Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-38.-7-7.1TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA, KELLEY, DUBIN & QUARTARARO ELI' BYHAND October 26, 2006 Post Office Box 9398 Riverhead New York 11901-9398 33 West Second Street Riverhead New York 11901-9398 www.suffolklaw.com Planning Board Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Oki-Do, Ltd. Premises: 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY SCTM#: 1000-038.00-07.00-007.001 Dear Members of the Planning Board: This firm represents Cleaves Point Condominium Association ("Cleaves Point"), neighbors directly to the west of the above-referenced premises and the proposed site of the Gala Holistic Center. We appeared at the scoping session held on October 16, 2006 and voiced our client's concerns regarding the scope of the applicant's Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS"). As we stated at the session, we am presenting those concerns in writing at this time. In addition, we are submitting an independent traffic study prepared by Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. dated August 3, 2006, and the written comments of Robert Grover, Chi&Environmental Consultant for Greenman-Pedersen, Inc., dated October 24, 2006. The entrance to and exit from Cleaves Point is on Shipyard Lane. The proposed ingress and egress locations to the Gala Holistic Center are situated directly across from those of Cleaves Point. As such, and for other reasons, a serious traffic conflict is created. While traffic is one of the primary concerns of Cleaves Point, there are many other issues of environmental concern as outlined below. TRAFFIC The applicant's traffic study concludes that there will be no detrimental effect on traffic conditions, which conclusion is not only self-serving, but misleading. The conclusion is not 20 MAIN STREET 51 HILL STREET 105 ROUTE 119, FL lS 400 TOWNLINE ROAD 56340 MAIN ROAD, P. O. BOX 325 EAST HAMPTON, NY 11937 SOUTHAMPTON, NY 11968 PORT JEFFERSON STA., NY 11776 HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788 SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 631.324,1200 631.2870090 631 928 4400 631.265 1414 631 765 2300 based on realistic assessments. Cleaves Point's independent traffic study raises significant issues, as briefly discussed below, and which are more fully discussed in the annexed report. · It is highly unlikely that only overnight guests will be using the facility; · It is highly unlikely that the restaurant will limit public patrons; · The delivery activities for such a proposed high-end facility are not accurately reflected; · The fact that all the many amenities will have to be maintained, thereby requiring maintenance vehicles to constantly enter and leave the facility, is not accurately reflected; As the Greenman-Pedersen traffic study states, with the increased traffic to and from the facility, there likely will be a 2 to 2 1/2 minute wait to enter onto Route 25 from Shipyard Lane, which wait, undoubtedly, will lead to unsafe driving choices, especially given the blind spot looking west on Route 25; · Public transportation to and from the facility is highly unlikely and purely speculative given the high-end nature and remote location of the facility; There are 3 driveways proposed to enter and exit the facility, the main entrance of which is directly across from the access to Cleaves Point. This configuration presents a dangerous condition; Three entrances will prove confusing to visitors, and require more signage than would be necessary with fewer entrances. Further, 3 entrances will require more disturbance or breaking up of the screening of the facility. There should be 2 entrances at the most - one for service vehicles and one for all others; Using Gillette Road as an alternate access to the facility will greatly reduce traffic problems on Shipyard Lane and any backup of vehicles, both service and guest, entering the facility. In the alternative, one road can be used to enter the facility and the other road to exit the facility. Shipyard Lane must not bare the burden alone. Sharing the burden of traffic must be analyzed and considered Or, one road can be used for employee and service vehicles and the other road for guests; · There should be consideration of any pedestrian traffic and whether sidewalks would be warranted, or the widening of Shipyard Lane; Will large buses or trailers be allowed to enter the facility? If so, the noise and resultant emissions should be analyzed, and they should be able to park and turn around inside the facility; · The ever-increasing year-round ferry traffic must be considered. PARKING AND LIGHTING The plan calls for parking to be spread out over (3) three sides of the property, including the entire length of Shipyard Lane. it will be required that all the roadways and parking areas be lit. · Cleaves Point is concerned that the lighting will produce a "glow" or "halo" effect. If the parking were centralized, such an effect could be minimized. · There must not be any parking on Shipyard Lane. What kind of lighting will there be at the restaurant? Will there be an outdoor deck or outdoor seating with lighting? Again, Cleaves Point is concerned about the "glow" or "halo" effect of any outdoor lighting, as well as the