO 7tiiQff-QYy 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? EDYe�5"Aw�N a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ]Yes ONO D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any advert impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate c avoid them. E. Verification kavlewto By' 4FP q'IGP certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. ' Applicant/Sqo sor Name Henry E. Raynor Jr. Date July 13, 1992 SignatureL6 Q Title - Agent for Aliano & Krupski If the action is in the/Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceedin with this assessment. 5 Part 2 PROJECT IMPACTS APIU IHLIM MAUiblIUUQ Responsibility of lead Agenctt General Information (Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and Aeterminations t reasonablef The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily signifies Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 sir asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the thresho magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be approp for a Potential large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. • The Impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative have been offered as guidance.They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each quc • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size o impact If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but thres is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PAI e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to mod impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. must be explained in Part 3. *—I 2 3 Potential hart Impact IMPACT ON LARD - _ Large Mitigated 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project letImpact Protect Cha ONO �YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑Yes C foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ Dyes C 3 feet • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. n ❑ El Yes C • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C 3 feet of existing ground surface. v *,Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ J� ❑Yes C than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 Cl ox ❑Yes C tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ Dyes C • Other impacts DOM 1Lj 2A-fin^! dF S72;Z-P ❑ � ❑Yes C SLQA&- A&M4 /A/ 0WQK1M/JY 7tf BLUFF AA60 itzs 2. Will there be an effect V. _.ry unique or unusual land forms foqn4on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)ONO AES • Specific land forms: Af0&ditAtdL QCnft6/7S AAUO BG ti9t ❑ ❑Yes C r 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact IMPACT ON WATER Moderate Large Mitigated 1 3 Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Impact Impact Project Char (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) ONO E5 Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. O O Oyes O • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C • Other impacts: t mile "Af w,-nt:z✓ —� �' X ❑ Dyes C OF J9:;7--i r-LZRC- 4. Will proposed action affect any noo-protected existirig yr new body of water? l0 DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C • A 10X, increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. ❑ ❑ Dyes C • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C s. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ONO XES Examples that would apply t'? column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑Yes L • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ Dyes C have approval to. serve proposed.(project) action. fi.'W47✓IA� • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ X ❑Yes gallons per minute pumping Capacity. • Construction of operation causing any contamination of a water ❑ ❑ 13 Yes I supply system. 70 svG • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. at TLiW"&M ❑ Oyes E • Liquid effluent will be conveyer;off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ Dyes do not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20.000 gallons per ❑ ❑ ❑Yes day. • Proposed Action will likel- cave siltation or other discharge into an ❑ ❑ Dyes existing body of water w the »:sent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ ❑ ❑Yes products greater than 1,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water ❑ Dyes I and/or sewer services. • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ❑ Dyes require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. • Other impacts: — ❑ El ❑Yes f. ¢. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, r s ES J water runoff? ExzTples that would apply to column 2 C ❑Yes • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. ❑ 7 _ r r ' 2 3 s Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Changs • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. O OYes ONO • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ O OYes ONO • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. O ❑ OYes- ONO • Other impacts: ❑ O Oyes ONO IMPACT ON AIR �� 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? ,P3fL0 DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ ❑ OYes ONc hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ OYes ONc refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a ❑ ❑ Dyes ONc heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ❑ ❑ OYes ONc to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ ❑ OYes ONc development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: O O OYes ONc IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered �/ species? ONO YES _ .. Examples that would apply to column 2 ' • Reduction of one or rnore species listed on the New York or Federal O O Oyes 'ON, list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat O ❑ OYes ON • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ O ❑Yes ON. than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts: LOSS eae IAILLSL� VVr&ffTA QAJ ❑ � OYes ❑N 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect norrthreate or non-endangered species? XV O DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ❑ ❑ Oyes ON migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ OYes ON of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land rrtes? XO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural O O OYes ON land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 8 t i t 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact B Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Chung • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑Nc agricultural land. • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑Nc of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ON, land management systems(e.g.. subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ON IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ON O YES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617. , Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ _ ❑Yes ON or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of ❑ ❑Yes ON aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑N screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑N IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? ONO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ Dyes Or contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑f project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ ❑Yes ❑t archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑t IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Examples that would apply to column 2 NO DYES { )The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑1 Y A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 01 • Other impacts: 0 0 Dyes ❑t t 2 3 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potential Can Impac 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Moderate Large Mitigated ONO YES Impact Impact Project Ctu Examples that would apply to column I • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or gocds. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes E • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C • Other impacts: ❑ ❑Yes C /oN hkm+ &,44=S IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the communitys sou ncey of fuel or energy supply? f�Vp OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes (. any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ ❑ ❑Yes transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts: ❑ O ❑Yes C NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibrat' as a result of the Proposed Action? r oa OYES- Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑Yes I facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day)_ Cl ❑ Dyes • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local 0 _ ❑ ❑Yes ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ Dyes noise screen. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Dyes IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? O OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ ❑ Dyes substances(i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.)in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ Dyes form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc. • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes gas or other flammable liquids. — • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ ❑Yes within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 10 2 3 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER Small to Potential Can Impact E OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated B�. 1f1. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing comrrWnty? Impact Impact Project Cham Examples that would apply to column 2 ONO AES • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 0 project is located is likely to grow by more than S%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ON will increase by more than S% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ❑ ❑ Oyes ON • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. ❑ ❑Yes ❑r • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑t` or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑Yes ❑t (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑t • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑t • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑t 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controrelated to potential adverse environmental impacts? Y0 DYES If Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3—EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impacts) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) ma mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1 . Briefly describe the impact 2. Describe(if applicable)how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project chan 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) �1 APPENDIX D - 51 ^✓o��SOFFO(,�COG� 0 4 .ANNING BOARD MEMBERS w nZi�r SCOTT L. HARRIS - Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman K y 0��,:,r Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 SEQ R POSITIVE M,LARATION Notice of Intent to 1'r pare a Draft EIS Determination o' Significance Lead Agency: Plann ng Board of the Town of Southold Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. I;ox 1179 South)ld, New York 11971 Dote= November 2 , 1992 This notice iS issued pursuant to Part 61, of the im dementing regulations Pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Revic A') of tate ~nvironmentaFCenservatton Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action describe- below• may have a significant effect on the environment and that i Draft Ent•ironmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Title of Action: Beachcomber Motel 11 SEQR Status: 'type I action Project Description: The project, Nch is the subject of this Long 'E.AF involves a request for site plan approval to construct Su motel units on a 14 1 acre parcel. Thi proposed project calls for construct on of 86 motel units accessed from a circular pact, rn driveway which surrounds the recreation com^lex. A ot:,l of eight 'buildings are proposed of whit five w:a contain 12-units, two will contain 9-units, and one will _,ortain 8-units. Seven of the buildings have a footprint o '30'x120' and one building will have a footprint of. 0'x50'. It is noted that the 9-unit buildings (buildings 1 .end 2) have 6-units, which appear to be 2- story, and cc ild function as apartments having floor areas of 1,20 square feet. All other units appear to have flocr areas o'approximately 600 square feet. Beachcomber Motel 11 SEQR Determination SUM Number: District 10 - Sect;nn 083 - Block 01 -Lots 1, 2 & 17 Location: The site of t to subject application is located on the east side of Duck Por J Lane and the Dong Island Sound in Cutehogue, 'few York. Reasons Supporting ibis Determination: This determination is issued in Pall consi leration of the criteria for determination of significance .ontained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11 the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts 1, II and the following specific reasons: 1. TheProposed project represents a major increase in intensity of use of the parcel. The Ffart 1I Long EAF provides an outltr e w several areas of significant environmental impact expected as a rest t of the project. Base�en review, it has been determined that an Envi:onmental impact Statement is appropriate in order to asses:, impacts, provide a moans of inter- 1genq coordination., and explore mitigation measures and alternatives. 2. Buildings 1, 2 and 3 are located in a stee , slops area (>259'c). Grade transitictrs of 20.25 feet are apparent ?cross the length of!buildings 2 and 3, and buildings 1 and 4 have grade transitions of 10-15 fret acror; the length of the buildings. Tors area is considered to be sensitive due to coarse , rodable soils. The area must be avoided or developed in an extremely sensitive man :er. As proposed significant excavation and associated soil de-stabilization is expecte 1, and d:ve.opment would require extensive structure retainment or other measures t 1 allow construction as proposed. The area is somewhat proximate to Long Island Sc und, and de-stabilization could have ramifications in terms of transport of sed ment to the existing site and potentially to the Sound. Additional consideration she ad be given to design in this area to mininuze loss of vegetation, and reduce e rosion and sedimentation. Design alternatives should be considered. 3. The project involves construction of 86-u tits on 14.1 acres. SCDHS indicates that motel units in excess of 400 sgcare feet hive a design,fiow of 150 gallons per day { d). This would result in a flow of 12,E)0 gallons per day which exceeds the allowable flow for 14.1 acres (4,230 gpd). A preliminary report submitted by the applicant addresses this issue tGugT ter ii•orary sterilization of adjacent lands of the o-vner until such time as public water sul pry is available, however, this should be incorporated into the site plan reviev pri cess in terns of acreage. proposed for use. In addition, the allowable flow would off• ctively be doubled if public water supply is available, therefore, the design flow +vou'3 still exceed the allowable flow basest on 14.1 acres, therefore, some portion of the adjacent lands n;ust remain undeveloped in perpetuity. Coordination with SCDHS d rough the site plan review and EIS process would be beneficial. 4. In addition to design flow and density, 2 'Draft EIS should consider sanitary system design should be considered in terms of c ispe.rsal of sanitarywaste, depth to water Page 2 or 3 peacbcombe.r.Motet 11 SEAR Determination and design constraints for units in 15 fool elevation arca, rind nitrogen lnad with transport of contaminants to Luno Island Sound. 5. Water use issues are critical in the Town if Southold. A pre',iminary water use report submitted by the applicant Provides insigg it into intended water suaply. The report however is not consistent with the site pT: n, depicting altern; to access roads and well field location which do not correspond wi,h the site plan. In addition, due to the antici{rated significant water use, potentia l movement of the snit water interface, need for well pumping control and distril ution, ,.nater quality, and integration with the Beachcomber T project, discussion of wat :r supply issues should be incorporated into the E1S rocess for inter-agency review aid more detailed analysis by the lead and involvedpagencies. 6. The project will result in the removal oferhaps up to 2 acres of vegetation in a sensitive slope area. In addition, depend ng upon the location of the water supply system, additional acreage, possibly in th, steep slope heavily wooded area may also be removed. Proper design, and clearing limitations should be considered. The significance of the small mar,-:Wade pond should be considered and appropriate setbacks observed. 7. The impact on infrastructure and commu iit• services should be determined. The pro ect will produce approximately 6a ver.icl�e trips Der hour during peak traffic hours on aturday. The ability of the surround:,g road s:stem to accommodate increased traffic should be determined. The area r-ads are local/rural in character, and there are constraints noted in terms of horizon al and vertical a?isnment and traffic control signage on Duck Pond Road. Other dem ind for community services s1hould be determined in connection with a motel u e of this intensity. For Further linformation: Contact Person: Bennett Orlc wski, Jr. Chairman, Fanning Board Town of Sou hold Town Hall, 5 3095 1Ulain Road P.O. Box 117 I Address: Town Hail, i lain Road, Southold Phone, No.: (516) -/65-19.,8 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental C mservation Regional Office-New York State the Departmei t of Envirounicntal Conservation Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Applicant Services Suffolk County Department of Health Suffolk County Department of Planning NYS Le isla-:1ve Commission on Water Resour:a Needs for Long Island Southold Town Board of Zoning Appeals Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Building Department Pagc 3 of 3 'INNING BOARD MEMBERS N SCOTT L. HARRIS -.ennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman - �� r '' Supervisor Z ��, � George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Town Hall. 53095 Main Road Richard G. WardT �y-ti" Mark S. McDonald P.O. Boz 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold. New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (51(1) 765-1823 November 47 1992 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel S/E/C L.I . Sound and Duck Pond Pond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM#1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, November 2, 1992. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and as lead agency in its review of this Type I action finds that the action may significantly effect the environment, and makes a determination of a Positive Declaration. In the interest of arranging a mutually convenient time for a scoping session as quickly as possible, please let the Board' s secretary, Holly Perrone, know which afternoons will work best for your client and his environmental consultant. Enclosed please find a copy of the Positive Declaration for your records. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encl. APPENDIX D — 52 _ANNING BOARD MEMBERS0 T SCOTT L. HARRIS • ��% Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman y� Supervisor a0�.^�. George Ritchie Latham, Jr. 41 �. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 November 4 . 1992 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel S/E/C L.I . Sound and Duck Pond Pond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM#1000-83-1-1,2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, November 2, 1992. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and as lead agency in its review of this Type I action finds that the action may significantly effect the environment, and makes a determination of a Positive Declaration. In the interest of arranging a mutually convenient time for a scoping session as quickly as possible, please let the Board' s secretary, Holly Perrone, know which afternoons will work best for your client and his environmental consultant. Enclosed please find a copy of the Positive Declaration for your records. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encl. APPENDIX D - 53 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Am 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Imbue (516) 751-1389 NW (516) 751-3839 Thomas C. Jorling Commissioner December 7 , 1992 Mary and Henry Raynor 275 Cardinal Drive Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: NYSDEC Permit Application #1-4738-00511/00001-0 Raynor Motel •- Addendum t0 Notice of Incomplete Application Dated 11/9/92 Dear Mr. and Ms. Raynor: The Department has made an initial review of your application for a motel. The Department has jurisdiction over portions of the project. Please address the following items: 1. The Department will require a cross section showing the proposed condominium unit installation. 2 . How will they be built? (By adding fill or by building them on pilings, by excavating the slope to provide a level base?) 3 . The Department does not plan to approve any project that will alter the bluff or slope without a plan for stabilization of the existing naked and eroding bluff face (preferably by plantings) . 4 . Drywells should be shown on the cross section that can retain a 2 inch rainfall. 