noise. BUFFER · What kind of buffer will there be along Shipyard Lane? · Will fuel be stored on the premises and, if so, who would have access to the fuel pumps? REVETMENT It is our understanding that water has broken through the old existing bulkhead, which means that the high water mark has changed and is now closer to the existing structures. This fact necessarily will effect the required setbacks. As a result, the wetlands should be reflagged to determine the appropriate setbacks. · What steps are the DEC and the Board of Trustees going to take to preserve the existing wetlands? · Will there be a study as to the impact any dredging will have on vegetation and wildlife, including the Osprey nests? · What erosion control measures and practices will be instituted? · What impact will the location of the proposed revetment have on the existing revetment at Cleaves Point and the surrounding areas? DRAINAGE The plan calls for the installation of drainage systems in close proximity to the wetlands. Cleaves Point is concerned that the water table will be effected thereby. There presently exist drainage problems on Shipyard Lane. · Will the applicant be required to make any improvements regarding drainage that will address the existing problems? · Will there be any drainage into the bay? PUBLIC WATER The plan includes many man-made ponds, pools and facilities requiring a very substantial water supply. · Where will the requisite water come from? · Will the applicant be required to install new water mains along Shipyard Lane? FEMA REQUIREMENTS FEMA requires that all slructures maintain an elevation of at least 10 feet above sea level. The existing plan includes structures violative of this rule. · Some of the proposed buildings are only 6 feet above sea level. · If the buildings are moved landward as a result, the visual impact on the neighbors would be lessened. THE DUMPSTER Cleaves Point is concemed that the proposed location of the dumpsters will create noise and traffic to and from the dumpsters, and the likelihood of vermin. · If the dumpsters were moved closer to the main building, these concerns would be mitigated. EXISTING PUBLIC SAFETY The existing building at the site is in severe disrepair. The site is also full of debris. Roof panels have been blown off, and will continue to blow off, causing safety concerns for the surrounding neighbors. · Will the owner/applicant be required to address these safety issues at this time? · The area presently constitutes an attractive nuisance to the neighborhood. NOISE · What efforts will be made to control the noise from the public areas? · Will there be outdoor parties, concerts or special events bringing in crowds for a day(s) or night(s)? · Will construction be limited to weekdays and certain hours? · Will there be loudspeakers, outdoor music or announcements? If so, will the hours be regulated? · Will commercial deliveries be limited to certain hours? We trust that the Planning Board, as lead agency, will require the applicant to study and address these issues so that the Board can take a hard look at them and make certain that they are fully addressed in the DEIS and FEIS. We appreciate your including this letter and its attachments as part of the record of this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, /enc. CC; Cleaves Point Condominium Association Greenman- Pedersen, Inc. Engineering and Construction Services Ms. Sue Hallock Cleaves Point Condominiums P.O. Box 29 Greenport, N.Y. 11944 August 3, 2006 Traffic Study Assessment Gaia Holistic Center Traffic Study Review Dear Ms. Hallock; I have reviewed the traffic impact study prepared for the Gaia Holistic Center application. The purpose of the applicant's traffic study is to assess the present traffic conditions, estimate additional traffic the project is expected to generate and then quantify impacts that may be imposed upon the local road network. While the study was prepared in a generally acceptable manner, its conclusion that the "... Center will not have a detrimental effect on traffic conditions on the surrounding roadway system in the vicinity of the site.." is misleading and thus, self-serving Shipyard Lane is a quiet residential street leading to thc edge of Peconic Bay. According to the report, the weekend peak hour generation of trips for the project is about 118. Later in this report we take exception to the generation of trips and believe the project's true trip-making potential may be understated. However, accepting the report's projections for the moment, our recent observations noted 62 vehicles either entering or exiting Shipyard Lane during the Saturday midday peak hour. This means that the community can expect a 90% increase in vehicular activity on their roadway. While the additional car a minute may not seem significant in absolute numbers to the applicant, it will definitely have both a noticeable and detrimental impact on the local residents. Our evaluation of the report identified several issues of concern that need to be addressed and considered by the board. They are as follows: Trip Generation. The report states that only overnight guests would be using the on-site facilities such as the spa etc. This does not seem realistic since it is likely some folks would want to visit the site for daily use only. This could amount to a substantial number of unaccounted traffic activity at the site. Similarly, restricting most of the available seating in the restaurant for overnight guests is again an unlikely scenario. The report suggests that only 72 of 198 seats in the restaurant will be reserved for public use. If the restaurant is there and customers come, they will be accommodated. This is an additional generation of traffic the study does not consider. Lastly, we are not confident that the trip rate for hotels utilized in the study will accurately reflect the delivery activity such a high-end resort-type facility would require. O:k2006k2006324 Oaia Traffic Study\Gala report 080406.doc 325 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702 Tel: (631) 587-5060 Fax: (631) 422-3479 'GP! There are not a significantly large number of rooms but the site supports large landscaped grounds, spa, 2 restaurants, a marina and pool. All these amenities require maintenance and supplies. It is likely that off-site vendors requiring various trucks to access the site will perform much of the maintenance. As such, it is likely that the vehicle trip rate, which is based upon the number of rooms and is low compared to the site amenities requirements, will not account for the truck and delivery activity this site will necessitate. We suggest that the applicant adjust the generation numbers. When all these potential understated trips are considered, the site can generate much more vehicular activity than estimated. LEDD Certification Rideshare Credit. This credit actually amounts to a very small number of vehicles: three trips during the am or pm period and 5 during Saturday. However, while seeming inconsequential, it is curious that users of such a high - end facility would really be ridesharing. It appears to be an ironic incompatibility that facility guests with the means to visit the Holistic Center would do so by sharing a ride in a van. Furthermore, as the van itself generates one trip in and one trip out for such an operation there really isn't any true meaningful credit and thus shouldn't even be noted. The mention of this credit seems much ado about nothing. Sight Distance. Sight distance exiting from Shipyard Lane poses no problem in winter months but, due to a large Kwanzan Cherry tree on the opposite side of the road where the road bends northward, west of Shipyard Lane, it may impede the line of sight when the tree is leafed out and in bloom. The photo below shows some obscurity and, since speed can be an issue here and motorists have to patiently wait to find available gaps in order to enter SR 25, the sight distance can be a factor. We suggest the Town seek to do some selective pruning at this location whatever the outcome of the applicant's request is. LOOKING WEST ALONG RT. 25 'GP! Capacity Analysis. The applicant's traffic engineer conducted intersection capacity analyses and the results are shown in the report. The table below summarizes the capacity analysis results for the critical Shipyard Lane approach to SR 25, as reported in the traffic study. This intersection is a stop-controlled unsignalized location and thus, it is the ability of the side street traffic to find available safe gaps to enter the major thru street (SR 25) that is measured. Existing No Build Build Build/mod Delay L~)S Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (secJveh) AM 16.8 C 21.2 C 27.4 D 25.4 D PM 18.3 C 22.3 C 29.7 D 28.4 D Sun 31.6 D 50.5 F 150.3 F 129.3 F As can be seen under the existing conditions, the current operations work reasonably well and, while undoubtedly there are periods of long waits, most times during the peak hours the operations produce acceptable results. Under the No Build condition, the levels of service worsen a bit during the week but it is the Sunday weekend period that experiences a more dramatic drop in operations. This is because the analysis is very sensitive to the reduction in gaps on the artery caused by increased traffic flow. Even though the future condition was performed for a period of only 3 years later, the operations would degrade to an F. We do note however, that it is barely in the F range. The average motorist exiting Shipyard Lane would have to wait about 50 seconds to enter SR 25, up fi.om the current 32 seconds. Under the Build conditions, it is evident how dramatic an effect the proposed site would have on the safe operations of the intersection and specifically those motorists seeking to exit Shipyard Lane. The weekend levels of service drop threefold, creating a situation that would result in excessive delays and hazardous conditions as impatient motorists would make unsafe decisions in trying to enter SR 25. A motorist under the future proposed condition would have to wait 2 ½ minutes to enter the roadway. While somewhat helpful to the overall approach, the report freely admits that the proposed roadway modification of widening the northbound Shipyard approach to accommodate a segregated right turn lane "will not address the high delays associated with the northbound left turns out of Shipyard Lane... ". Even under a modified Build scenario, motorists would still have to wait for an average of 2 minutes. Thus, it is puzzling that with such a drastic