5. Will you want access catwalks from building #1 to the beach? If so, this should be shown on plans (and cross section) . 6. Revised plans must show how you will cause all fill and exposed faces to be vegetated to prevent erosion, as this will be a special condition of any permit issued. 2 . 7 . Revised plans must show a permanent vegetated buffer zone with no disturbance to the natural vegetation or topography within an area extending 70 linear feet landward of the tidal wetland boundary. 8 . If development exceeds 20% of the adjacent area, parking areas and roads must be pervious. 9. The Department will require roof runoff to be directed to drywells a minimum of 100 feet landward of the tidal wetland boundary for immediate on-site recharge. 10. All fill must be "clean" gravel and soil (not asphalt, slag, flyash or broken concrete or demolition debris. 11. The Department does not plan to approve bulkheads or hard stabilization structures at this site. 12 . The Department will require vegetation of fill in front of the restaurant with beach grass. Please direct a response to each item to my attention. Plans must be submitted in triplicate. By copy of this letter I am notifying the Town of Southold Planning Board, the Lead Agency for the purpose of the State Environmental Quality Review, of the Department's concerns. This letter may serve as an initial scoping comment letter. Very truly yours, i Karen Munze Sr. Environmental Analyst KM/rw cc: B. Orlowski, Jr. file ��o�OSUFtO(kCpGy� APPENDIX D - 54 e Z SCOTT L. HARRIS -ANNING BOARD MEMBERS +ip Supervisor - ennett Orlowski. Jr.,'Chairman 01 ��0�f roorge Ritchie Latham.Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 530Main Foa P.O. Box ! 1179 Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 February 23 , 19993 Henry Raynor Raynor Suter Hardware 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 RE! Beachcomber Motel SCTMWI000-83-2-1 Dear Mr. Raynor: Attached to this letter is an annotated version of the Scoping Checklist that was used at the January 22nd scoping session. _ The enclosed Checklist will be used by the Planning Board and the reviewing agencies as the official synopsis of that meeting. In the absence of any written objections from either your client or any of the coordinating agencies, the enclosed outline will stand. Accordingly, I suggest that you review the Checklist with your client and his consultants. if there are any questions or objections, please bring them to Valerie Scopaz' s attention immediately, in writing. If the enclosed synopsis must be amended, the revisions will be transmitted to all involved parties. Sincerely, Richard '. Ward Chairman RECEIVED FROM 2. 25. 1993 13157 P. 1 CC. Board of Trustees, Southold 7�oning Board of Appeals, Southold Building Department, Southold F#ighway Department, Southold Department of Health Services, Suffolk County S. Costa, V. Minei, P. Ponturo Planning Commission, Suffolk County - F. Dowling Department of Environmental Conservation, New York K. Munze Department of State, New York - M: Persaud Suffolk County Water Authority - M. LoGrande, E. Rosavizch Groundwater Resources Committee, Southold Planning and Zoning Committee, Southold RECEIVED FROM 2. 25. 1993 13: 57 P. 2 ji l ! L. � ' � Y 1 SEOR SCOPING CHECKLIST sC+�irxit Q APPLICATION OF BEACHCONIBER II -NIOTEL AMENDED FEBRUARY 22,1993 INCLUDING SCOPING MEETLNG ISSUES This outline has been amended to include comments made as scoping meeting of January 22, l 93. Additions to the previously distributed outline are in italics. This outline is based upon 6 NYCRR Part 617.21 as prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to provide a format and guidelines for the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The subject Draft EIS should conform to this outline in terms of format as well as content. The document should be consistent and concise and all data and assumptions should be justified and/or referenced. All information shown on maps or plans and in the text should be consistent. Keep in mind that this document will be reviewed by general public as well as several governmental agencies. A concise and simply written text is preferable to a wordy or obtuse one. Accordingly, it would help to provide a Glossary so that the lay reader can interpret the acronyms that are typically used in an Environmental Impact Statement. Upon comoletio,- seven (7) copies of the document should be submitted to the Planning Board for review to determine acceptance. I. Cover Sheet All EIS's (Draft or Final) shall begin with a cover sheet that includes: A. Whether it is a draft or final statement B. Name or other descriptive title of the project C. Location (county and town) of the project D. Name and address of the lead agency which required preparation of the statement and the name and telephone number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further information E. Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and a contact name and telephone number F. Date of acceptance of the Draft EIS G. In the case of a Draft EIS, the deadline date by which comments are due should be indicated II. Table of Contents and Summary A table of contents and a brief summary are required for Draft and Final EIS's. The summary should include: A. Brief description of the action B. Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts, (issues of controversy must be specified) C. Mitigation measures proposed D. Alternative considered E. Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, funding) III. Description of the Proposed Action A. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS Page 1 RECEIVED FROM 2. 25. 1?93 1=: 58 F. Beachcomber 11 Motel Scoping Outline 1. Background and history- Discuss in detail, include zoning districts and amount of land in each district as well as parcel locations and areas. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing project must be explained, particularly with reference to the potential change of intensity of use of the existing facilities, such as the restaurant, the swimming pool, etc. ,_2. Public need for the project, and municipality objectives based on adopted community development plans 3. Objectives of the project sponsor 4. Benefits of the proposed action a) social b) economic B. LOCATION 1. Establish geographic boundaries of the project (use of regional and local scale maps is recommended) 2. Description of access to site - Provide detailed discussion of adjacent road. 3. Description of existing zoning of proposed site C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT- A detailed table of anticipated site coverage quantities is recommended. 1. Total site area a) proposed impervious surface area (roofs,parking lots, roads) b) amount of land to be cleared and regraded c) open space -wetlands/water areas, natural and/or covenanted areas. Discuss the sterilization of land in orde,.ti to meet Suffolk- County uffolkCounty Sanitary Code Article 6. 2. Structures a) total building area b) layout of buildings (design concept, units per building, orientation, building footprint, etc.) c site plans d drainage plans 3. Parking a pavement area b number of spaces and layout 4. Sanitary System Design (existing and proposed) a) location and setbacks, and uses (motel, restaurant) b) system design, leaching capability, depth to water c) Health Department compliance 5. Water Supply Design (existing and proposed) a) depth of well b potential salt-water intrusion '_�c Health Department compliance D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. Construction a total construction period anticipated b schedule of construction c) future potential development, on site or on adjoining properties Page 2 PECEIUED FROM 2. 25. 1993 14: 00 P. Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Outline 2. Operation a) type of operation b) schedule of operation c) fertilization of landscaped areas d) seasonal use and maintenance E- APPROVALS 1. Required changes or variances to the zoning regulations 2. Other permit approval or funding requirements and status of required permits a Town Planning Board site plan b� ZBA special permit- applicant should seek to resolve property division issue with ZBA and state terms in Draft EIS. c) Town Trustees Coastal Erosion Hazard Act d) Suffolk County Health Department sanitary and water permits - /� applicant should seek to determine SCDHS density requirements with regard to existing motel, herein referred to as Beachcomer I. -e) New York State well and discharge permits f) New York State wetlands permits Note: or instaa_n �1vst d A " d of A S ton app cation n«it� ..: o g n t t V Water Suppty and Wastewater n��.,..: x., or tater gmett o n onntenta_1 Conscrvali9fidd19V�7ands plttation IV. Environmental Setting Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) composition and thickness of subsurface material fib) test hole in accord with SCDHS requirements 2: Surface a) List of soil types b) discussion of soil characteristics - physical properties (indicate hydrological (infiltration) capabilities) of the sorts on site - engineering properties (soil bearing capacity) c) distribution of soil types at project site d) suitability for proposed use 3. Topography a) description of topography at project site - slopes particularly on east side of site, shall be described - prominent or unique features - beach, dune and bluff type environment Page 3 RECEIVED FROM 2. 25. 1993 13: 58 F. 4 Beachcomber It .Mutel ' Scoping Outline B. WATER RESOURCES ! 1. Groundwater a) location and description of aquifers and recharge areas - depth of water table - seasonal variation - (address potential malfunction of sanitary system due to same) - quality - suitability for consumptive use - quantity - flow b) identification of present uses and level of use of groundwater existing water and waste disposal supply for Beachcomber I, including restaurant 2, Surface water a} location and description of surface waters located on project site or those that may be influenced by the project - classification according to New York State Department of Health and/or NYSDEC - consult Town Wetlands inventory b) identification of uses and level of use of all surface waters recreational, shellfish, etc. c) description of existing drainage areas, patterns and channels d) discussion of potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and eutrophication of surface water - include FENLA/FIRM flood zone maps and resultant land use restrictions C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a) list vegetation types on the project site and within the surrounuing :area b) discussion of site vegetation characteristics - species presence and abundance - ape - size - distribution - dominance - community types - unique, rare and endangered species - value as habitat for wildlife - productivity 2. Wildlife a) list of wildlife species on the project site and within surrounding area, including rnigatory and resident species b) discussion of wildlife population characteristics species presence and abundance - distribution - dominance - unique, rare and endangered species - productivity 3. 