change in level of service, the report states "the Gala Holistic Center development will have no significant adverse traffic impact... ". This of course does not consider the negative effects of the additional generation of traffic that the study may be overlooking as previously noted, which would further exacerbate the problems. It should be clearly understood that the project will have a dramatic negative effect on the operations at this intersection and no simple mitigation is available. GP! Accident Experience The report repeatedly asserts that the rate of accidents and safe traffic operations will not be negatively impacted. While currently accidents at the Shipyard intersection are not a problem, most assuredly as the gaps for motorist's to exit the street decrease so dramatically and their impatience increases, accidents will occur. Any motorist subjected to a wait of 2 or 2 ~A minutes, especially in a North Fork environment where they seek to escape such problems, will lose patience and make unsafe choices. It is inevitable. Public Transportation The amount of space afforded this topic in the report implies that customer/employee use of local public transportation is a real possibility. Similar to our comments about the rideshare credit, any use of ferry or train service still requires a van or taxi service to the site and thus generates its own trip anyway. We don't believe this will happen and certainly not to any extent that makes it worthwhile to discuss in the report and attempt to claim credit, directly or indirectly, regarding its speculative use. Our opinion is that ifa credit is warranted, then a study should employ it. If on the other hand it is so subjective or minor that the traffic consultant opts not to use it then it should not even be discussed or mentioned at all in the study. It simply appears that there is an attempt to garner an indirect credit or kudos for not using it. Site Access Location. The site plan calls for three driveways to service the site, with the main entrance to be located directly opposite the driveway to the Cleaves Point Condominiums. A secondary entrance would be located further south near the dead end and an entrance at the north end of the site would be used for deliveries and service vehicles. Since the traffic report seems to assert that the project will not generate significant traffic volumes, we do not understand the need for three driveways. The photo below shows the quiet nature of the environs with the entrance to the condominium development offto the left. TRANQUIL SHIPYARD LANE WITH GAIA PROJECT SITE ON RIGHT 'GPi The project will significantly alter the bucolic environment currently afforded to the residents. Locating the driveways opposite each other further exacerbates the situation. There is no traffic operation rationale that warrants this access configuration on this dead end street. Aligning the two driveways only serves to ensure that the busy activity of the Holistic Center is placed squarely on the front door of the existing residential condominium development, creating the normal conflicts and delays associated with such an operation. Few visitors would pass the main entrance to use the secondary access driveway to the south. ENTRANCE TO CLEAVES POINT DEVELOPMENT It seems that a far better solution would be to consolidate the two proposed customer use driveways of the Gaia site to one and locate it further north, away from the condominium driveway. From a planning standpoint, if all the vehicular movements can at least be located away from the condominium's driveway and thus, their front door, the residents maintain at least some measure of harmony. There is sufficient real estate along the frontage of the proposed site to accomplish this and preclude significant traffic activity adjacent to the condominiums and the final dead end stretch of Shipyard Lane. Alternative Access Distribution. The report indicates another entrance/exit location that is to be used for emergency access only. This driveway would access Cleaves Point Road and thus, Gillette Drive immediately to the east of the project site. Gillette Drive is similar to Shipyard Lane in width and land use. We understand that the applicant has proposed employees use this rear exit. We also suggest that the location be used and signed as an alternative access/egress location. If customers of the holistic center are encouraged to use this driveway, it should offer some improvement, however limited, to the Shipyard Lane intersection. GP! Roadway Modifications This section of the report warrants some discussion. The report offers two build alternatives to help alleviate the adverse delays caused by the project. The first is to widen SR 25 to permit lef~ exiting traffic to cross the roadway in two steps by having such vehicles cross the eastbound lanes and queue in a median lane waiting for a gap to occur in the westbound lanes before merging in. This suggestion is too expensive, probably requires property acquisition and thus, has virtually has no chance of being accepted by the community. It would also require approved by the NYSDOT. Lastly, queuing vehicles within a median is not a safe alternative. The second alternative is to install a traffic signal. The report noted that the community may be opposed to the installation of the signal. The nearest traffic control signal is the flashing signal at SR 25A/CR 49 Historically, many residents of the east end and particularly the North Fork, are opposed to signal installation as it is perceived that such equipment is a blight on the picturesque landscape. There is no magic panacea here to mitigate the traffic delays that will occur. Encouraging use of the rear gate on to Gillette Drive would be helpful, but unless all traffic exiting the Gala Center is forced to leave via that driveway location, little improvement will be seen at Shipyard Lane. Also, simply pushing the traffic to Gillette Drive may also be simply pushing the problem over to another street. The true advantages and disadvantages need to be studied. While we do not like to install traffic signals as a matter of course, in this case, signal installation will probably reap significant benefits should the Gala Center be approved and constructed. If this project moves forward, the Town should seriously consider the installation of a signal, and its entire cost (about $80,000), should be borne by the applicant. In summary, while the report states that there will be no adverse traffic impacts, we have clearly demonstrated with the report's own statistics that such a statement is fictional. Delays increase substantially and accidents will undoubtedly occur that presently do not. We see that as a significant impact. We have identified several issues that require the report's revision and further consideration of the necessary mitigation that is needed. Sincerely, GPI / Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Vice President Director of Transportation Services Greenman- Pedersen, Inc. Engineering and Construction Services October 24, 2006 Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Gala Holistic Center GPI File No. 2000303 Members of the Planning Board: We have reviewed Draft Scope for the preparation of a DEIS for the referenced project, and provide the following comments for your consideration as Lead Agency. We have a number of concerns regarding the proposed marina and shoreline work. The DEIS should provide a detailed description of the proposed revetment, with plans and cross-sections, including materials to be used, including stone sizes. The discussion should include an analysis of this structure on both the physical (sediment transport, etc) and biological littoral processes. Any wetland vegetation, including submerged aquatic vegetation, should be accurately mapped, and the project's impacts on these resources should be evaluated. The boat basin refurbishment raises many important questions. First, bulkhead replacement can only be considered "in-place" if the existing bulkhead is "functional." Typically, with old sites such as this, that is not the case. If not, then the actual shoreline, behind any failing bulkhead sections, should be mapped and incorporated into the marina Page 1 of 5 325 West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702 Tel: (631) 587-5060 Fax: (631) 422-3479 www.gpinet.com GP! design. The extent to which this impacts upland design considerations should be disclosed. The proposal calls for the dredging of approximately 2500 cubic yards of spoil from the marina (that equates to 125-250 dump trucks). The dredge spoil is to be used as "beach nourishment, fill behind stone revetment and/or (upland) disposal." The DEIS should present testing results on this material, including grain size, organic content, and, of course, the presence of any contaminants. Dredge spoil from an enclosed marina is almost never suitable for use as beach nourishment, as it is too fine grained and often contains organic material. If the proposed revetment is to be placed along the existing shoreline, than them will be no need for fill behind it. Therefore, it must be assumed that the dredge spoil will have to be transported off-site for disposal. This off-site disposal area must be identified. In terms of regulatory procedures, the NYSDEC defines maintenance dredging as dredging to restore an area to its previous depths. Documentation is needed regarding the proposed dredging depth and prior surveys demonstrating that the depth previously existed. Otherwise, the dredging will be considered "new dredging," which is presumptively incompatible with the tidal wetlands regulations. Finally, with regard to dredging, marina dredge spoil is typically 80%-95% water content. This may require that it be dewatered, on site, prior to transport. The location and design of any temporary dewatering facilities need to be presented along with a discussion of odor potential and control and vector control. GP! Turning our attention to the upland, an extensive man-made lake/stream feature is proposed. Although this feature could provide a wonderful site amenity, there are certain details which need to be discussed in the DEIS. As with the dredging, the quantities, nature, and disposal of excavated materials needs to be presented. The depth of the proposed water feature and its relationship to groundwater is important. Typically, for a feature such as this to function properly, it must be equipped with a liner system to prevent the water from simply draining into the surrounding