'Wetlands a) list wetland areas within or contiguous to the project site Page 4 RECEIVED FROM 2. 25. 1993 14: 00 F. 3 Beachcomber 11 Motel Stuping Outline b) discuss wetland characteristics ! - acreage - vegetative cover - classification - benefits of wetland such as flood and erosion control, recreation Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION 1. Transporting services a) description of the size, capacity and condition of seMces - access/egress from site b) description of current level of use of services source of existing traffic seasonal influence and use B. LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) description of the existing land use of the project site and the surrounding area - residential vacant, open space b) description of existing zoning of site and surrounding area 2. Land use plans a) description of any land use plans or master plans which include project site and surrounding area b) discussion of future development trends or pressures c) 208 Study recommendations and Article 6 implementation d) NURPS Study recommendations for surface water protection C. COMMUNITY SERVICES (for this section include a list of existing facilities and a discussion of existing levels of usage and projected future needs) 1. Educational facilities 2 Police protection 3. Fire protection 4. Health care facilities 5. Social services 6. Recreational facilities 7. Utilities 8. Public water supply - explore options with regard to Suffolk County Water Authority public water main extension and other water supply options. 9. Solid waste disposal D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) description of the physical character of the community - views of area resources associated with site - visibility of site from waterways and surrounding areas b) description of natural areas of significance 2. Historic and archaeological resources rage 5 PECEIVED FROM 2. 25. 1993 13: 59 P. 5 Beachcomber 11 Motel Scoping Outline a) location and description of historic areas or structures listed on State or National Register or designated by the community, or included on Statewide Inventory b) identification of sites having potential significant archaeological value based on contact with State Parks c) contact local archaeological society with regard to historic/archaeologicalresources 3., Noise a) identification of existing level of noise in the community - use published references V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL.IMPACTS Identify those aspects of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action and require discussion. Areas of primary concern are listed as follows: A. Potential for erosion and/or siltation to the site waterway as a result of site construction. Topographic disturbances and potential for sedimentation due to slope destabilization of erodable soils on slopes. B. Alteration of around or surface water quality from inadequate sanitary setbacks and7c r unsaturated depth and potential water quality impacts due to water supply pumping. Nitrogen budget in consideration of recharge zones 1 and groundwater flow. Describe existing motel sanitary facilities. Include a _., history of SCDHS approvals, and location of existing as well as propo ed Satntarysysterti--___ C. Ecological impacts resulting from use and occupation of the site for motel purposes, as related to identified species. Loss of unique wooded areas of site for water supply and grading envelopes. D. Conformance of proposed project to land use plans, with particular regard to Town zoning and Article 6 requirements for density/discharge requirements. VI. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section V. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the maior areas of impact. Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) use excavated material for land reclamation 2. Surface a) use topsoil stockpiled during construction for restoration and landscaping b) minimize disturbance of non-construction sites - propose covenants c) design and implement soil erosion control plan Page 6 RECEIVED FROM 2. 25. 1993 14: 01 R. 9 Beachcomber 11 Motel Scoping Outline B. WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) propose system of treatment for stormwater runoff of wastewater pnor to recharge of groundwater b) promote permeable areas on the site through use of alternative road and parking base specifications 2. Surface water a) ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during construction and operation to avoid siltation - hay bales - temporary restoration of vegetation to disturbed areas - landscaping -xeric type native planting suggested b) design adequate stormwater control system, modify sewn-e treatment facilities, and/or avoid direct discharges to surface water resources C. TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a restrict clearing to only those areas necessary b preserve part of site as a natural area c after construction, landscape site with naturally occurring vegetation 2. ildlife a) provide adequate habitat (shelter and food) for remaining wildlife species b) schedule construction to avoid sensitive periods of fish, shellfish and wildlife cycles Human Resources A. TRANSPORTATION 1. Provide adequate horizontal and vertical road geometries for anticipated traffic 2. Provide mitigation for traffic impacts as identified through traffic evaluation. The discussion must include road safety aspects as well as physical traffic impacts. A. LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a design project to comply with existin&land use plans b� design functional and visually appealing facility to set standard and precedent for future surrounding land use B. COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Fire protection a) use construction materials that minimize fire hazards b) incorporate sprinkler and alarm systems into building design e) provide equipment, funds or services directly to the community 2. Utilities a) install utility services underground b) incorporate water saving fixtures into facility design c) incorporate energy-saving measures into facility design Page 7 RECEIVED FRom 2. 25. 1993 13: 59 F. 6 Beachcomber 11 Motel Scoping Outline 3. Solid Waste disposal - discuss means of reducing solid waste generation C. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) design exterior of structure in a manner which will not detract from the natural and human setting of the site b) minimize visual impact through thoughtful and innovative design (consider: height, size) C) design landscaping to be visually pleasing and to serve as a buffer be surrounding land uses, parking areas, operational equipment and facilities 3. Noise a) schedule construction/operation to occur during "normal business" hours minimizing noise impact during sensitive times (early morning, night) b) assure adherence to construction noise standards VII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Identify those adverse environmental effects is Section V that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section VI. VII. ALTERNATIVES This section contains categories of alternatives with examples. Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. It is not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is or is not feasible. A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES 1. Site layout a) location and types of structures b) location of access routes, parking and utility routes - Consider flow of residents and vehicles between existing and proposed sites C. ALTERNATIVES SIZE 1. Increase or decrease project size to minimize possible impacts E. NO ACTION 1. Impacts of no action a effect on public need b� effect on private developers' need c) beneficial or adverse environmental impacts IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use, X. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS (if applicable) Describe in this section the potential growth aspects the proposed project may have on the surrounding community as well as the school and fire district. Page 8 RECEIVED FROM 2. 25. 1995 14 O1 R. 10 Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Outline XI. APPENDICES Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the EIS. A. List of underlying studies, reports and information considered and relied on in preparing statement 13. List all federal, state, regional, or local agencies, organizations, consultants and private persons consulted to preparing the statement C. Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale D. Relevant correspondence regarding the projects may be included (required in the Final EIS) Page 9 RECEIVED FROM 2. 25. 1993 14102 R. 11 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Aft Resources Center 700 Troy-Schenectady Road aftwo Latham,NY 12110-2400 (518) 783-3932 Langdon Marsh Commissioner January 24, 1995 Glen D. Spetta Glenn Spetta Associates 1050 Smithtown Ave. , PO Box 94 Bohemia, New York 11716 Dear Mr. Spetta: We have reviewed the New York Natural Heritage Program files with respect to your recent request for biological information concerning the proposed Beachcomber Motel Expansion, site as indicated on your enclosed map, located in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York State. We did not identify any potential impacts on endangered, threatened, or special concern wildlife species , rare plant, animal or natural community occurrences, or other significant habitats . The absence of data does not necessarily mean that rare or endangered elements, natural communities or other significant habitats do not exist on or adjacent to the proposed site, but rather that our files currently do not con- tain any information which indicates the presence of these. Our files are continually growing as new habitats and occurrences of rare species and com- munities are discovered. In most cases , site-specific or comprehensive sur- veys for plant and animal occurrences have not been conducted. For these reasons , we cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence of species, habitats or communities. This information should not be substi- tuted for on-site surveys that may be required for environmental assessment. This response applies only to known occurrences of rare animals , plants and natural communities and/or significant wildlife habitats . You should contact our regional office, Division of Regulatory Affairs , at the address on the enclosed lis.* for information. rcgardi^g ^_; ,-=g_.l ated nrea.: or permits that ma, he required (e. g. , regulated wetlands) under state law. If this proposed project is still active one year from now we recommend that you contact us again so that we can update this response. Sincerely, Information Services NY Natural Heritage Program Encs. cc : Reg. 1, Wildlife Mgr. Reg. 1, Fisheries Mgr. APPENDIX D - 55 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation a Wildlife Resources Center oboe Information Services 700 Troy-Schenectady Road lqqw Latham, New York 12110-2400 Thomas C. Jorling Commissioner May 26, 1993 Glenn D. Spetta Glenn Spetta Associates 1050 Smithtown Ave. , PO Box 94 Bohemia, New York 11716 Dear Mr. Spetta* We have reviewed the New York Natural Heritage Program files with respect to your request for biological data concerning the proposed Beachcomber Motel II project in the Oregon Hills, as indicated on your enclosed map, located in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County. We did not identify any potential impacts on endangered, threatened, or special concern wildlife species, rare plant, animal or natural community occurrences, or other significant habitats. The absence of data does not necessarily mean that rare or endangered elements, natural communities or other significant habitats do not exist on or adjacent to the proposed site, but rather that our files currently do not con- tain any information which indicates the presence of these. Our files are continually growing as new habitats and occurrences of rare species and com- munities are discovered. In most cases, site-specific or comprehensive sur- veys for plant and animal occurrences have not been conducted. For these reasons, we cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence of species, habitats or communities. This information should not be substi- tuted for on-site surveys that may be required for environmental assessment. This response applies only to known occurrences of rare animals, plants and natural communities and/or significant wildlife habitats. You should contact our regional office, Division of Regulatory Affairs, at the address on the enclosed list for information regarding any regulated areas or permits that may be required (e.g. , regulated wetlands) under state law. If this proposed project is still active one year from now we recommend that you contact us again so that we can update this response. SSinc7 Burrell Buffing NY Natural Heri a Program Enc. cc: Reg. 1, Wildlife Mgr. Reg. 1, Fisheries Mgr. CO wlnteA on recvcleE pace APPENDIX D - 56 POLICE POLICE DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ADMINISTRATIVE PECONIC, NY 11958 `��•�' 516-765-2600 TELEPHONE 516-734-6022 Stanley Droskoski EMERGENCY DIAL 911 FAX 516-765-2715 CHIEF OF POLICE Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants 1050 Smithown Avenue P .O . Box 94 Bohemia, New York 11716 May 13 , 1993 Dear Mr Nolan, I am in receipt of your letter of May 14 , 1993 . In reference to your request for Police Service to the Beachcomber Motel II , I can acknowledge that the same service will be provided as is to the existing Beachcomber Motel . Sincerely , Stanl r oski Chie .Police APPENDIX D - 57 CUTCHOGUE FIRE DISTRICT New Suffolk Road. PO Box 930. On Ceh0{,1ile. NY 11935 i p Telephone (516) 734-6907 • Fax (516) 734-7079 June 22, 1993 Glenn Spetta Assoc. PO Box 94 Bohemia, NY 1176 Ref: Beachcomber Study Dear Mr. Nolan, Reference your letter of May 14, 1993 and based upon the preliminary information you have provided, at this time, The Cutchogue Fire Department feels that it cannot provide adequate fire protection for this site. The water supply in that area is inadequate to handle that many units and without a site plan we cannot determine the actual water requirements and access. If you can provide us with a site plan we will be happy to continue the study. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Board or our Chief. Thank you, we remain, Very truly yours, Board of.Fire Commissioners Matthew J. Martin Secretary cc: Chief Martin Planning Board Trustees Board APPENDIX D - 58 Central Suffolk Hospital FOR A LIFETIME OF QUALITY HEALTHCARE. 1300 ROANOKE AVENUE • RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901-2058 (516) 548-6000 • Fax: (516) 727-8890 • JOSEPH F. TURNER, JR., PRESIDENT May 25, 1993 Mr. Gary T. Nolan Glenn Spetta Associates 1050 Smithtown Avenue P.O. Box 94 Bohemia, NY 11716 Dear Mr. Nolan: Re: L-93-208-BCHCMBR As requested in your letter of May 22 , 1993 , this is to confirm that Central Suffolk Hospital would be pleased to make its Emergency Department Services available to the seasonal visitors of the proposed Beachcomber Motel II . S ' cerely, eph F. Turner, Jr. President JFT: fb APPENDIX D - 59 May 19, 1993 Mr. Gary T. Nolan Associate Consultant Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants 1050 Smithtown Avenue P. O. Box 94 Bohemia, NY 11716 Dear Mr. Nolan: I am in receipt of our letter of May 14, 1993 in which you have indicated that you are the consultant for the project known as the Beachcomber Motel II to be located in Cutchogue on three continuous parcels totaling 48.2 acres. Please be advised that this Beachcomber Motel II is located within Eastern Long Island Hospital's primary service area. The hospital is the closest geographically located hospital to your project and all services at Eastern Long Island Hospital including the Emergency Room services are open and available to any of the seasonal visitors of the Beachcomber Motel II. Please advise if you need any additional information. Sincerely, Thomas B. Doolan President TBD:HQC/018 cc: Betty Rishe, Acting Vice President/Nursing APPENDIX D - 60 �L(Q LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY � uvuousra� 600 DOCTORS PATH - RD 2 • RiV ERHEA D, NEW vORK 11901 Direct Dial Number: 548-7031 May 19, 1993 Glenn Spetta Associates 1050 Smithtown Ave. P.O. Box 94 Bohemia, NY 11716 Attn: Gary T. Nolan RE: LILCO Ref. #67593-340 Beachcomber Motel II Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue Dear Mr. Nolan: We are in receipt of your request for underground electric service to the above project situated in the hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York. As you are probably aware, since 1971 the Public Service Commission rulings require that our Company, along with all other electric utility companies in the State of New York, will be required to serve future developments of five or more houses with underground electric service. We shall be pleased to provide underground electric service in accordance with our filed tariff and schedule in effect at the time service is required. Please also be advised that it is the applicant's obligation to provide us with acceptable rights-of-way or easements which are required to reach your project. Very truly yours, 7 12 Theodore Cecchini Design Engineer Electric Design & Construction Eastern Suffolk Division TC/rh FC-8689.4-SS APPENDIX D - 61 m Barrett, Bonacd, Hyman &Van Weele, P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS March 4, 1993 Mr. William Stone, Manager Suffolk County Water Authority Westhampton Riverhead Road Westhampton, New York 11977 Re: Aliano Beachcomber Motel Cutchoaue, New York Proposed Water Supply Dear Mr. Stone: Enclosed herewith are the following documents in connection with the above referenced project: 1 . SKETCH PLAN PARCELS A, B1, B2 , C1 AND C2 2 . PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN The owner of these properties, Mr . Nicholas Aliano, is investigating expanding the existing operation at the site . As part of his investigation, he would like to consider the possibility of supplying the property with public water . - In that regard, we would like to schedule a meeting with you to discuss the possibility of a cooperative effort between the SCWA and Mr . Aliano to extend your facilities to this area. Mr . Aliano is open to the possibility of conveying land to the SCWA, if that would help. We would appreciate your reviewing the enclosed materials and contacting me at our office at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter further. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Steven J. Hyman, P .E . encl . cc : Mr. Nicholas Aliano Mr. Henry Raynor J Mr. Glenn Spetta 8630\scuaintro TELEPHONE 516/435-1111 175A Commerce Drive, Hauppauge,New York 11788 516/435-1022 FACSIMILE ISLIP, NY RIDGE, NY MALVERNE, NY APPENDIX D - 62 k)L SUFFOLK COU:r TY WATER AUTHORITY - 1098 Old Riverhead Road, P.O. Box 1407, Westhampton Beach, NY 11978-1407 Telephone: 516-288-1034 Fax: 516-288-7937 March 25, 1993 Mr. Steven Hyman, P.E. 175A Commerce Drive Hauppauge, NY 11780 Re: Aliano Beach Comber Motel Cutchogue Dear Mr. Hyman: I have had our Director of Operations and Engineering Department review your letter of March 4th, 1993. It is the position of the Suffolk County Water Authority that at the present time we do not have the facilities in place to be able to supply water to this motel. In addition our Engineering Department has reviewed the availability of land from a water supply prospective, and is not interested in any of the land under this project. If you have any further questions please contact me. LSUFFOLK yours, ;W4ATERTHO Tanager WRS:pt APPENDIX D - 63 Public Works Department Town of Southold Peconic Lane Peconic, N.Y. 11958 RAYMONDL.JACOBS (516) 765-3140 Commissioner (516) 734-5211 FAX (516) 765-1750 December 10, 1993 Gary T. Nolan Glenn Spetta Associates 1050 Smithtown Avenue P.O. Box 94 Bohemia, NY 11716 Dear Mr . Nolan: As you requested, I am writing with regard to the solid waste that is expected to be generated by the Beachcomber Motel expansion. The anticipated increase of 1 - 2 tons per month of solid waste generated by the Beachcomber would have absolutely no adverse impact on transfer station activities and could easily be handled through routine operations . Sincerely, James Bunchuck Solid Waste Coordinator CC : Ray Jacobs , Commissioner -- "'KE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: BILL NO. +' F - IN PERSON PAYMENT------ - CUNWUUAI LU HLAL f "hhl Y IAX LEVY PAGE NO. �. ".`•G, .'!`7.fd Rl.? ;jj ROLL SECTION 5 i NY 'i 9 IS ACCT. N0. FISCAL YEAR I WARRANT DATED BANK CODE LEVY DESCRIPTION TAXABLE VALUE TAX RATE TAX AMOUNT a VL. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION t•., (, �. ' S. 10, ,{ TAX MAP NO. LOCATION ;< J T::Jr t F';ia;, ;;i'• Cl' r,Lit. L r c s.nY• n >• (DIMENSIONS i f..., .Lw4?� i '..L : CH .nl1.. 1 ' f'i '�'„' j r. ; SCHOOL DISTRICT ,';.., r'."I ''� T TL'�'K .�iC.4'1,.. 1.•1' .{,j.i, Itr.�. , t r ::.... _ .. � f PROPERTY CLASS - . I - ' 1'.7 c t: 'L.(-. t+.. ':if 1.•' .. , S ,t: `.�.. { 117, a '? 7' r e TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE IS: EXEMPTIONS APPLIED ESTIMATED STATE AID OWNERS Id.''.:Ht I f':: '.+ ' ^+ti PAYMENT SCHEDULE ON TOTAL TAX AMOUNT DUE: I i. NAME 1 AMOUNT g t N , I V . 'ur. PENALTY ADDRESS TOTAL DUE DATE DUE PLEASE RETAIN FOR YOUR RECORDS I TAXES PAID BY CHECK ARE SUBJECT TO COLLECTION TAXPAYER COPY i" -31 36Y. �S i I I I I - 1 i MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: BILL NO , •: ..�.; IN PERSON PAYMENT CONSOLIDATED REAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY PAGE NO. ROLL SECTION _L 91;L?fi'�:".:L. +, ; :' ': Y °•''75 ,`i'.' ACCT. NO. 3. FISCAL YEAR VWtRRANT DATED BANK CODE LEVY DESCRIPTION TAXABLE VALUE TAX RATE TAX AMOUNT • PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION �t i F' i . t(� 'i'• ,, :., . . _ .. X MAP NO. 3 r c ?> t llfi IT 1 ';i t i + CATION 3'ZcLOIEMNONS �._ t r � fYS7NCT ..?-..y> .6- h- 'TltTU'..it IPFJIfY CIASS ':. TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE IS: EXEMPTXMIS APPLIED ESTIMATED STATE AID , Af•'i':...`I iLi�• fi; !:v�:• T'Fi%ii'`.' Nf:•i1'{.;.. l. 3 ? ':J.!i`} ir.; # OWNERS /iI is %'.!_ ! •;' J PAYMENT SCHEDULE ON TOTAL TAX AMOUNT DUE: I NAME. a �l-:!_.C ? L ri AMOUNT 6 <:il_ie-!ii:i�.l•li;l•i i`!`' 1..`. :'£+.`: PENALTY 1DDRESS TOTAL DUE - {'';. :':a:• DATE DUE i q o i(. I I 7 •t •'"'w '1' Cin.; 1An [Y •i C.^^.•i.0 ,._. .,. -. .. , . .-. . . ., i ,� �a y 4 J it 1.i. yli �y�y�j ��b��Y�R {N1rtT•�� R �,� {{ y�'nff n'+'1 r�.�4Y �cbr`p'a.('�i y�..�' *�, ,• ?3 �+. w ryf. !. :w. :i c^P. :' MAKE.CHECKS PAYABLE'-TOS. V lnV'c. BIL •N4 -96T3 , �' •'G'f•'IN-PERSON.PAYMENT 'k.'iei - - CONSODD �R PROPE AX LEV)6 EO R: 93ULLIVAN 01 OF 01. , . . . ��yy R . 309 f MAIN ROAb ' HaT SE, 1 GUT.�ll3iiOLD, NY' 11971-09!19 ,i,G. ^FIFISCAL'YEARcw ,., . h'.:"., WARRANT DATED.' . BANK CODE: :.'s!"LEVY DESCRIPTION - TAXABLE VALUE '-'+- ' TAX RATE 32/01/92 11/30/93 12/09!92 SUFFOLK COIJr4TY TAX 1S ,rJ00 70.704000 7;7.74 1. ,i .1' ... .PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION+ari Ir A,�;'- ;'7A SOUTHOLD TOWN TAX i i ,000 1 ,123.719000 1,360.91 � C MAPN 4739E;9 E3.-2—t7 R- MATTITUCK—CUT. SCHOO 00 �341.';590G0 3,757.5.5 RATION 10475 OREGON RD CUTCHOGUE LIBRARY 11 , a 24.4461000 2ca: J1 IENSIONS� ACRES^ 31.67!' CUTCHOGUE FIRE DI' 00', 35:502000 loawmiCt 473SO9- HATTITUCK SCHOOL CUTCH—NEW SUFFOLK S 1 , ".201 :.6 000 28.rS PEInY,dgs. "•t:!OwFARti"— FIELD CRt3F'S WASTE WATER DISTR 11 , 00 1 3. 52i000 39.'73 J vi. .TOTA*;ASSESSEQ VALUE_ISzrt d> r Stip"' •".EXEMPTIONS'APPUEO tti;Ni_ - I'kp ESTIMATED STATE AI iA.F'PLY FOR THIRD PAR NO'fICr BY 10/Oi/9:3* ' , % ,; AL7ANO NICHOLAS t OWNER i l ASHLEY LANE r �c PAYMENT SCHEDULE,ON,TOTAL TAX AMOUNT DUE: . ( 5 h '2. 04 NAME^r SHOREHAM NY 11786 AMOUNT iJ ,>, 311 .Rte`. .3'_i _^A2 it 0 i' PENALTY,',-,r - '� TOTAL DUE 3, 35.a 4< 3,311 . 2 ADDRE _ PLEASE RETURN WITH SECOND HALF OR FULL PAYMENT TAXES PAID BY CHECK ARE SUBJECT TO COLLECTION SECOND HALF OR FULL PAYMENT t it t 14 Icy t _ T, r c� srC'•�dy '.i p ' 'yet` 'iu'�.. .> °* _ NT ION Nr5,t� APPENDIX D - 65 9 Y C New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau LL NEW YORK STATE = Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 518-237-8643 Orin Lehman Commissioner August 4, 1993 Mr. Glenn D. Spetta Glenn Spetta Associates 1050 Smithtown Avenue P.O. Box 94 - Bohemia, New York 11716 Dear Mr. Spetta: Re: SEQRA Beachcomber Motel II Southold(T) , Suffolk County 93PR1557 The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has received the documentation you provided on your project. As the state agency responsible for the coordination of the State's historic preservation programs, including the encouragement and assistance of local preservation programs, we offer the following comments. Based on reported resources, it is the opinion of the OPRHP that your project area may contain an archeological site. Therefore, it is our recommendation that unless substantial ground disturbance can be documented, an archeological survey is warranted. Attached is a list of qualified archaeologists. Documentation of ground disturbance should include a description, illustration and photographs keyed to the project map. If you have any questions or comments on this matter, please call me at 518/237-8643, ext. 280. Si erely� ames Warren Program Assistant Field Services Bureau JPW:tr W09705/080393 Enc: A Word About Archeological Surveys An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency C�"no'ed on re<yded paper APPENDIX D-66 lti�o��SOFFO(,��o PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS '�� Gy q o -. Richard G. Ward, Chairman �w 2 �, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham,Jr. � ^+ P. O. Box 1179 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. �j. �� Southold, New York 11971 Mark S. McDonald ��l �`�� Fax (516) 765-3136 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 13, 1995 Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants 1050 Smithtown Ave. Bohemia, NY 11716 Re: Beachcomber Motel, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & p/o 17 Dear Mr. Spetta: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, June 12, 1995: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board deems the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of March 1995 to be incomplete, therefore unacceptable for the purpose of a coordinated review pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act The DEIS was deemed incomplete for the following reasons: 1. Specific information required in the Scoping Session is either missing, or incon- sistent. The enclosed report from our consultant itemizes the information that must be supplied. In addition, it has been brought to the Board's attention that the applicant has not complied with the Southold Town Trustees' emergency repair authorization which was issued on December 21, 1992: in that a full permit application has not been submitted to the Trustees. Further, there is no record in the Town's files of the issuance of a permit for the Page 2 Proposed site plan for Beachcomber Motel June 13, 1995 concrete retaining wall that has been placed on the beach north of the motel. Our understanding is that both Town Trustee and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation permits were required for this work. It will be necessary for these potential violations permit deficiencies to be discussed within the DEIS document before we can deem it complete. The site plan that is part of the DEIS must be revised to show the new retaining walls and the revised ground elevations between the restaurant and motel buildings and shoreline. Finally, the DEIS must address the concerns set forth in the staff report of June 12, 1995. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely,. Richard G. Ward Chairman cc: Henry Raynor, Agent for the Applicant Board of Trustees NYSDEC, Permit Section, Charles Hamilton Charles Voorhis, Voorhis and Associates enc. r Y V� I a • - _ _ - - ' `moi-j -do �:+i��t�_ .�. •.�., '_tib , :_{ 'y '� s.�.��r _a+_._ vis�w��_� - _ •-&!_ -�.�"�� _ �. _ l efI, y I II I • 't - _ - M •i. �� -.. s1r ,rr rt i V I '.4 ^� 17-FFO(,� O Cy G PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS _ Richard G. Ward, Chairman ti y 2 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road George Ritchie Latham,Jr. 0 ^+ ^ P. O. Box 1179 Jr. j `� Southold, New York 11971 Bennett Orlowski, J Fax(516) 765-3136 Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE MEMORANDUM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Richard G. Ward, Chairman Members of the Planning Board FROM: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner RE: Beachcomber Motel, Proposed Expansion of SCTM # 1000-83-1,2 & p/o 17 Cutchogue, NY DATE: June 12, 1995 la reading the DEIS, six concerns came to mind, which the text did not address or answer: 1 . The propsed drainage for the site involves the placement of a bubble-type overflow facility just behind the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line. The DEIS does not discuss the potential environmental impacts of placing this facility at this site. Nor does the document address the wisdom of placing an overflow basin within the A7 flood zone. 2. Three of the four proposed buildings will be located within the A7 zone. However, the DEIS document and the site plan do not indicate if the ground will be built up to the required elevation ( 111) or whether the buildings will be elevated above ground. 3. The proposed layout will require regrading and stabilization of the east slope and bluff, which is vegetated with xeric species. The DEIS does not provide much detail about how this will be accomplished or mitigated. Further, Alternative C would require less regrading and stabilization in this sensitive area; a fact that is given short shrift in the text, thus making it difficult to assess the relative environmental sensitivities of the two proposed layouts. 4. The site diagram that accompanied the archeological review text was difficult to compare with the site plan because of its lack of scale. Placement of the test sites on the site plan itself would facilitate assessment of the Stage 1 survey. Also, Stage 1B, resulted in the finding of flakes and tools near the basketball court, and along the route of the extension of the road and parking area. The items found might indicate habitation of the site by native Americans. However, the text did not explain why Stage 1B testing was not conducted here, even though this area is proposed to be regraded for the road and parking spaces 5. The document does not consider the selective retraction of the existing building and portions of buildings lying seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard line. In 1978, the applicant had requested a change of zone of additional property in this location in order to provide for such a retreat (as quoted in Town Board minutes) . Perhaps the retreat could be incorporated into the expansion plans? 6. The proposed and the alternate site layouts discussed in the report are not compatible with the drainage and slope conditions on the site. The DEIS could explore alternative design layouts that work with the constraints of the site in a more acceptable environmental manner; one that requires less regrading and disturbance of the slopes. These comments are made in addition to the observations made by our environmental consultant, Charles Voorhis, in his report of May 26, 1995. 1 endorse Mr. Voorhis' comments, and recommend their acceptance. cc: Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer i.f., CHARLESV� 1pNIS 4ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENT L\'`AND"�/ll��fVtYTNG CONSULTANTS U' April 26, 1995 Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 D Southold, NY 11971 D RE: Beachcomber Motel II MAY 3 0 W Review of Draft EIS Dear Mr. Ward: : I 80ARD We have completed our review of the above referenced Draft EIS. This review is completed L^. o-.-ler IO determine that the basic content of the Drift EIS u CG^3rS,eCS w7Yh YiiC scGpmg Oli'w:.e rsd meeting held with regard to the proposed project. In addition, review has been conducted to determine the adequacy of the document for inter-agency and public review in accordance with Draft EIS procedures contained in SEQRA Part 617. First, I would like to point out that the site design of the project has been significantly amended to address previous concerns. The Board issued a Positive Declaration based on this and a number of issues including disturbance of steep slopes, water supply, conformance with Article 6 of the Sanitary Code, intended use of other lands and how the project fits in the context of other lands, traffic and other less significant issues. Since that time, the proposed number of units has been reduced from 86 units in 8 buildings to 46 units in 4 buildings. Units have been moved from the areas with the steepest slopes, and mitigation of slope impacts are proposed. Therefore-at this time, I believe it is important to have the Draft EIS submission complete, in order to maintain the option that if there are no substantive comments on the Draft EIS, and the Board is satisfied with the site design plan, there could be an opportunity to issue a Negative Declaration based on the Draft EIS at the close of the comment period. This would forego the Final EIS process and could save considerable time for the applicant. With this in mind, I offer the following comments. Once these comments are incorporated into the document, I believe the EIS will be complete and adequate for decision making, provided there are no additional substantive comments from the Planning Board, involved agencies or the public, that would require response in a Final EIS. Comments provided are referenced to the appropriate page number of the Draft EIS. In addition, all review comments made in reference to the SEQR Scoping Checklist, specifically refers to that checklist as"Amended February 22, 1993 Including Scoping Meeting Issues." 1. As a general comment, since there was never any verbal mention in the DEIS of permanent or transitory structures on the existing fame, and since Figure 1-2 depicts a square-like structure directly on the area of property designated as farmland, it would be helpful if a few details were provided that discuss this structure. The specific issue is whether this structure (or other structures not noted)will place additional demands on the proposed action's overall sanitary design flow as related to compliance with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary If it is indeed the intention of the applicant to continue 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 • (516) 331-1455 • FAX 331-8046 Beachcomber Estates II Review of Draft EIS renting a designated portion of the land for farming use,determination of design flow compliance must be provided, since these structures can affect project compliance. 2. The applicant should state whether or not fanning will continue on the subject property. The combination of farming and sanitary flow for the existing and proposed motel units will cause a significant elevation of nitrogen in recharge,particularly during the summer season. In addition, determination should be made as to the applicability of Health Department criteria relating to combined farm and motel use regarding Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. 3. Page 1-5 of the DEIS, C., Erosion Control, line 2,there is a misspelled word-"protion." 4. Page 1-6 of the DEIS,the statement"...will not cause saltwater intrusion to the water supply nor impact groundwater quality in this area,"provides no substantive detail in reaching this conclusion. As a matter of fact, and as it is stated later on in the DEIS, saltwater intrusion is stated to already exist in a nearby well. The document does not provide any verifiable identification of a fresh/saltwater inter£:ce location. The document should make referent:to this matter while also referring the reader to page 3-13 of the DEIS for more information. 5. The Description of the Proposed Project section should provide details necessary to address the NYSDEC review letter of December 7, 1992 (included in Appendix D-53) or indicate mitigation incorporated into the project that may address NYSDEC comments. 6. Page 1-7 of the DEIS, what is presently cited as"(Figure 7- )"should be recorded as (Figure 7-1). Additionally on this page, 3.,what is cited as "(Figure 7- )"should be recorded as (Figure 7-2). 7. Page 2-1 of the DEIS, refers to 30.8 acres of farmland;however, other portions of the document refer to 32 acres of farmland. This discrepancy should be corrected. 8. Page 2-6, Table 2-2 -Site Data in the DEIS,does not address all the requests cited in the"Design& Layout'section of the Amended Scoping Checklist. The document, under 3., Parking a., Pavement Arm it is difficult to determine if the paved area,as listed by the preparer under Proposed Land Uses (on page 2-6), refers specifically to site coverage. If this paved area of 0.4 acres (0.8%of the site) does indeed refer to the number of parking stalls (103) listed above it,please note it as such. 9. Page 2-8 of the DEIS, should note that the balance of the 48.2 acre site must not be used for additional development in order to comply with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code,unless public water is supplied or a sewage treatment plant is constructed. 10. The Amnrovals section, page 2-12 of the DEIS does not conform with the request as noted in the Amended Scoping Checklist. Please indicate the status of required permits. In addition,this application was pending with the NYSDEC in 1993. Site activities appear to stili be in NYSDEC jurisdiction,yet NYSDEC is not listed as a permtting agency. 11. Page 3-9 of the DEIS does not describe(as is required by the Scoping Checklist on page 3, Section IV, A., 3.)"slopes particularly on east side of site." 12. On page 3-13 of the DEIS (bottom of page),mention is made of a drinking water well that betaine salty and where, "the saltwater interface is not at a great depth." This well should be identified and any further information regarding the saltwater intrusion of this well cited. CHARLESV R \\\\ SOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMEN '\ l / _' .\�\G CONSULTANTS Paget Beachcomber Estates II Review of Draft EIS 13. Page 3-17 of the DEIS (bottom of page),the document mentions that, "proper contingencies must be taken to treat aldicarb if the need arises." However,there is no mention as to what these proper contingencies are. Please elaborate on this matter. 14. Page 3-21 of the DEIS,first line, "It should be planned that treatment may be necessary for the removal of dichloropropane,as well." What exactly are the applicants actual plans for this occurrence? A basic plan of action should be stated. 15. Page 3-34 of the DEIS, second paragraph,the document states that, "early colonizing plants found in this portion of the property were: common lamb's-quarters,common purslane..." These plant types,as the document states,are found from a list in Appendix C-2,yet the plants are not listed in this Appendix. 16. Page 3-37 of the DEIS, second paragraph, last sentence,states, "It is anticipated that other species not identified during sampling sessions such as opossum,red fox,mice,and chipmunks also may utilize the site and are additionally listed in Appendix C-4." When consulting Appendix C-4, it notes(by means of an asterisk-')that red fox was "Identified on Site" This information is not consistent and should be corrected accordingly. 17. Page 5 of the Amended Scoping Checklist, Section IV, C., 3.,b., asks the applicant to discuss the benefits of the existing wetland, such as flood and erosion control, and recreation. 18. Page 3-47 of the DEIS, 3.,c., Fire Protection refers to a letter provided by the Cutchogue Fire District (Matthew J. Martin, Secretary)which appears in Appendix D-57 and states, -The The Cutchogue Fire Department feels that it cannot provide adequate fire protection for this site. The water supply in that area is inadequate to handle that many units and without a site plan we cannot determine the actual water requirements and access. If you can provide us with a site plan we will be happy to continue the study" Please provide a copy of the site plan to the Cutchogue Fire Department and update the DEIS as needed to incorporate further information from the Fire Department. 19. Section W.A.2 (page 4-3) should include discussion regarding water quantity issues as well as water quality. Additional information should be provided on the well system, and expected salt-water intrusion or upconing. Well installation should be compared with standards supplied in Table 3-2 on page 3-17 to determine conformance with design recommendations. The impact of farming on site recharge should be discussed under scenarios if farming continues or ceases. 20. Page 4-4 of the DEIS, discusses potential adverse impacts to groundwater quality due to nitrogen loading. The source of nitrogen in recharge estimates in mg/I and nitrogen loading in pounds/day should be provided. The reference to 5.6 mg/I nitrogen in recharge should indicate that this value is based on recharge over the entire site, and does not include consideration of farm nitrogen. Nitrogen load referenced on page 4-6 does not agree with our computations. Based on a farm application rate of 160 pounds/acre (page 44)and sanitary nitrogen of 30 mg/l,the nitrogen load from the farm and existing motel should be in the range of 8.9 pounds/day. The proposed project without active farming would be in the range of 3.7 pounds/day,and with active fanning it would be 10.7 pounds/day. Appropriate conclusions should be made based on revised estimates. Please indicate the significance of elevated nitrogen in relation to water supply and discharge to surface water. INC. CHARLES V �)RENVIRONMEN' I (,SOCIATES, G CONSULTANTS Page 3 Beachcomber Estates II Review or Draft EIS 21. Page 4-6 of the DEIS, indicates that an impact of the project is discontinuance of farming;however, the description of the project does not clearly indicate if this is part of the proposed project. Instead, page 2-1 seems to indicate that farming will continue if allowed. 22. Page 4-7 of the DEIS,makes reference to an Appendix of plants and shrubs used to attract birds and other wildlife;however,the appendix is not included. 23. Page 4-8 of the DEIS,makes reference to a matrix of habitat requirements for avifauna,yet no such appendix appears in the document. 24. Page 4-10 of the DEIS,c., Fire Protection please elaborate(other than just citing a correspondence in the appendix)on the"concerns"of the Cutchogue Fire Department. 25. Please provide a more detailed statement regarding the mitigating measures employed to reduce nitrogen loading on the site,on page 5-3 of the DEIS. Be sure to include scenarios with and without farming. This section should also indicate that as mitigation,the applicant will not conduct additional development on the 48.2 acre site until public water is available or a sewage treatment plant is constructed. Mitigation concerning salt-water intrusion/upconing should be discussed,particularly where discretion in the operation of the system is required(i.e. alternate well pumping, etc.). 26. Page 5-4 should include mitigation proposed to offset impacts regarding fire protection. 27. The Adverse Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided section of the DEIS (page 6-1),does not specifically mention the loss of 0.2 acres of relatively mature trees for the purposes of well extension. This fact should be cited accordingly. 28. Table 7-1 on page 7-4 should be amended to address nitrogen loading as per the appropriate comments provided above. In addition, based on current values included on page 4-6 of the DEIS,the reference at the bottom of the page should be 2.90 instead of 2.85 pounds/day. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the Draft EIS for Beachcomber Estates. As noted in the opening of this letter, it is recommended that comments be incorporated into the text of the Draft EIS for resubmission to the Planning Board. The review of the revised document would be expedited if the preparer could submit a reviewers copy, noting the specific areas where the document has been amended to address these comments. Once these comments are addressed to the satisfaction of the Board, the document can be circulated for coordinated review. As noted, if there are no substantive comments on the Draft EIS, and the Board is satisfied with the site plan, there is a possibility to issue a Negative Declaration based on the accepted Draft EIS. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Very t jlyyur� / 63 � Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP cc: Robert Kassner CHARLES V' R 'tASOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMEN t G CONSULTANTS Page JUL 13 '95 0930 APPENDIX D-67 P.2 Naw York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40 • SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790.2358 Phone (510) 444.0285 Pax # (518) 444-0297 Michael D.Zapata Commissioner Juno 23, 1995 Mr. Richard Ward Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dcar Mr. Ward: This responds to your June 13, 1995 letter to Glcrur Syetta Asaociatcs which was copied to Charles Hamilton, regarding the construction of a seawall at the Beachcomber Motel. A field inspection conducted on June 21, 1995 and it search of Department records shows that a storm damage permit (#1.4738-00100i00001-0) was issued for ala reconstruction of the damaged seawall/foundations on December 21, 1992. The well was completed in May of 1993. Examination of the permit, existing site conditions and photos after the storm, "shows that the reconstructed seawall and foundations are in full compliance. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to call me at the above number. Sincerely, �o-tf�o Gt • �i�*�W`�. Louis A. Chiarella Regional Manager, Bureau of Marinb Habitat Protection cv: Charles Hamilton Pond Enterprises, 11 Ashley Ln., Shoreham, NY 11786 V r+ S JUL 13 195 09,31 P.3 APPENDIX D-68 Board Of Southold Town Trustees " SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK PERMIT NO. DATE: .,a/39/95 • ISSUED TO ......NICHOLAS, ALIANO. I , Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 616 of the Laws of 9, t the State of New York, 1893: and Chapter 404 of the Laws of the State of New York 1963i and the Southold Town Ordinance on- titled "REGULATING AND THE PLACING OF OBSTRUCTIONS }' IN AND ON TOWN WATERS AND PUBLIC LANDS and the REMOVAL OF SAND, GRAVEL OR OTHER MATERIALS FROM LANDS UNDER TOWN WATERS," and in accordance with the Resolution of The Board adopted at a meeting held on . 6.12.9195..... 19. 95..., and in consideration of the sum of S 100...00 paid by r. NICHOLAS ALiAw ... .. ....... of 1sue.. N. Yend subject to the '» �i ,k Terms and Conditions listed on the reverse side hereof, of Southold Town Trustees authorizes and permits the following: l To remove and replace in same configuration 45 1.f. of exist. ,. 1 damaged foundation and place 10 e.y. of backfill, remove and replace in same configuration on east wing of motel 30 L.1. and BO l.f. on wort wing and fill with 10 c.Y. on seat and west wing a `V as all in accordance with the detailed specifications as presented in ` sub-the originating application. mitted on plane. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said Board of Trustees hours- by causes its Corporate Seel to be affixed, and these prssents to ` be subscribed by a major of the said Board as of this data, r 4 • �1 . h fM 'I .I TERMS and CONDITIONS e R1ta Permittee resid3ftOt1 1]uc P to the fol' ing rat understand and pact of the consideration for the issuance of the Penult does tttaatbe lowing; �Y,_ �j r� tet• y d nn Trletri IAd.the..�MM-P•.-17YMW hits, r claim soar r y MW' of NAY S Y all damages, or ciabtu for damage, of sniu uUi direct( m Indlreal as l intuit o an Ai peeEormad pursuant to thin perm![, and the said Permittee Wille at his of her own "Tom ' defend any and all such suits Initiated by third pardon,and the !old Pettatttee aseumo full WbILLg with respect theteco, to the complete excluslon of the boob of Tsttstecs of the Town of SeuthO a. That this Permh is vaUd for a period of -9--- Mae, wbkh W considered to be dse ostitnated time requited to complete the worklneo'vad` l�ashould ciresrm Lance wlrraog(request fur an extension may be made to the board a g, 'floc this Frmit sheuld be retained iodefioltely, or on tong as the said Perndttee Willie 'I r pmiect involved, to provide evidence to anyone cotteetood that mdt- to meintaltt the ettseesre a ( otization was originally obtained, i h. That the work involved o be subleet co the inspe ion d pappprovai of A i be mEtx ne Its agents, and non-compliance with the provisions of the etl nada a Ilatior4 rely d aid board. revocation of this Permit by resolution of the s s, That there will be no unreasonable interference with navlptlon v • result of the waele herein andtorized. G, That there shalt be no lnteefetence with the eight of the public to Pao °rad Capitol 1110114 Cho beach between high and low Water marl", teadons 1. That if future operations of the Town of Southold requlr the re'"i and/orinion oE the Board of TMWWIe Lha in the location of the work heteln etuherizede or ifs; Opt� yid Pemtiotee tdU be Iregtslred, work shall cause unreawneble obrtthistwo to fern navl tbn. upon due notice, to canove or titer this work of project heron stand without tapeless so e6e TON° of Southold, e, That the said board will be notified by the Permittee et the eomplatkm of the work attth• of land. g, That the Permittee wlll obtain all other permits and consents that may be required asp• plamental to this permit which may be subject to revokd upon failure to tebtaJn lama J 9 mini of JUL 13 195 69 32 P•3 FORM NO. 4 TOWN OF ,SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector 'Town Hall Southold, N.Y. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No ;-22342 ._ Date MAY 19, 1993 THIS CERTIFIEB that the building REPAIR Location of Property 3800 DUCK POND ROAD CUTCHOGUEN . •Y'Hamlet House No. street County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 83 Block 2 Lot t Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. ConforMa eubatantially to the Application for Building permit heretofore filed in this offion dated, APRIL 5 1993 urauent to which Building Permit No. 21307-2 dated APRIL 6 1999 was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is RBPAIR WORK QM MOTEL 6ST R83TAURANT & MOTEL WESTCAU84� BY WINTER STORKS. Tho 'oertificate 18 issued to POND ENTZ"RI8E8 INC (owners) of the aforeeeid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL /A UNDERVMITERS CERTIFICATE NO. N/ PLUIjBIRS CERTIFICATION DATED N/A H ildin Inspector Rev. 1/al APPENDIX D-69 A CUTCHOGUE FIRE DISTRICT New Suffolk Road. PO Box 930. Cutchogue. NY 11935 Telephone (616) 734-6907 • Fax (616) 734-7079 August 14, 1995 Glenn Spetta Associates 1050 Smithtown Ave PO Box 94 Bohemia, NY 11716 Ref : Expansion of Beachcomber Motel Gentlemen, With reference to your letter of June 28, 1995 we are recommending to the Southold Town Planning Board the installation of a Fire Well on the Beachcomber property. When this installation is completed and accepted by the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Cutchogue Fire Department, the District will assume the maintenance on the well . We will also require the necessary easements for access to the well . Reading your enclosure C, you noted that your water system can supply 145 gpm for fire protection and if necessary we can draft from the sound. Considering the size of your complex 145 gpm would not be an adequate flow for your potential . LI Sound is a large body of water but sometimes not accessible due to the tides, beaches and winter freezing. In closing, the Cutchogue Fire Department can provide Fire Protection, to the Beachcomber Motel, if the above well is installed and proper fire lanes are open on the property. Thank you for your reply and should you have any questions please contact us again. Very truly yours, Board of Fire Commissioners Matthew J. Martin Secretary cc : Chief Brewer Southold Plan Bd. CUTCHOGUE FIRE DISTRICT ® r r � New Suffolk Road, PO Box 930. CutchoQue. NY 11936 r.o. Telephone (616) 734-9907 • Fax (616) 734-7079 August 14, 1995 Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman Southold Town Planning Bd. Town Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re£;Beachcomber Motel Expansion Dear Mr. Ward, Reference the above properties, it is the opinion of this board that a new Fire Well be placed as marked by an R on the enclosed drawings. The Fire Well is to conform to our specifications and be equipped as follows; a) 20 H.P. , 3 Phase, Submersible pump capable to deliver' at 10 PSI discharge at center of tee at top of well.'x" ump shall be of submersible turbine type, equipped with grease packed bearings in bowl assemblies. The bowls shall be of a smooth finish design to guide the water from one stage to the next with a minimum of turbulence. b) Top of the well is to be finished off with an 8" x 4" well seal. 4" galvanized tee and plug, and 4" x 4-1/2" solid brass ferrule and cap. The hose threads and hydrant wrench nut shall conform to the standards of the Cutchogue Fire District. If you have any questions, please advise. Very truly yours, /AIM*/ 4t- Mathew J. Martin Secretary cc: Chief Brewer . 'b1viu ».Bpetta"Aeaoaatee mjm/encl.