soils. We will assume that a liner system is proposed. This being the case, in terms of site hydrology, the water feature must be considered impervious surface. Details of the water feature, including quantity and source of initial and make-up water, need to be presented. Also, details of any filtration and/or treatment system should be required, including a discussion of vector control. Will the pond have fish? If so, what provisions will be included to prevent attracting raccoons, a serious nuisance wildlife problem and health threat, to the site? Also, plans for maintenance of the water feature during the winter should be discussed. The proposal calls for Japanese gardens. Again, these could provide a nice site amenity. However, the species to be planted should be discussed. Any species considered invasive, such as Wisteria and bamboo, should not be permitted. With regard to drainage, the scoping memo states that drainage on site will be accommodated using drywells and the man-made lake. As noted above, this artificial water feature must be considered impervious, and will not contribute to on-site accommodation of drainage. In fact, the opposite is true. Being impervious, the water feature must be added to the 93,068 square feet of building area, the parking area, on-site GP! roadways, and any other impervious surfaces, as areas which have a 90-100% runoff coefficient for drainage calculation purposes. Given the site's shoreline location, it must be assumed that groundwater is relatively shallow, which could impact on the ability of drywells to function. This must be analyzed and considered in the drainage calculations. It should be noted that if the water feature is to contain fish, such as koi or goldfish, which would be typical for a Japanese garden setting, then the feature must be designed to prevent surface waters from draining into it, as surface drainage can be toxic to these fish. In terms of site history, the past uses of the property, as discussed in the draft scope, raise concerns about site contamination. Are the LIST's still on site? If so, have they been registered with the SCDHS. What are the plans for their removal? At a minimum, a summary of a Phase I environmental site assessment should be included in the DEIS. In the section on water resources, the water consumption calculations should include water to fill the pond and provide evaporative make-up, unless this is to be done using the proposed irrigation well. The evaluation of the impact of the proposed irrigation well should include a drawdown analysis and a determination of the potential for salt-water intrusion. We note that the project proposes to use a Chromaglass treatment system for sanitary waste disposal. In addition to the details specified in the draft scope, the DEIS should include a discussion of the current SCDHS policy on the approval of such systems. The issue of transportation has been addressed in Mr. Salatti's letter. GP! Regarding cultural resources, the entire North Fork is considered archaeologically sensitive. Therefore, a Phase IA study and report, at a minimum, should be included. As noted in the dra~ scope, the DEIS will describe and evaluate reasonable alternatives. We believe that an alternative scale or scales should be included as an alternative(s). The proposed project appears to include a large mass, including all of the impervious surfaces, for this property. Presentation ora reduced scale alternative should be included on the DE1S. Please contact me if you have any comments or questions on this analysis of the Draft Scope. We look forward to assisting you with review of the DEIS. Sincerely, GPI/Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Robert Grover Director Environmental and Coastal Sciences O:~2000~2000303\CORRES\TRANSM1TTALS\GaiaPIanningBoard 102506 doe ROBERT F. MUIR 2950 G1LLETrE DRIVE EA~gT MARION, NY 11939 Ms Jeff Woodhouse, Chairman Planning Board Southok[ NY 11971 October 24, 2006 Dear Chairman Woodhouse: Re: Gaia Circle-Oki-Do Thank you for the privilege of speaking at Monday's Scoping hearing. After lislening to all the speakem it appears that Gala is trying to conc~tmte an awfully lot of a~ivity into a relatively limited mea, est~Sally wl~en yo~ co~sid~ the tralllc and the streets available to bundle the traffic. The proposed restaurant and deck located al the water edge could be very attractive to omside activities such as wedding~, receptions, large festivals or other large gatherings. This possibi|ity brings att~tion to the r.r~-I for som~ sg'ict ~ as to PARKING, NOi~ CoIlitOl, I .imilllliO~ O~ ~l~ ~ ~ IO ~ l~Iffi of~ Events allowed during the year. We spoke to Mrs. Moore Monday about ~ speeif~aily Why ~'~+.ing along the the ~Hidden Parking" to actual parking anytime the d~mand arose. Did you understand that there would possibly be padding ali along the "Emergency Road~. Does that mean tha~ they can ovmid~ tbe plans m will? We have a quiet and peaceful residential area and it would be a disaster to have that peace and way of life destroyed by some~hlng that does not enhance our community or provides a bern-fa to East Marion. Rob~ ~ ~'y Muir East Mariun. NY 11939 SCOTT A. RUSSELL ........... J~i:ilyh B-i Woodhouse Chairperson - Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mrs. Woodhouse: JAMES A. RICHTER, R.A. ENGINEER T©WN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 Tel. (631) - 765 - 1560 JAMIE.RICHTER~)TOWN .SOUII IOLD.NY US OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 25, 2006 Re: Oki-Do Ltd. Site Plan Shipyard lane, East Marion, NY SCTM fl: 1000-39-07-7.1 As per a request from your office, I have reviewed the Site Plans for the above referenced project. The Site Plan drawings have been prepared bythe office of Young &Young, Land Surveyor; and the office of Butt. Otruba-O'Connor Architects, AIA. These drawings have been dated 3/17/04 & 12/28/05. Please consider the following: 1. Please note that the proposed disturbance resulting from construction activities and grading of this site will be greater than one (1) acre in area. This project will require coverage from NYS Department of Environmental Protection (DEC) under the Phase II State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Program. The Developer must obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm-water Runoff from Construction Activity (GP-02-01) prior to the initiation of construction activities. 2. Drawing C-3: This existing condition drawing sheet shows the existing topography of the site and a flood Zone line of AE (El 9). These two items need to be coordinated. While the flood zone line was interpolated from a large scale map it should also be modified to align with the nine (9') foot Contour that runs through the property. This item should be reviewed by the Building Department. 3. It is apparent that the main access to the site is proposed by the way of Shipyard Lane. I have reviewed this item with Mr. Harris and he has requested road improvement to Shipyard that would include resurfacing of the road and the installation of new drainage systems in the Town Right-of-Way. Additional drainage should be incorporated into the project design to recharge storm-water run-off before it reaches Peconic Bay. 4. The proposed access roadway to the Managers Residence may require Excavation, Fill and/or Grading to achieve a stable road design. The impact of this new road on adjacent property to the East should be dealt with. Landscape Buffers, the maintenance of storm-water run-off and the elimination of erosion problems should be addressed. 5. The Proposed Restaurant Building Setbacks from the High Water Mark should be reviewed with the Zoning board of Appeals and the Town Trustees. It is understood that there is an existing structure but to what extent will this building be reused? By the time the existing structure is made flood compliant it would be well over a 50% threshold for new work. In addition, the proposed design of the new facility does not appear to utilize any of the existing structure with the exception of its footprint. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed new Restaurant facility be relocated to meet the minimum standards of Town Zoning and enhance the policies of the LWRP. This item should also be reviewed with Mark Terry for LWRP Consistency. Page 1 of 2 Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson - Planning Board Re: Oki-Do Ltd. Site Plan SCTM #: 1000-39-07-7.1 August 25, 2006 Page 2 of 2 6. Cross section "A-A" on sheet A-4 and the Rock Revetment Detail on sheet A-5 indicate the toe of Revetment to be seaward of the High Water mark. It is recommended that this item be constructed landward and above the Mean High Water line. In addition to preserving the marine community along the shoreline, this item would allow for the preservation of the foreshore that may be utilized by the General Public. This item should be reviewed by the Town Trustees and the LWRP Coordinator. 7. Storm Water Leaching Pools should be installed a minimum of two (2') feet above the Water Table. Some of the proposed leaching fields adjacent to Tidal Wetland areas may be set too deep. Leaching Pool design depth and Test Hole information should be coordinated to maintain a minimum two foot separation. 8. The lighting plan on Sheet C-7 seems excessive when it appears that almost all of it will be located immediately adjacent to Town Right-of-Ways and the rear yards of the existing residential properties. It would appear that some of this site lighting and parking would be better suited if it were constructed within the interior of the site to reduce the impact on the adjacent property owners. 9. The current proposed location for the Southerly entrance to the site is too close to the road end. This Town road end is used for public access to the waterfront and should not be monopolized by the use of this new facility. It is recommended that this entrance be moved in a northerly direction to align with the entrance of the Condominium Complex located on the opposite side of the street. 10. Drainage calculations indicate that Tributary Area # 13 will have six (6) pools. The site plan only indicates five. This item should be modified accordingly. If you have any questions regarding this review, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Sincerely, cc: James A. Richter, R.A. Peter Harris, Superintendent of Highways Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Trustees Michael Verity, Principal Building Inspector Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator