Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGreenport Village - Waterfront DevelopmentWATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE VILLAGE OF REF.NP RT rrsvjtk., 1 utast„ i t -)h i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT Prepared by Long Island Regional Planning Board H. Lee Dennison Office Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, N.Y. 11787 Dr. Lee E. Koppelman Project Director Planning Staff DeWitt Davies Lauretta Fischer Neil Giffen Arthur Kunz Jeffrey Overton Carol Swick Edith Tanenbaum Ronald Verbarg Clerical Staff Anne Fauvell Keri Gratten Merilea Reiley Eileen Retzger Cartographic Staff Don Alberto Joel Gershkon Joe Scarpulla Coastal Management Program Development Agreement D162117 Task 5.2 Grant -In -Aid Award Number NA-79-AA-D-CZ062 1 October 1980 ' The preparation of this report was financially aided through a Federal grant from the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric ' Administration under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. This report was prepared for the New York State Department of State. 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 Long Island Regional Planning Board WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT Table of Contents Page List of Tables iii List of Figures iv List of Plates v SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Goals 3 1.2 Objectives 3 1.3 Scope 4 1.4 Sources of Information 5 SECTION 2 - FISHERY DEVELOPMENT IN THE MID -ATLANTIC REGION 6 2.1 Potential of Fishery Development in Mid -Atlantic Region 6 2.2 Impediments to Fishery Development in the Mid - Atlantic Region 11 2.3 Status of Long Island's Commercial Fishing Industry 12 SECTION 3 - HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF WATER DEPENDENT ACTIVITIES IN THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT 14 SECTION 4 - EXISTING WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 20 4.1 Natural and Physical Characteristics 20 4.2 Existing Waterfront Land Use & Zoning 21 4.3 Firm Inventory and Expansion Plans 26 SECTION 5 - COMMERCIAL FISHERY SUPPORT SERVICES 29 5.1 Transportation Systems 29 5.2 Sewage Treatment 30 5.3 Electric Power 31 SECTION 6 - OPPORTUNITY SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS 32 6.1 Mitchell Property & Bohack Site 33 6.1.1 Mitchell Property Description 33 6.1.2 Bohack Site Description 35 6.1.3 Site Planning Objectives 36 6.1.4 Description of Proposed Site Improvements 36 6.2 LIRR Property and Kamaiko/Kessler Property 38 6.2.1 LIRR Property Description 38 6.2.2 Kamaiko/Kessler Property Description 40 6.2.3 Site Planning Objectives 41 6.2.4 Description of Proposed Site Imprcvements 42 i ' 6.3 Barstow Shipyard Site 44 6.3.1 Barstow Shipyard Site Description 44 6.3.2 Site Planning Objectives 45 ' 6.3.3 Description of Proposed Site Improvements 45 6.4 Oyster Factory Property 46 6.4.1 Oyster Factory Property Description 46 6.4.2 Site Planning Objectives 47 6.4.3 Description of Proposed Site Improvements 47 6.5 Socony Mobil Property 48 6.5.1 Socony Mobile Property Description 6.5.2 Site Planning Objectives 48 49 6.5.3 Description of Proposed Site Improvements 49 6.6 Cappa Property 50 ' 6.6.1 Cappa Property Description 50 6.6.2 Site Planning Objectives 51 6.6.3 Description of Proposed Site Improvements 51 6.7 Marine Associates Property and Sweet Shipyard Site 51 ' 6.7.1 Marine Associates Property Description 51 6.7.2 Sweet Shipyard Site Description 53 6.7.3 Site Planning Objectives 54 ' 6.7.4 Description of Proposed Site Improvements 55 Appendix A - Correspondence Requesting Board Assistance A-1 Appendix B Sources of Information B-1 Appendix C - Conclusions Abstracted from A Marine Fisheries C-1 Subplan for Nassau and Suffolk Counties Appendix D - Commercial Fishery Facility Expansion Plans at Montauk, Shinnecock and Freeport/Jones Inlet D-1 Appendix E - Resident and Transient Commercial Fishing Vessel E-1 Data Appendix F - Summary of Leases on the LIRR Property in the F-1 Village of Greenport 1� 1 ' List of Tables Title Page Table 1 1980 Commercial Fishery Catch Allocations for the North Atlantic Region Established Under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 10 Table El Summary of Resident Commercial Fishing Vessels Utilizing Greenport Harbor (1979) E1 Table E2 Summary of Transient Commercial Fishing Vessels ' Utilizing Greenport Harbor (1979) E2 i i i i 1 1 1 i i i i iii List of Figures Title Page Figure 1 Zoning Patterns 22 in the Village of Greenport Figure 2 Waterfront Establishments in the Village of Greenport 23 i 1 1 i i iv List of Plates` Titles Plate 1 Natural and Physical Characteristics of the Greenport Waterfront Waterfront Plate 2 Existing Land Use Along the Greenport Plate 3 Waterfront Development Opportunity Sites in the Village of Greenport ' Plate 4 Mitchell Property Plate S Railroad Property Plate 6 Barstow Shipyard Site Plate 7 Oyster Factory Property Plate 8 Sweet Shipyard Site i 1 *All plates are at end of report. V 1 SECTION I - INTRODUCTION In November 1979, the Mayor of the Village of Greenport requested technical assistance from the Long Island Regional Planning Board (LIRPB) design and preparation of a study proposal to solicit funds from appropriate agencies to enable the -selection of a consultant with expertise in fisheries development and port engineering; and 2. prep- aration of a waterfront land use opportunity study that would contain plans for revitalizing the Greenport waterfront. In response to a solicitation by the National Marine Fisheries Service (Federal Register, vol. 44, no. 12), the LIRPB, acting in behalf of the Village, prepared and submitted a study proposal entitled, "Feasibility and Design of Expanded Commercial Fishery Infrastructure in the Village of Greenport" (1 February 1980) to the Northeast Region ' of the Fisheries Service for funding consideration. The objective of this proposed study was to prepare preliminary engineering design plans tfor commercial fishing industry and related support facilities that meet the needs of eastern Long Island fishermen and are suitable for ' location in the Village. The proposed study addressed the following 1 in the conduct of a feasibility study on the redevelopment of the Village -'s waterfront. The Village formalized this request by unanimous resolution dated 14 January 1980. (Appendix A contains a copy of the request letter and resolution.) This resolution also established a Waterfront Study Committee comprised of individuals with diverse interests to assist in the conduct of the study. The LIRPB responded to this request by indicating that it would provide technical assistance ' to the Village of Greenport pursuant to an agreement with the New York State Dept. of State under the Coastal Management Program. The nature of this technical assistance would be twofold: 1. assistance in the design and preparation of a study proposal to solicit funds from appropriate agencies to enable the -selection of a consultant with expertise in fisheries development and port engineering; and 2. prep- aration of a waterfront land use opportunity study that would contain plans for revitalizing the Greenport waterfront. In response to a solicitation by the National Marine Fisheries Service (Federal Register, vol. 44, no. 12), the LIRPB, acting in behalf of the Village, prepared and submitted a study proposal entitled, "Feasibility and Design of Expanded Commercial Fishery Infrastructure in the Village of Greenport" (1 February 1980) to the Northeast Region ' of the Fisheries Service for funding consideration. The objective of this proposed study was to prepare preliminary engineering design plans tfor commercial fishing industry and related support facilities that meet the needs of eastern Long Island fishermen and are suitable for ' location in the Village. The proposed study addressed the following 1 L j t t concerns identified by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce Task Force on Fisher- ies Development: Most new or expanded fisheries need new, improved or expanded dock space, freezing capacity, storage and refrigerated ware- house facilities, vessel repair facilities, or support service. In New England and the Mid -Atlantic areas, old facilities need renovation to be adequate for landing fish from the existing fisheries as well as fish from expanded fisheries in whiting or squid. In that region and others, local communities must make decisions between use of harbor and port areas for support of the commercial fishing industry, for recreational fishing, or for attraction of tourists. Other competing uses for waterfront land also exist.* In August 1980, the LIRPB received notice that its proposal was not funded due to funding limitations and the research priorities as established by the National Marine Fisheries Service. (Over 250 pro- posals were submitted nationwide with a total dollar request of $50 million. Only $10 million was allocated to the program.) Fortunately, the Village has received some funding from the U.S. Economic Development Administration under a related proposal to initiate engineering studies on commercial fishery related facilities suitable for location in the Village. As a precursor to the proposed preliminary engineering study, the ' LIRPB committed itself to the preparation of a waterfront land use study for the Village that would identify sites suitable for development, rehabilitation or expansion of commercial fishery, tourism, recreational boating and other uses. The study, conducted during the period from March -September 1980, was designed to provide necessary background information for the preliminary engineering analyses. The results of ' the study are reported in this report, Waterfront Development Opportunities in the Village of Greenport. *U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Task Force on Fisheries Development, Toward a Partnership for the -Development of the United States Commercial Fishing Industry, final report, May 23, 1979, pp. 29-30. 2 1 1.1 Goals As mentioned earlier, the waterfront opportunities study is part ' of a more comprehensive program that includes the preparation of pre- liminary engineering plans. The subject study provides a tool that will be helpful in the attainment of the broader goals outlined below: ' To facilitate the rehabilitation and use of the Greenport waterfront for a variety of water dependent activities. To create conditions for removal of blight in the form of deteriorated industrial buildings, docks and piers, and the removal of obstacles to waterfront development, such as derelict and sunken vessels. To create new job opportunities for persons of low and moderate income and minority groups in Greenport through the growth and expansion of the commercial fishing in- dustry and related support activities that have histor- ically provided the economic base for the Village. r1.2 Objectives There are two main objectives to this study: o the identification of sites within the Village that are suitable for the development, rehabilitation or expansion of commercial fishing, tourism, recreation- al boating and other uses. o the preparation of site plans for recommended facil- ities that are suitable for location at available sites. The land use recommendations and design be general plans can used by the Village in its review of development proposals affecting the harbor waterfront. The information developed in the study provides input to the preparation of preliminary engineering pians for the specified facilities. The plans also provide initial documentation for investment funds efforts to secure private sector or public resources for the construction, rehabilitation or expansion of facilities at specific sites within the Village. 3 1.3 Scope The geographic scope of this study is limited to the waterfront proper of the Village of Greenport. Primary emphasis was given to review of shoreline and adjacent properties; however, land use surveys of the entire Village were conducted in order to determine the potential g of utilizing inland parcels for uses that would support marine related activities located at the shore. Meetings with the Waterfront Study iCommittee indicated that development fishery the of commercial and ancillary support facilities was the major concern of the Village. Therefore, study efforts were aimed primarily at the provision of such facilities at available sites. However, residential and recreational opportunities were also evident as the study progressed, and they are included in this study. Should the various land use and facility recommendations be im- plemented, immediate benefits would accrue to the local construction industry as well as commercial fishing interests. It is envisioned that the provision of new facilities will encourage additional expansion of the Greenport fishing fleet, as well as its use by transient vessels. Those interests providing support facilities and services for these vessels in the form of catch transfer and processing, as well as supplies and repairs, will also directly benefit as a result of increased business activity. The rehabilitation of certain sections of the waterfront and the ambience created by seaport and commercial fishing activities should add to the attractiveness of Greenport as a resort area catering to both day visitors as well as those staying for longer periods of time. The enhancement of commercial fishing will thus benefit all commercial establishments within the Village. 4 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1.4 Sources of Information Three general sources of information were utilized in the conduct of this study: o interviews and meetings with members of the Waterfront Study Committee and others with interests in the future of the Village. o communications with various government agency contacts. o reports and other published materials. Several site visits and facility tours were -made by LIRPB staff in conjunction with Village personnel. The information gathering effort was geared not only to obtaining a specific familiarity with the characteristics of the Village waterfront, but also to developing an awareness of other port planning/fishery facility studies that have been or are being conducted for other harbors along the Atlantic coast of the United States. The sources of information are summarized in Appendix B. 5 L SECTION 2 - FISHERY DEVELOPMENT IN THE MID -ATLANTIC REGION Whether or not the Greenport waterfront encompasses sites that are ' suitable for the location of onshore support facilities servicing comm- ercial fishing fleets is a moot point, if in fact conditions exist in the mid-Atlantic fishery as a whole that preclude the growth in harvesting and processing activities. The potential for expansion of the domestic fishing industry in the Mid -Atlantic region is reviewed in this section; the impediments to growth are also briefly examined. Mention is also made of the status of fishery development on Long Island. 2.1 Potential of Fishery Development in the Mid -Atlantic Region The United States assumed jurisdiction over the management of fishery resources within 200 miles of the nation's shores on 1 March 1977, pursuant to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-265). The regulatory actions of the U.S. Government in implementing P.L. 94-265, e.g., the establishment of a catch quota system and the granting of permits to foreign nations that limit fishing operations for certain species within specific areas, are based on a management program designed to foster the recovery of overfished stocks and to revive the U.S. fish- ing industry. Extended jurisdiction has created an opportunity for major expan- sion of many segments of the U.S. fishing industry that could produce significant national economic benefits. A government sponsored study has indicated that the development of new fisheries off Alaska, the West Coast, the Gulf of Mexico, New England, and Mid -Atlantic could create 38,000 new jobs and contribute $1.0 billion to the U.S. economy by 1990.* I *U.S. Dept. of Commerce, A Study to Determine the Export and Domestic Markets for Currently Underutilized Fish and Shellfish, by Earl R. Combs, Inc. (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979). p.416. 6 1 In 1978, the U.S. had a $2.1 billion deficit in the fisheries sector of its international balance of trade, making seafood among the top eight trade items accounting for the overall deficit. Nearly two- pollock, total imports of fishery products can be cut substantially. thirds of the edible seafood in the U.S. is imported. Over the next 10 years, U.S. demand for seafood will increase by at least 20%, and without ' additional domestic supplies, imports can be expected to keep pace with this increase. squid, mackerel and whiting fisheries in New England and the Mid -Atlantic rMuch of the trade deficit is attributable to imports of high -valued fishery products like shrimp, tuna, lobster, and scallops for which domestic resources are already developed and harvested. However, imports of other species in the form of fresh and frozen fillets, and frozen 1 7 fish blocks and slabs, which are also important, can be reduced as 1 domestic fishermen displace foreign fishermen in harvesting these resources within the U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone. By substituting American -caught fish for imports of species such as whiting, hake, and pollock, total imports of fishery products can be cut substantially. Indeed, white -fleshed fish represent the short-term best opportunity for expanded utilization of U.S. fishery resources. The trade deficit can also be reduced through development of export markets for the vast U.S. fishery resources presently fished only by foreign fleets or not fished at all. For example, development of the squid, mackerel and whiting fisheries in New England and the Mid -Atlantic regions could improve the balance of trade by as much as $211 million per ' year, while creating over 5,000 jobs• and adding nearly $300 million to the Gross National Product.* *U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Task Force on Fisheries Development, Toward a Partnership..., p. 21. 1 7 t t t Recent foreign catches of selected offshore species made in the Fishery Conservation Zone off New England and the Middle Atlantic states - areas accessible to the Long Island fleet - have been much higher than domestic landings. For example, nearly 30,000 metric tons of short- and long -finned squid were caught by foreign vessels in 1979, as compared to the 7,400 metric tons landed by U.S. fishermen during the same year. Scores of foreign fishing vessels (trawlers, process and support vessels) support this fishing effort. Thus, for certain species, there appears to be a large potential for domestic fleets to increase their landings if the capability of the industry is enhanced to the point where the level of foreign fishing is reduced. Foreign fishing is allowed in the Fishery Conservation Zone for those species where a surplus in excess of domestic fleet capacity is available for exploitation. The potential additional catch for selected species available to Long Island and other domestic fishermen is shown in Table 1 under the "Total Allowable Level of Foreign Fishing" column. Because the domestic fishing industry has not developed the capacity to fully utilize the available surpluses, foreign vessels will be allowed to fish by permit for the various species in designated areas until the quotas (totalling more than 100,000 metric tons) are reached. Long Island has a geographical advantage in comparison with other areas for locating shore facilities supporting those fisheries offering the most potential as a result of extended jurisdiction. Long Island fleets could intercept these species - whiting, long -finned squid, short -finned squid, red hake - during their annual migrations along the continental shelf break between Cape Hatteras and Georges Bank.* "There is evidence documenting the fact that Long Island fishermen are catching larger volumes of the underutilized species. The 1979 Nassau - Suffolk landings of whiting, for example, were about 5.5 million pounds. This is over three times the average annual landings of this species during the last decade. ities for U.S. exports exist in France, Greece and Portugal. Management under extended jurisdiction may allow previously tdepleted stocks of yellowtail flounder, haddock, and cod to recover. If this occurs over a number of years, Long Island fishermen could benefit as there would be more of these traditionally popular species 1 readily available. Another area offering potential to the Island`s fishing industry is the diversification of fishing effort to increase the harvest of underutilized stocks of the following species: ocean quahog, blue *The Mid -Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation has identified the following underutilized species for potential development in the Mid - Atlantic region: whiting, red hake, squid, mackerel, dogfish, butter- fish and herring. Mid -Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc., A Fisheries Development Program for Underutilized Species in the Mid - Atlantic Region (Annapolis, Md.: 1980),p.8. 9 1 The question arises, "Why haven't Long Island fishermen, or U.S. commercial fishing fleets in general, developed the capacity to take advantage of these species in the past?" A partial answer to this question is that domestic fleets have concentrated their efforts on catching species that bring high per unit prices. Relatively small ' volumes of these species, e.g., lobster, can be handled, yet the econ- omic returns are high. To take advantage of low cost, underutilized tspecies,* large be handled. volumes must caught and Larger vessels may be necessary to do this. Another factor is the traditionally low domestic demand for these species. However, foreign demand may provide the incentive for domestic expansion. For example, if the technical problems associated with the processing of the squids can be addressed, and a high quality product can be assured, excellent market opportun- ities for U.S. exports exist in France, Greece and Portugal. Management under extended jurisdiction may allow previously tdepleted stocks of yellowtail flounder, haddock, and cod to recover. If this occurs over a number of years, Long Island fishermen could benefit as there would be more of these traditionally popular species 1 readily available. Another area offering potential to the Island`s fishing industry is the diversification of fishing effort to increase the harvest of underutilized stocks of the following species: ocean quahog, blue *The Mid -Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation has identified the following underutilized species for potential development in the Mid - Atlantic region: whiting, red hake, squid, mackerel, dogfish, butter- fish and herring. Mid -Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc., A Fisheries Development Program for Underutilized Species in the Mid - Atlantic Region (Annapolis, Md.: 1980),p.8. 9 Table 1 1980 Commercial Fishery Catch Allocations for the North Atlantic Region Established Under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (in metric tons)* * Data from U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States, 1979 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), p. 95. The catch allocations established under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 set limits on the commercial catch of various species by both domestic and foreign fishermen. The allocations listed above represent the potential catch available to Long Island fishermen in the Atlantic Ocean north of Cape Hatteras within the 200 mile limit. The 1980 foreign allocation is over 100,000 metric tons. The optimum yield for each fishery is equal to the sum of the entries in the three columns. 10 Total Allowable Level Species U.S. Capacity of Foreign Fishing Reserve Whiting 29,600 60,400 0 Short -finned squid 5,000 12,000 13,000 Long -finned .squid 7,000 18,000 19,000 Atlantic mackerel 20,000 4,000 6,000 Butterfish 14,000 4,000 0 Red hake 8,500 8,500 0 * Data from U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States, 1979 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), p. 95. The catch allocations established under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 set limits on the commercial catch of various species by both domestic and foreign fishermen. The allocations listed above represent the potential catch available to Long Island fishermen in the Atlantic Ocean north of Cape Hatteras within the 200 mile limit. The 1980 foreign allocation is over 100,000 metric tons. The optimum yield for each fishery is equal to the sum of the entries in the three columns. 10 mussel, red crab, jonah crab, rock crab, dogfish, ocean pout, goosefish, various skates, searobins, and American eel. Adequate markets and iprocessing facilities would have to be developed to meet this potential. 2.2 Impediments to Fishery Development in the Mid -Atlantic Region ' The impediments to development of underutilized fishery resources in the Mid -Atlantic region can be grouped under the three broad areas: organizational conditions, capacity and technology, and motivation.* Organizational conditions in the fishing industry have been cited as a ized species. The Mid -Atlantic region lacks adequate moorage and dockage facilities for this development at the present time. The primary pro- cessing capacity problems in the Mid -Atlantic region are: *Earl R. Combs, Inc., Prospectus for Development of the United States Fisheries (Mercer Island, Washington: Earl R. Combs, Inc., 1979). 11 fundamental impediment. New ventures involving substantial investment require carefully developed plans with capital and operating costs defined jand projected as clearly as possible. This type of planning provides a means of assessing risks; however, it requires special skills and is jexpensive. Most U.S. fishing industry, little segments of the where verticle integration exists, cannot perform this type of examination because of economic or other reasons. As a result, the perceived risk of a new project is likely to be in error. This factor, combined with other constraints, may result in a lack of confidence to pursue develop- ment projects. There is not enough adequate fishing, processing or port capacity available now for the rapid development of fisheries for U.S. underutil- ized species. The Mid -Atlantic region lacks adequate moorage and dockage facilities for this development at the present time. The primary pro- cessing capacity problems in the Mid -Atlantic region are: *Earl R. Combs, Inc., Prospectus for Development of the United States Fisheries (Mercer Island, Washington: Earl R. Combs, Inc., 1979). 11 fl 12 a. lack of mechanical filleting and product packaging equipment; b. lack of sea -based processing capacity; C. inadequate gear and equipment adaptation; and d. lack of frozen storage capacity Harvesting capacity constraints include lack of economic motivation and the need for larger vessels with onboard handling, holding and processing capacity. Achievement of the full benefits of extended jurisdiction will require major efforts by the fishing industry itself. To be competitive, substantial investments will have to be made to take advantage of best technology and high volume operations. The best opportunities involve those markets requiring large quantities of product with consistent quality and sustained delivery capability.* The impediments to fishery development are captured by the Mid - Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation in the quote below:** The key to a successful fishing industry... is a viable, modern and dynamic processing, distribution and marketing system. Without a modern integrated system, the industry will not be able to take full advantage of either trad- itional, or underutilized species. 2.3 Status of Long Island's Commercial Fishing Industry A survey of Long Island's commercial fishing industry was conducted by the LIRPB under the New York State Coastal Management Program. Con- clusions abstracted from the survey report, A Marine Fisheries Subplan in Appendix C. They for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, are found are *The greatest concern of seafood wholesalers and retailers is assurance of adequate, dependable supplies of high quality seafood, rather than whether the demand for such seafood is sufficient. **Mid -Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, A Fisheries Development ..., P. 10. 12 P, Ll vessels, inadequate fish processing facilities, and channel access were identified as the main problem areas of the deep water segment on Long Island. Specifically, the subplan stated that the lack of dock space due to competition from recreation oriented boating, and shoaling at the entrance to Stirling Basin were major problems of the commercial fishing industry in the Village. Two vacant sites that were available at the time the subplan was proposed were recommended for marine commercial use. It should be recognized that the commercial fishing industry is firmly established in many Atlantic coast states. Indeed, New Bedford and Gloucester, Mass.; Cape May, N.J.; Hampton -Norfolk, Va.; Beaufort - Morehead City and Wanchese-Stumpy Point, N.C.; and Newport and Point Judith, R.I. all are active, large commercial fishery oriented harbors with commercial fishery landings that are valued many times greater than those made in Long Island's ports. These areas are also seeking to improve their fishing industries by providing additional facilities, etc. A status report on activities occurring in the three other centers of the deep water segment on Long Island - Montauk, Shinnecock, Freeport/Jones Inlet - is contained in Appendix D. 13 included in this report to show the structure of the commercial fishing industry on Long Island and to point out its problems and ' opportunities. The Village of Greenport was identified in the subplan as one of the four major centers for the deep segment ment of g the Island's fishing industry. The lack of piers and docks for commercial fishing P, Ll vessels, inadequate fish processing facilities, and channel access were identified as the main problem areas of the deep water segment on Long Island. Specifically, the subplan stated that the lack of dock space due to competition from recreation oriented boating, and shoaling at the entrance to Stirling Basin were major problems of the commercial fishing industry in the Village. Two vacant sites that were available at the time the subplan was proposed were recommended for marine commercial use. It should be recognized that the commercial fishing industry is firmly established in many Atlantic coast states. Indeed, New Bedford and Gloucester, Mass.; Cape May, N.J.; Hampton -Norfolk, Va.; Beaufort - Morehead City and Wanchese-Stumpy Point, N.C.; and Newport and Point Judith, R.I. all are active, large commercial fishery oriented harbors with commercial fishery landings that are valued many times greater than those made in Long Island's ports. These areas are also seeking to improve their fishing industries by providing additional facilities, etc. A status report on activities occurring in the three other centers of the deep water segment on Long Island - Montauk, Shinnecock, Freeport/Jones Inlet - is contained in Appendix D. 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 SECTION 3 - HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF WATER DEPENDENT ACTIVITIES IN THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT The Village of Greenport is located on the North Fork of Long Island 92 miles east of Manhattan. Greenport is Long Island's oldest incorporat- ed village with original incorporation dating back to 1838. During the nineteenth century Greenport was an important economic and rail transportation center for Long Island. The Greenport railroad yard and dock was significant as a link in one of the oldest rail and ship junctions in the country. The first dock was built in 1840; from 1844 to 1848, train passengers between New York and Boston were ferried from Greenport across L.I. Sound to Stonington, Conn. A steamship passenger service to New London ran from the Greenport rail terminal dock until 1927. The dock was used for freight handling, with trains actually running out on the dock until about 1958. Located on a deep water channel that provides access to the Atlan- tic Ocean through Gardiners Bay, Greenport's average 20 foot dockside water depth enabled the Village to serve as the region's major port. Whaling, fishing and shipbuilding provided the Village with its economic base. Thousands of people were employed on Greenport's waterfront. Whaling activities occurred in Greenport from the early 1830's to 1849 with a peak in the 1840's.* Huge schooners from all over the world sailed from Greenport and Sag Harbor while the whale fishery pros- pered along the northeast coast. The Gold Rush marked the decline of the whaling industry, as whaling vessels were converted to carry passen- gers. The decreased availability of whales, the American Civil War, and the development of petroleum as a fuel source all contributed to the eventual demise of whaling on Long Island's East End. *Elsie Knapp Corwin, Greenport - Yesterday and Today (Greenport, N.Y.: Suffolk Times, 1972). 14 By 1835, the use of menhaden (mossbunker) as a farm fertilizer had become well established on eastern Long Island. It became a local prac- tice for a group of farmers to jointly buy a seine or net, and a big round -bottomed "fishing smack" to catch "bunkers" for fertilizer. Menhaden were mostly used to produce fish meal and oil for paints. Large processing operations or "fish factories" were established along the Greenport waterfront by 1857. Greenport prospered due to the menhaden industry; 64 boats were in service and seven under construction in 1879. By this time, shipbuilding (pleasure craft, cargo vessels, fishing vessels) boomed in Greenport. The Greenport Basin and Construction Company, famous yacht builders, became a large repair and docking facility for menhaden vessels. I(Today, the company is known as Greenport Yacht and Shipbuilding.) Men- haden vessels or "bunker boats" were said to have lined the shoreline along Main and Front Streets. Close to 90 "fish factories" operated along the local shores by 1883. The region's fishing fleet consisted of 83 steam -driven fishing vessels, and a portion of the 212 sailing vessels found in the area. Over 2,300 workers, including many blacks who migrated to the region from the south, were employed by the fishing and fish processing industries. The modernization of fishing and processing techniques, as well as a decrease in menhaden abundance,led to the eventual decline of the Greenport menhaden industry by the 1950's. New York State ceded oyster cultivation rights to underwater lands in Peconic/Gardiner Bays to Suffolk County in 1884 (L 1884,CH 884). Oysters dredged from L.I. Sound were brought to the clean waters of these areas and replanted to fatten them before harvest. Greenport developed a large oyster industry with processing houses located on the 15 waterfront. As reported by Corwin, the oyster industry peaked in the region by 1936, producing 2.5 million bushels with an estimated value of $4 million and a payroll of $0.25 million.* About 500 were employed in 12 oyster companies on the Greenport waterfront in 1940. During the Christmas season, hundreds of railroad cars were loaded at the railroad station with containers of shucked oysters for transport to New York City. The great hurricane of 1938, which covered many productive oyster areas with sand, and increases in the cost of labor, operations, and shipping caused a gradual decline of the oyster industry. During World War II Greenport's shipyards again became very active building naval vessels under government contract. Thousands were employed and Greenport's population was over 5,000. However, the ship- yards closed after the end of the war, and over the next 25 years the Village economy went into a severe decline and its population dwindled. The 1980 population was estimated by the Long Island Lighting Co. at 2,408. The mainstay of Greenport's economy during the years following World War II has been the fishing industry. By 1958, the processing of edible fish became an important activity in Greenport. Sea and bay scalloping, oyster farming anf finfish processing continue to employ hundreds along the waterfront. In 1979, 41 commercial fishing vessels utilized Greenport's harbor for docking, offloading and sale of catch, fuel and ice service, the purchase of groceries and equipment, and repairs. ( See Appendix E for vessel data.) Seventeen of these vessels were *The 2.5 million bushels of oysters harvested in 1936, if marketed today for the half -shell trade, at the 1979 ex --vessel rate of $3.18 per pound for Long Island oyster meats, would have a current ex -vessel value of approximately $60 million, assuming 71-2 lbs. of oyster meats per bushel. 1 16 L 17 registered in New York State and utilized Greenport as their home port. They ranged in length from 30-75 ft., and had a full crew total of 38. The remaining 24 vessels, ranging in length from 51-90 ft., and carrying a full crew total of 128, were transients. Most of the can have a significant dollar impact on local businesses. Each vessel, transient vessels were registered in North Carolina, with a few based in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Virginia. The economic impacts generated by the offshore fishing fleet are impressive. Consider the local impact of a 95 ft. vessel that has its ' base of operations in the Village. The purchase price of this vessel is on the order of $800,000. Assuming that the vessel fishes for sea scallops with a crew of 10-15 people, the following service costs would be associated with a typical trip at sea of 10 days' duration: fuel - $6,000-7,000 gear repair - $1,000 food,supplies - $1,500. L 17 The annual maintenance costs of this vessel would amount to $80,000. The vessel would gross. from $700,000-1,000,000 per year in sales of its catch. The being that point even a single vessel utilizing a port can have a significant dollar impact on local businesses. Each vessel, in reality, is not just a fishing boat, but a firm providing employment and requiring various types of private sector services. Fish trawlers dominate both the resident and transient commercial fishing fleet. Other gear types less commonly employed are lobster and scallop trawl, longline, lobster pot, pound net and haul seine. Twelve large oyster dredges, ranging in length from 53-112 ft., fish local oyster grounds, and offload and anchor at the L.I. Oyster Farms plant in nearby East Marion. These dredges utilize 82 people at full -crew. L 17 ' In recent years, tourism has increased in the Village due to its seaport ambience and historic architecture. Greenport has become fam- ous for its historic Federal, Greek revival and Victorian style build- ings now about to be placed on the National Registry of Historic Places. Recreational boating has also centered in Greenport with the area's largest pleasure boats attracted to Greenport's deep and well protected harbor. L 1 t With tourism and recreational boating demands ever increasing, dock space for commercial vessels is in very tight supply. This factor has forced many skilled fishermen to leave Greenport, or to go out of business. Compounding this dilemma is an ever increasing demand for the development of waterfront properties as tourist facilities or luxury condominiums. Even with the fishing industry and tourist trade growth, the Village of Greenport has suffered economic depression since the end of World War II. According to the 1970 U.S. Census, the• median family income in the Village of Greenport was $8,644 and 17.2% of all house- holds in the Village had incomes below poverty level. Over 50% of the families living in the Village were of low to moderate income. In 1970, the black minority constituted 20.6% of Greenport's population as compared to 4.7% for all of Suffolk County. Real estate values are highly depressed in Greenport; the median hou-a=g value was only $14,500 in 1970. Furthermore, Greenport is the only community on Long Island eligible to participate in HUD's Urban Development Action Grant Program; a program designed to address the economic development needs of severely distressed communities. Yet the Village of Greenport remains a strongly independent political entity with its own electric 18 1 1 utility, water, sewage, justice and police systems. Even today, Greenport's competitive position is enhanced by its operation of a modern secondary sewage treatment plant with additional wastewater polishing capability. Greenport's heritage has always been the waterfront and the sea. The local labor market is oriented toward fishing related occupations, and the highest local priority is to see more efficient use of Green - port's waterfront resources for fishing, shipbuilding and other marine oriented activities. 19 ' SECTION 4 - EXISTING WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 4.1 Natural and Physical Characteristics ' Plate 1 entitled, "Natural and Physical Characteristics of the ' A verbal description of the map follows. The shoreline of the Village of Greenport is adjacent to the bight ' formed by Youngs Point to the east and Fanning Point to the west. Deep water (20-80 ft.) is generally located within 300 ft. of most of the harbor shoreline. Stirling Basin is a narrow inland extension of the harbor, with moderately deep water nearshore (6-18 ft.) along its western bank. Due to its enclosed configuration, Stirling Basin provides ' excellent protection for moored or docked vessels under adverse weather conditions. ' Maritime flora occur on lands adjacent to coastal waters or on lands exposed to direct coastal winds, and in some cases, high tides. This t flora type consists of shrub and dune vegetation that survives the stresses of salt spray, high winds and high evapo-transpiration rates. Maritime shrubland could include species that are transitional to those occurring in upland areas. Typical species included in this category are beach plum, beach grass, beach heather, salt spray rose, and bay berry. 11 20 Greenport Waterfront, "shows the following types of information. 1. the 100 -Year Flood Hazard Boundary, as determined by the Federal Insurance Administration, U.S. Dept. of HUD; 2. disturbed areas - waterfront properties containing abandoned and deteriorated structures; ' 3. vacant property - natural vegetation covered areas that are undeveloped; 4. maritime shrubland;* and 5. mean low water depths as shown on the 1974 edition of NOAH- ' National Ocean Survey Chart 12358. ' A verbal description of the map follows. The shoreline of the Village of Greenport is adjacent to the bight ' formed by Youngs Point to the east and Fanning Point to the west. Deep water (20-80 ft.) is generally located within 300 ft. of most of the harbor shoreline. Stirling Basin is a narrow inland extension of the harbor, with moderately deep water nearshore (6-18 ft.) along its western bank. Due to its enclosed configuration, Stirling Basin provides ' excellent protection for moored or docked vessels under adverse weather conditions. ' Maritime flora occur on lands adjacent to coastal waters or on lands exposed to direct coastal winds, and in some cases, high tides. This t flora type consists of shrub and dune vegetation that survives the stresses of salt spray, high winds and high evapo-transpiration rates. Maritime shrubland could include species that are transitional to those occurring in upland areas. Typical species included in this category are beach plum, beach grass, beach heather, salt spray rose, and bay berry. 11 20 11 Little natural waterfront remains in Greenport, yet some maritime shrubland areas are found at Sandy Beach, Stirling Creek, and Fanning ' Point. Waterfront property is generally commercially developed along ' the harbor, with some sections devoted to residential uses. Residential waterfront development occurs mainly in the southern portion of the village, which is fronted by a sandy beach and shallow nearshore waters. From the LIRR property northward, the harbor shoreline consists of dock and bulkhead structures that support existing waterfront uses as well as those that supported such uses in the past. Most waterfront that was used in the past, now is disturbed, and is characterized by abandoned and burnt out buildings, dilapidated boat yard structures, and deteriorated piers and bulkheads. Due to its southern exposure, the central waterfront area experiences rough water conditions during ' the summer months when winds are predominantly from the south. 4.2 Existing Waterfront Land Use and Zoning ' The Village of Greenport waterfront extends from the west side of ' Youngs Point through Stirling Basin and continues along the Central Business District (CBD) to the west side of Fanning Point. Plate 2 ' entitled, "Existing Land Use Along the Greenport Waterfront," and Figure 1 entitled, "Zoning Patterns in the Village of Greenport," ' depict the current land use and zoning patterns within the Village. ' The location of waterfront businesses is indicated in Figure 2 entitled, "Waterfront Establishments in the Village of Greenport." ' Land uses bordering on the east side of -Stirling Basin within the boundaries of the Village of Greenport include seasonal housing, open ' space and marine commercial. The Sandy Beach sandspit runs northwest ' from Youngs Point and contains both seasonal housing and vacant Village 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Figure 1 - ZONING PATTERNS IN THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT � °roY14. Ile V. �o 00� 0 0 I o it � o ��.-�—•°� L7 roo Q 5�•oi� ` qi'a�•-- O� s. sr SPI''+; .A =,Ia ' °'�� N W -C Waterfront Commercial y o FA •�3 v s W—C . r R-'1 One -Family Residential R-2 One- and Two -Family Residential C - G General Commercial C - R Retail Commercial Figure 2 - WATERFRONT ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT ' Triangle Sea Sales and Boat Yard Pell's Fish Market Eastern Long Island Hospital Stirling Harbor Shipyard Marina Cownsend Manor _Inn Hotel and `carina Pierce Yacht Basin WEEMoORb., �m Hanff's Boat Yard Ralph T. Preston. Inc. a1 ° 0�fX 17 ZI ^ " �a° ��t �0e: V Dom. f Shelter island Oyster Co. �r.•.s-T-;- rfl oaf ;'/c�$t ��;,��� , � � �� � L � -.,i Eos° ❑ as • O t�' • `1�p G -y - •° �. v y ______ Cooper's Fish Processing Co. ca 7 9 Ori❑ ✓"..y,o�� kk`+�� } o� C D ','� o Jn�.�+y J Greenport Yacht and o d✓d„ -4,9, ° �:�j Shipbuilding Co. Inc, 47 S. T. Preston and Son, Inc. A ` ,' Claudio's Restaurant and � ��• �K °° ° Marina, Mobil Docks A. P. shite Bait :hop �,7• Mitchell's Marina and Restaurant East Find Supplv- Co. Shelter Island - Greenport Ferry_ Co. Long Island Rail Road Terminal Z,'_'�•'���° _4��1°'� Socon1'*Mobil Oil Co. _.' . 1 o Z -. d -p p Old Oyster Factory Restaurant property. Both Sandy Beach and the nearby St. Agnes Cemetery are zoned for single family residential use. The cemetery is bordered by Pierce Yacht Basin to the southeast and Stirling Harbor Shipyard Marina to the erty on the west side of Stirling Basin is zoned for waterfront commer- cial use, with the exception of the (1) Townsend Manor Inn, which is zoned for retail commercial use; (2) single family residentially zoned property between the Eastern Long Island Hospital and the Townsend Manor Inn; and (3) one and two family residentially zoned property between Hanff's Boat Yard and Preston Marine Contractors. The harborfront area from the mouth of Stirling Basin to the rail- road dock is zoned for waterfront commercial use, with the exception of a small stretch of one and two family residentially zoned property. ' The Shelter Island Oyster Co. shellfish processing plant is located at the mouth of Stirling Basin. The largest parcel of disturbed land within the Village - the site of the former Sweet Shipyard and fishery facility - separates the shellfish plant from the residential property to the south. Cooper's Fish Processing Co. and the Greenport Yacht and Shipbuilding Co. lie south of the residential property, and between these 24 northwest; both marinas are zoned for waterfront commercial use. Land uses occurring on the west side of Stirling Basin include residential, marine commercial and institutional. The Triangle Sea Sales and Boat Yard and Pell's Fish Market are bordered by residential and are just north the Eastern Long Island Hospital. Res- property of idential property is also located southwest of the hospital property. The remaining property on the west side of Stirling Basin contains the Townsend Manor Inn Motel and Marina, Hanff's Boat Yard, private residences, Preston Marine Contractors, several small private recreational docks, and a bulkheaded vacant lot owned by Marine Associates. All of the prop- erty on the west side of Stirling Basin is zoned for waterfront commer- cial use, with the exception of the (1) Townsend Manor Inn, which is zoned for retail commercial use; (2) single family residentially zoned property between the Eastern Long Island Hospital and the Townsend Manor Inn; and (3) one and two family residentially zoned property between Hanff's Boat Yard and Preston Marine Contractors. The harborfront area from the mouth of Stirling Basin to the rail- road dock is zoned for waterfront commercial use, with the exception of a small stretch of one and two family residentially zoned property. ' The Shelter Island Oyster Co. shellfish processing plant is located at the mouth of Stirling Basin. The largest parcel of disturbed land within the Village - the site of the former Sweet Shipyard and fishery facility - separates the shellfish plant from the residential property to the south. Cooper's Fish Processing Co. and the Greenport Yacht and Shipbuilding Co. lie south of the residential property, and between these 24 t 11 two businesses is the disturbed Barstow Shipyard site containing vessel storage facilities, derelict structures and partially submerged vessels. Many of the marine related businesses within the Village are loca- ted along that portion of the waterfront extending from the Greenport Yacht and Shipbuilding Co. to the LIRR dock. The establishments located along this busy stretch of waterfront include: Preston Marine Supply, Claudio's Restaurant and Marina (including docking area for commercial fishing vessels), White Bait Shop, Mitchell's Marina and Restaurant, East End (Marine) Supply Co., Shelter Island -Greenport Ferry Co. and the LIRR terminal. A major portion of the Mitchell property is disturbed and currently unused; it serves as an informal parking area for the CBD and waterfront area. The six long wooden docks extending from the Mitchell property are used by both recreational vessels and charter boats. Just north of the Shelter Island -Greenport Ferry Co. terminal, as the shoreline bends northeast, is a vacant lot and another lot con- taining an unused building and parking area that once had been a Bohack supermarket. The LIRR property and adjoining dock are zoned C -G, General Commercial, and W -C, Waterfront Commercial respectively. Residential land use dominates the shoreline south of the railroad dock, and extends past Widow Hole to the Socony Mobil Oil Co. storage terminal north of Fanning Pt. The Old Oyster Factory Restaurant is located on the small bulkheaded boat basin at the tip of Fanning Pt. Between the oil terminal and the restaurant is a large vacant shorefront area owned by the Greenport Oyster Factory Association, Inc. A village park and an old oyster shucking factory with a small boat basin are ilocated on the west side of Fanning Pt. All of the property south of the railroad dock is zoned for one and two family residential use, with the exceptions of the Old Oyster Factory Restaurant, which is zoned for 25 Village, with emphasis on those conducting marine -related activities. It is based primarily on interviews and site visits. Figure 2 shows firm ' location. Pierce Yacht Basin - recreational boating oriented marina with storage facilities; five full-time employees. ' Stirling Harbor Shipyard Marina - recreational boating oriented marina with inside and outside storage facilities, restaurant and bar; 12 full-time employees and 25 ' waterfront commercial use, and the village park and old oyster shucking Pell's Fish Market - retail seafood market and major seafood factory, which are zoned for one family residential use. ' 4.3 Firm Inventory and -Expansion Plans This section contains general information on existing activities and future expansion plans, if any, of major waterfront firms in the Village, with emphasis on those conducting marine -related activities. It is based primarily on interviews and site visits. Figure 2 shows firm ' location. Pierce Yacht Basin - recreational boating oriented marina with storage facilities; five full-time employees. ' Stirling Harbor Shipyard Marina - recreational boating oriented marina with inside and outside storage facilities, restaurant and bar; 12 full-time employees and 25 ' seasonal employees. Pell's Fish Market - retail seafood market and major seafood ' shipping facility, five full time employees, 10 seasonal employees. Pell's Fish Market is the main offloading point for local pound and gill_net fishermen. A significant portion of L.I. Oyster Farms' (East Marion) product is shipped by Pell's. Triangle Boat Yard - engine and hull repairs, outside storage. Townsend Manor Inn Hotel and Marina - dockage for transient vessels, restaurant, hotel, lounge. Hanff's Boat Yard - inside and outside storage, boat sales, complete engine and hull repair, boat building. Ralph T. Preston, Inc. - marine contracting company which erects Idocks, jetties, bulkheads. 26 Shelter Island Oyster Company - shellfish processing plant (surf clams); employs 51 full-time workers. Owners have noted ' that they could double output at their existing facility to 2 million lbs./year. Cooper's Fish Processing Co. - fillet flatfish primarily, flounders; ' dress (head and gut) porgy, seatrout, and bluefish; employs 45 to 55 full-time employees. Fish are trucked in by Cooper's to augment off-season supplies. The product is sold to chain stores and institutions. Operates at 1/3 capacity presently, processing 10,000 lbs. whole fresh fish/day. This firm is interested in expanding onto the Barstow shipyard site for dry storage and parking. ' Greenport Yacht & Shipbuilding Co., Inc. - three railways, inside and outside boat storage, complete engine and hull repairs, marine hardware. This firm employs 16 full- time workers and has a special interest in the Barstow shipyard site for expansion of dry storage and shipyard ' activities. '- S.T. Preston and Son, Inc. - dock space for transients, marine. supplies. ' Claudio's Restaurant and Marina, Mobil Docks - dock space for both recreational and commercial vessels, restaurant and lounge. Presently provides commercial fishing vessels with fuel and dockage, and access to support services, such as ice, and offloading and transportation of catch. Claudio's presently employs 53 seasonal workers, primarily in the 1 27 restaurant. A.P. White Bait Shop - tackle, bait and charter boat reservations. Mitchell's Marina and Restaurant - dockage, restaurant and lounge, ice. Mitchell's employs 15 full-time and 35 seasonal workers. Owners plan expansion of facilities for the yachting, resort and tourist trade, and are seriously considering construction of a motel/boatel/restaurant complex. East End Supply Co. - marine supplies. Shelter Island -Greenport Ferry Co. - provides regular ferry service to and from Shelter Island. Socony MobiZ Oil Co. - oil storage facility, with barges offloading product at a piling terminal 400 ft. offshore. Old Oyster Factory Restaurant - restaurant. 28 The Long Island Rail Road terminus on the North Fork is located in Greenport. Terminal facilities were originally constructed in 1847 and ' are of historical significance as the "Through Route to Boston" rail to ship connection. Rail service now consists of one train eastbound and one train westbound.* During the winter months no more than 25 persons ride the L.I.R.R. to and from Greenport on weekends; daily weekday travel is even less. Additional weekend trains (Friday night and Monday morning) provide service during the summer months, with most trains carrying 50 to 75 people per train. Freight cars do not travel the North Fork line east of Riverhead. The railroad also provides bus service along the North Fork that supplements the limited rail service. This bus service runs between Greenport and Babylon, and connects with the south shore line of the L.I.R.R. Plans are underway for a first -stage rehabilitation of the tracks on the North Fork line from Manorville to Greenport. These plans include the repair and, if necessary, the replacement of the support ballast system. Future plans include the replacement of the rails. *Mr. David Vieser, Manager of Marketing and Promotion, LIRR, Brentwood, N.Y., personal communication. 1 29 SECTION 5 - COMMERCIAL FISHERY SUPPORT SERVICES 5.1 Transportation Systems ' Vehicular access from New York to Greenport is direct via the Long Island Expressway (N.Y. State Route 495) and State Route 25. Kennedy International Airport in Queens County is 90 miles from Greenport. The distance from Greenport to the Long Island MacArthur Airport in Islip and the Suffolk County Airport at Westhampton is 48 and 30 miles respectively. The Long Island Rail Road terminus on the North Fork is located in Greenport. Terminal facilities were originally constructed in 1847 and ' are of historical significance as the "Through Route to Boston" rail to ship connection. Rail service now consists of one train eastbound and one train westbound.* During the winter months no more than 25 persons ride the L.I.R.R. to and from Greenport on weekends; daily weekday travel is even less. Additional weekend trains (Friday night and Monday morning) provide service during the summer months, with most trains carrying 50 to 75 people per train. Freight cars do not travel the North Fork line east of Riverhead. The railroad also provides bus service along the North Fork that supplements the limited rail service. This bus service runs between Greenport and Babylon, and connects with the south shore line of the L.I.R.R. Plans are underway for a first -stage rehabilitation of the tracks on the North Fork line from Manorville to Greenport. These plans include the repair and, if necessary, the replacement of the support ballast system. Future plans include the replacement of the rails. *Mr. David Vieser, Manager of Marketing and Promotion, LIRR, Brentwood, N.Y., personal communication. 1 29 t t 1 t t 1 1 The terminus for the Shelter Island and Greenport Ferry Co. is located directly north of the LIRR dock and property. The Shelter Island and Greenport Ferry Co., utilizing two vessels, makes a total of 60 trips per day. The company recorded 220,000 vehicular trips and 344,000 passenger trips in 1979. Several years ago a Greenport to New London, Conn. ferry service was proposed by the Mascony Co., a Massachusetts-based firm, to compete with the existing Orient Point - New London ferry. After a memorializing resolution was passed by the Village Board of Trustees, it was determined that the proposed ferry service would have created burdensome traffic congestion in the narrow streets servicing the central business dis- trict. The Village Planning Board then denied the site plan for the ferry facility on Front St. A lawsuit was brought against the Village by Mascony. After a series of appeals, the position of the Village was upheld by a decision of the New York State Court of Appeals. 5.2 Sewage Treatment Fish processing facilities require access to reliable sewage treatment capability in order to operate in an environmentally acceptable manner. The Greenport sewage treatment plant is a modern secondary treatment facility with additions (aerated lagoons, clarifier, chlorin- ation with mixing) which results in better solids removal and reliability. The plant is capable of removing 85% of suspended solids and reducing biochemical oxygen demand by the same amount. The effluent from the plant is disinfected with chlorine and discharged into Long Island Sound. Past operational problems have occurred due to high concentrations of organics and solids in the plant influent. The design flow of the plant is 500,000 gallons/day; the average daily flow is 250,000 to 30 s 400,000 gallons. There is a theoretical reserve of approximately 100,000 gallons/day that could potentially be utilized to address the sewage loading demands of additional fish processing in the Village. However, due to the high concentrations of solids common to effluent from fish processing facilities, pretreatment processes, such as screening for solids (as conducted by Shelter Island Oyster Company), would be required in order to prevent plant overloading. 5.3 Electric Power 1 The Village of Greenport has a firm purchase contract from the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) for hydroelectric power 1 generated in upstate New York. Commercial users of electric power in Greenport are charged rates that are lower than those in effect in other Long Island communities because the Village owns the power distribution system. The Long Island Lighting Company's 1979 commercial and industrial rate (systemwide average) for initial power use was 6.25 cents per kilowatt hour (c/kwh), while the Village of Greenport commercial power rate now is 5.31 c/kwh. (The LILCO rate decreases as the amount of power purchased increases.) Greenport's lower commercial electric power rates may provide an incentive for locating commercial fishery related activities in the Village that are large consumers of electric power, e.g., seafood holding or processing plants and ice plants, both of which require refrigeration facilities. I *Mr. Madison Milhaus, Manager, Air Quality and Impact Assessment Division, LILCO, Hicksville, N.Y., personal communication. 31 s 11 IJ t SECTION 6 - OPPORTUNITY SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS Shorefront property available for marine -related development consists of underutilized disturbed areas, a few vacant lots, and several poten- tially expandable marine commercial sites. Areas classified as dis- turbed include abandoned properties that were used primarily for marine commercial activities. Many of these sites contain abandoned vessels, dilapidated piers, bulkheads and work yards. Several of the disturbed ` areas are ideally suited for the development of commercial fishery infra- structure because of their extensive harbor frontage and proximity to deep water, land-based transportation, and the Central Business District (CBD) of the village. Several existing marine commercial waterfront businesses could jpotentially be developed or expanded to serve the commercial fishery. This may involve upgrading of present dockage, processing plants, and marine supply businesses to support increased commercial fishing activity. Properties adjacent to existing marine commercial facilities may be pre- ferred for commercial fishery infrastructure development. Utilization of the waterfront in this manner could produce an efficient centralization of fishery -related activities. Less centrally located disturbed sites may be best suited for water dependent uses other than fishery related development. Ten sites were identified and examined for their development potential. These sites are shown on Plate 3 entitled, "Waterfront Development Opportunity Sites in the Village of Greenport." This analysis considered location; acreage; physical characteristics, including nearshore water depth; ownership; present zoning; current use; adjacent land use; access; relationship to the CBD; and development constraints. 32 Prior to a discussion of the individual sites and their design objectives and proposed plans, a few explanatory comments are in order. iNearshore waters were defined to include waters within 100 ft. of the the Federal Insurance Administration.* Where appropriate, objectives and proposed improvements for adjacent or otherwise functionally related sites are discussed together. Five plates numbered 4 through 8 show the suggested layouts for eight of the ten sites identified as having development potential. Plate 4 depicts the Mitchell property and Bohack site; Plate 5 the LIRR property and Kamaiko/Kessler property; Plate 6 the,Barstow Shipyard site; Plate 7 the Oyster Factory property; and Plate 8 the Marine Associates property and Sweet Shipyard site. ** 6.1 Mitchell Property and Bohack Site 6.1.1 Mitch ell Property Description Location - The Mitchell property includes the land owned by the Mitchell family; it is located between Main and Third Streets and is bordered by Front Street and Greenport Harbor. *rhe National Flood Insurance Program enables property owners to purchase flood insurance at rates made reasonable through a federal subsidy. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local flood plain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.. The Village of Greenport is currently in the Emergency Flood Insurance Program,which permits flood insurance to be sold before - the completion of the required risk study that determines the premium rates for the community. **The layouts show conceptual designs for recommended facilities. The design layouts, especially those for marine related facilities, such as piers, will require modification as a result of engineerinv feasibility studies. 33 shoreline. The CBD includes the area bounded by Third,Center and Carpenter Streets and Greenport Harbor, with the exception of residential properties in the northwest section of the area. Distances to the CBD are measured from the Village park on Front Street. All potential devel- opment sites lie within the 100 -Year Flood Hazard Boundary as defined by the Federal Insurance Administration.* Where appropriate, objectives and proposed improvements for adjacent or otherwise functionally related sites are discussed together. Five plates numbered 4 through 8 show the suggested layouts for eight of the ten sites identified as having development potential. Plate 4 depicts the Mitchell property and Bohack site; Plate 5 the LIRR property and Kamaiko/Kessler property; Plate 6 the,Barstow Shipyard site; Plate 7 the Oyster Factory property; and Plate 8 the Marine Associates property and Sweet Shipyard site. ** 6.1 Mitchell Property and Bohack Site 6.1.1 Mitch ell Property Description Location - The Mitchell property includes the land owned by the Mitchell family; it is located between Main and Third Streets and is bordered by Front Street and Greenport Harbor. *rhe National Flood Insurance Program enables property owners to purchase flood insurance at rates made reasonable through a federal subsidy. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local flood plain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.. The Village of Greenport is currently in the Emergency Flood Insurance Program,which permits flood insurance to be sold before - the completion of the required risk study that determines the premium rates for the community. **The layouts show conceptual designs for recommended facilities. The design layouts, especially those for marine related facilities, such as piers, will require modification as a result of engineerinv feasibility studies. 33 L' !:1 '1 C i� Ownership - Harry and Pauline Mitchell, Robert Mitchell Acreage - 3.5 acres Zoning - Waterfront Commercial FhysicaZ Condition and Current Use - The newly reconstructed Mitchell's Restaurant and several vacant.buildings are on this site. There are unused building lots and parking areas. Approximately 500 ft. of shoreline, with 1,200 ft. of bulkheading and six long wooden docks are used by recreational vessels. The bulkhead- ing and docks have been maintained. Nearshore Water Depth - 6 to 18 ft. ReZationship to CBD - The Mitchell property is located in the heart of the CBD. Access - Vehicles gain access to the Mitchell property via heavily traveled Front Street. Adjacent Land Use - The East End Supply Company and the Greenport Post Office border the Mitchell property to the west. Several small marine commercial businesses are located along the eastern edge. Front Street lies to the north and the harbor, to the south. Development Constraints - The Mascony ferry proposal and associ- ated existing leases on portions of the site currently constrain development and utilization. Recormtended Use (s) - Dockage for recreational vessels, the expansion of the restaurant trade, and development of a motel/boatel. Plans for the accommodation of the proposed uses should be designed to incorporate increased public access. 34 1 L 6.1.2 Bohack Site'Descriotion Location - The Bohack site is located near the southeast corner of Third and Front Streets. Ownership - William Bertenshaw and Henry Luke Acreage - 1 acre Zoning - Waterfront Commercial Physical Condition and Current Use - The panhandle -shaped site consists of two contiguous parcels of land under the same ownership. The larger of the two lots borders on both Front and Third Streets and contains a paved parking lot and the vacant Bohack building. The other lot borders on 3rd Street and is vacant. The site has approximately 200-ft.of sandy shoreline located between the Mitchell property and the Shelter Island Ferry terminal. Nearshore Water Depth - 6 to 18 ft. Relationship to CBD - This site is in the CBD. Access - Vehicular access to this site is possible through both Front and Third Streets. Adjacent Land Use - A variety of commercial and marine commercial uses border this site. Development Constraints - Development may require demolition or rehabilitation of the old Bohack building. The availability of the site may be constrained by lease agreements. Recommended Use (s) - Marine commercial, with provision for public access. The use of the site is somewhat restricted 35 t due to the present configuration of adjacent docks and operation of the Shelter Island Ferry. I6.1.3 Site Planning Objectives The waterfront property between Claudio's Restaurant/Mobil Docks and the LIRR dock is presently underutilized and not readily accessible to the public. Much of this area consists of deteriorating and ineffici- ently designed dockage, burned buildings, portions of foundations, and i lI t connecting roads and parking areas covered with broken pavement or dirt. The suggested improvements are intended to accommodate recreational boats, ferry traffic to and from Shelter Island, and tourism and marine related businesses. Planning objectives for the Mitchell property include the improve- ment and expansion of recreational boat dockage, the expansion of the restaurant trade, and the development of a motel/boatel facility. For the Bohack site, they include the establishment of various marine commercial uses, utilizing the presently vacant waterfront area for recreational boat dockage. 6.1.4 Description of Proposed Site Improvements The site plan for the Mitchell property, and Bohack site is shown on Plate 4. This development scheme proposes waterfront uses that will compliment existing uses in the Greenport CBD. These uses include increased pedestrian access to the waterfront, which is a prime consid- eration for this area. Waterfront access is provided by the construction of a waterfront boardwalk, extending from the ferry terminal to Claudio's Restaurant. Customer and marina parking is accommodated on the Mitchell property and Bohack site. The Mitchell property comprises most of this waterfront area. Here the facilities should be redesigned to increase recreational docking capacity. The shoreline should be realigned and a waterfront boardwalk added to take advantage of this modification. All six existing docks should be removed from the waterfront, and replaced by new docks arranged in a more efficient marina configuration. The new facility could provide dockage for approximately 90 vessels: 40 at 35 ft. or less in length; 40 at 35 to 50 ft.; 4 at 60 to 80 ft.; and 4 at 80 to 100 ft. Both electric power and fresh water could be available at each slip in ithe marina. 1 Initial improvements on all of the Mitchell property would involve the clearing of derelict structures, an old foundation, and broken pave- ment. Land along the Front Street side of the property should be devoted to professional offices and to various new businesses that would complement those existing in the downtown area. It is suggested that Mitchell's Restaurant be relocated to the northwest portion of the site in order to permit construction of a new access road, running east -west through the center of the property. This road is designed in a U -shape to facilitate a two-way flow of traffic to and from destinations in the waterfront area. Access road entrances/exists connect with Front Street, west of East End Supply and the Studio Gallery. A boatel/restaurant/ disco development is sited at the edge of the marina, seaward of Mitchell's Restaurant, and a small group of businesses - perhaps a bar, a coffee shop, restaurant, and ice cream parlor - are located along the western end of the boardwalk near the marina. 1 The vacant Bohack building should be converted or reconstructed for development. The panhandle section of this property should be used as a connecting street to Third Street, from the U -loop. 37 1 Ci J The American Legion building, on the east side of Third Street, could better serve the residents of Greenport as a site for public assembly. Provisions should be made to accommodate more public functions, such as village meetings that require a large room, at this location. A new parking facility for the CBD is proposed on Third Street. A presently unutilized portion of the Greenport Harbor waterfront is located along the Bohack panhandle. A boat dockage area for approx- imately 25 boats, less than 25 ft. in length, is planned for the small cove between the westernmost Mitchell dock and the ferry terminal. A delicatessen and snack bar should be located to the west of the dockage area near the office and waiting area for the Greenport to Shelter Island Ferry. A new off-street parking facility is recommended at the inland parcel on the west side of Third Street, south of Front Street, and a new pier is planned as a replacement for the deteriorated LIRR dock. The location of both proposed facilities in relationship to the Mitchell property and Bohack site is shown in Plate 4. Details of the proposed parking lot and pier are discussed in Section 6.2.4 and displayed in Plate 5. Dredged spoil from both the new railroad pier project and the marina at Mitchell's could provide fill for the realignment of the shoreline. 6.2 LIRR Property and Kamaiko/Kessler Property 6.2.1 LIRR Property Description Location - The LIRR property and dock are located at the west end of the CBD at the terminus of the main line of the railroad. Ownership - MTA/LIRR 38 i Acreage - 7 acres Zoning - General Commercial and Waterfront Commercial Physical Condition and Current Use - The railroad turntable and dock are in disrepair and are currently unusable. The existing dock structure (380 ft. x 40 ft.) was inspected by personnel of the Division of Bridges and Structures of the Suffolk County Department of Public Works in 1975 and was found to be in such an advanced state of deterioration as to preclude any possibility of rehabil- itation.* The rail station is presently used as a snack 1 bar, and the freight depot is used as a warehouse. The remaining property is used for parking or is vacant. There is approximately 320 ft. of bulkheading, which is in disrepair, southwest of the dock. ' Nearshore Water Depth -0 to 6 ft. near bulkhead; 6 to 18 ft. off the dock. Relationship to CBD - The LIRR property is located on the western fringe•of CBD, approximately 3/8 mile from its center. Access - There is good road access to this site. Wiggins Street 1 and Third Street could accommodate truck traffic. There is limited rail transportation to and from the site. Adjacent Land Use - Residential areas border the southern and northwestern portions of the LIRR property. The railroad dock abuts the Shelter Island - Greenport Ferry Company land and parking facility to the north. ( *Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works, Environmental Impact Statement for the Recreational Development of the Greenport-LIRR Dock in the Village of Greenport (Yaphank, N.Y.: Suffolk County DPW, 1977). 39 t Development Constraints - The terms of the LIRR lease, the location of the adjacent ferry terminal, the historic nature of the site, and the water depth on the south side of the site appear to constitute one critical obstacle to development and three less significant design constraints. The LIRR leased this site to Suffolk County for a 20 -year term ending in 1995. lThe County, in turn, sublet the property to the Village of Greenport. The LIRR lease stipulations virtually ` preclude the construction and operation of new facil- ities at the site since they provide that any improve- ments on the site, even if financed by the County or Village, would become the property of the LIRR. (Further details of the lease stipulations are found in Appendix F). Potential conflicts could arise because•o•f the proximity of the existing ferry terminal. The dock itself would have to be demolished in order to construct a new facility. The entire LIRR site is of historic significance. Shallow water exists along the south side of the property. Recommended Use (s) - The construction of a new pier designed for dockage of commercial fishing vessels is recommended. Historic railroad terminal structures should be used in the establishment of a railroad museum in Greenport. 6.2.2 Kamaiko/Kessler Property Description Location - The Kamaiko/Kessler property is a vacant parcel on the west side of Third Street between Front and Wiggins 40 Streets. Ownership - Jacob Kamaiko and L.H. Kessler Acreage - 1.6 acres Zoning - One and Two-family Residential Physical Condition and Current Use - This rectangular parcel (160 ft. x 400 ft.) is vacant and grass covered at the present time. Nearshore Water Depth - (inland parcel) Relationship to CBD - This site is located on the western fringe of the CBD, approximately 1/8 mile from the center. Access - Access to the site is via Third Street, 100 ft. south of Front Street. Adjacent Land Use - Several commercial properties lie to the north and east of this site; residential uses are found to the south and west. The site serves as a buffer between commercial and residential uses. Development Constraints - A buffer would be required to isolate the recommended use from adjacent residential properties. Recommended Use (s) - The future parking needs of a revitalized Greenport CBD could be accommodated through the con- struction of an off-street parking facility at this site. 6.2.3 Site Planning Objectives The LIRR property presents opportunities for expanded commercial fishery development, historic preservation and the enhancement of tourism. The site can be designed to improve rail, ferry, bus, auto, and truck access to and from the Village of Greenport. 41 The construction of a new pier designed to provide dockage for large, deep draft commercial fishing vessels is recommended as a re- placement for the existing dilapidated LIRR dock. Redesign of the road 1 will provide adequate truck and auto access to the new pier and the existing ferry terminal, while the improvement of existing rail facilities and the establishment of the waterfront park tourist attraction will serve as an incentive for the restoration of more frequent rail service to and from Greenport. The establishment of a waterfront park featuring the eventual ren- ovation of the locomotive turntable; the use of the site by steam locomotive, Engine 39; the creation of a railroad museum and the restor- ation of the existing railroad station are planned for the LIRR property. Construction of an off-street parking facility is recommended at the inland parcel on the west side of Third Street, adjacent to the Sterling - ton Motel. This facility could accommodate the future parking needs of a revitalized Greenport CBD. 6.2.4 Description of Proposed Site Improvements The site plan for the LIRR and Kamaiko/Kessler properties is shown on Plate 5. The restoration of regular rail transportation to Greenport will require the creation of a market for rail service as well as the com- pletion of the improvements in the rails and rail beds on the North Fork that have been programmed by the LIRR. This plan recommends remodeling of the existing railroad station into a more attractive and efficient structure. The snack bar and ticket office will remain; a small restaur- ant with a terrace will be added. Access to the station is provided via an automobile and taxi plaza north of the station building. Buses would be able to park, load/off-load, and turn around in a lot west of the 42 I auto plaza. The old turntable on the property should be restored and utilized in conjunction with the establishment of the tourism -oriented Riverhead to Greenport steam engine excursion line. The former railroad depot is converted into a railroad museum and retail shop and a short pedestrian bridge connects the museum area with a turntable observation boardwalk. The waterfront park and picnic area is located between the turntable and the railroad station. The main line for Greenport LIRR service passes underneath the pedestrian bridge, as do both a parking access road and a secondary truck - to -dock road connector from Fourth Street. Parking for 50 cars is Isound located north of the railroad tracks between the museum and the rail- The new pier planned as a replacement for the deteriorated LIRR road station. The parking access road passes south of the parking lot dock would be designed for dockage of 8 to 16 commercial fishing vessels, with a turning and drop-off area immediately in front of the station. an angle to the south of the location of the existing dock, allowing The main truck access route to the dock passes between the bus lot and new pier would be accessible by light trucks via the LIRR property. Some lot, -to dredging will be required to allow the larger, deep -draft vessels to the parking crosses over the tracks and joins the secondary truck - dock access road. A buffer of trees planted on the railroad property adjacent to the residential area to the north serves as a visual and Isound barrier between existing homes and proposed uses. The new pier planned as a replacement for the deteriorated LIRR dock would be designed for dockage of 8 to 16 commercial fishing vessels, ranging in length from 50 to 100 ft. This pier could be constructed on an angle to the south of the location of the existing dock, allowing for unimpeded operation of the Greenport to Shelter Island Ferry.* The new pier would be accessible by light trucks via the LIRR property. Some dredging will be required to allow the larger, deep -draft vessels to dock along the entire length of the southern side of the pier. *The actual configuration of the new pier must await completion of an engineering feasibility study, which would consider water depth, dredging requirements and vessel traffic patterns. 43 Restoration of the LIRR terminal and provision of a new dock will not alter the present location of the Shelter Island - Greenport Ferry terminal. However, vehicular access to the fery would be via Fourth Street, rather than Third Street. Ferry traffic will utilize a new access road constructed on the LIRR property north of and parallel to the railroad tracks beginning at Fourth St. and passing across the main truck-to-dock route and auto plaza. The new waiting area and snack bar is immediately north of the ferry terminal. A new parking facility located on the west side of Third Street is proposed for the Kamaiko/ Kessler property. This facility, which is to be located approximately 400 ft. north of the railroad terminal, would have a capacity of 68 cars, and should provide parking for the railroad and ferry area, as well as for the CBD. 6.3 Barstow Shipyard Site 6.3.1 Barstow Shipyard Site Description Location - The Barstow shipyard site is located east of Carpenter Street, south of Bay Avenue. Ownership - Anita Nicholas Acreage - 1.5 acres Zoning - Waterfront Commercial PhysicaZ Condition and Current Use - More than half of this site contains unused boat storage buildings; the remainder of the parcel is cluttered with abandoned vessels. Approximately 100 ft. of totally deteriorated bulkhead- ing, along with several dilapidated half-sunken vessels, line this waterfront. Nearshore Water Depth - 0 to 6 ft. 44 Relationship to CBD - The Barstow site is less than 1/8 mile from the Central Business District. Access - Narrow roads and tight turns may restrict truck access to this site. Adjacent Land Use - The site is bordered by residential uses on the north; Cooper's Fish Processing Company, on the northeast; Greenport Yacht and Shipbuilding Company, to the south; and commercial uses, to the west. DeveZopment Constraints - The dilapidated and cluttered condition of the former boatyard site will increase the cost of clearing and developing this site. Clear title to the property is in doubt. Recommended Use (s) - Expansion of adjacent marine commercial businesses to include additional dry storage capacity, vehicular parking and winter yacht storage is recommend- ed for this site.. 6.3.2 Site Planning Objectives The Barstow shipyard is not being used in a productive manner at the present time. The planning objectives for this site include the elimination of derelict vessels, deteriorated bulkheading and blighted structures and the transfer of ownership or possession of the property so as to permit expansion of adjacent marine commercial businesses. 6.3.3 Description of Proposed Site Improvements The site plan for the Barstow shipyard is shown on Plate 6. The two adjacent marine commercial businesses, Cooper's Fish Processing and the Greenport Yacht and Shipbuilding Company, have expressed interest in expanding their activities onto the Barstow site. It is proposed that the Greenport Yacht and Shipbuilding Company utilize that 45 Acreage - 2 Acres Zoning - One and Two Family Residential Physical Condition and Current Use - One residence is located on this site; the remaining property is vacant and vege- tated. The site has approximately 300 ft. of sandy beach frontage. Nearshore Water Depth - 0 to 6 ft. ' Relationship to CBD - The Greenport Oyster Factory property lies at the southern extreme of the Village (Fanning Point), approximately 1/2 mile from the center of the CBD. ' Access - Broad residential streets provide good vehicular access. Adjacent Land Use - The Old Oyster Factory Restaurant property is directly south of this site, on the extreme tip of Fanning Point. A village park lies southwest of the site, and an oil terminal is situated to the northeast. 1 46 portion of the inland property containing warehouse structures for addi- ' tional tional yacht storage. The existing warehouse structures, which were formerly used for shipbuilding activities, contain approximately 38,000 square feet floor Elimination the deteriorated of area. of pier, submerged marine railway and shipyard debris is necessary to accommodate additional docking space for small commercial fishing vessels. Additional dry storage capacity and parking spaces for 23 vehicles for Cooper's Fish Processing Company are planned along the northern portion of the site. 1 6.4 Oyster Factory Property 1 6.4.1 Oyster Factory Property Description Location - The Oyster Factory property is located east of Fifth Street and south of Clark Street; it is adjacent to the Old Oyster Factory Restaurant. Ownership - Greenport Oyster Factory Association, Inc. Acreage - 2 Acres Zoning - One and Two Family Residential Physical Condition and Current Use - One residence is located on this site; the remaining property is vacant and vege- tated. The site has approximately 300 ft. of sandy beach frontage. Nearshore Water Depth - 0 to 6 ft. ' Relationship to CBD - The Greenport Oyster Factory property lies at the southern extreme of the Village (Fanning Point), approximately 1/2 mile from the center of the CBD. ' Access - Broad residential streets provide good vehicular access. Adjacent Land Use - The Old Oyster Factory Restaurant property is directly south of this site, on the extreme tip of Fanning Point. A village park lies southwest of the site, and an oil terminal is situated to the northeast. 1 46 J All property located to the north and west is residen- tial. ' DeveZopment Constraints - The inhabited dwelling located in the center of the site and the adjacent residential property may pose problems for development. Recononended Use (s) - Waterfront condominiums and marine -related ' recreational facilities should be developed at this site. ' 6.4.2 Site Planning Objectives Waterfront condominium and marine recreation facilities are pro- posed for the northern portion of the Greenport Oyster Factory property. ' The natural characteristics of this location, such as the sand and shell beachfront, a southeast exposure, natural tree buffers, clean and deep ' waters nearshore, and a scenic view of Shelter Island, make this an excellent site for this type of development. This condominium project ' should be designed to luxury standards, and should include recreational ' facilities and a small private marina. At the southern limits of the village, this property provides a unique waterfront condominium site;it combines a beautiful, natural setting with other facilities, including a waterfront park and restaurant. 6.4.3 Description of Proposed Site Improvements The site plan for the Oyster Factory property is shown in Plate 7. Construction of 19 housing units is proposed for this two acre ' parcel. Each unit is to contain approximately 1,500 sq.ft., including a private contiguous garage (37 garage parking spaces), and a small ' waterfront deck. The reconversion of several buildings north of the ' Old Oyster Factory Restaurant provides five units located along the existing boat basin. These units have separate garages, located immedi- ately to the north, across the roadway. An additional 16 parking spaces 47 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 are located along the west side of the property. A buffer of trees is retained along those sections of this site bordering the residential properties to the north and west. An existing residential structure would have to be removed to allow for this development. Facilities to be provided for this complex include a tennis court, a platform tennis court, and a swimming pool. The northern section of this waterfront is developed into a marina facility with a capacity for 20 boats. Several small shoreline seating areas are located to take advantage of the scenic attributes of the site. A protected beach is located at the Village park across Fifth Street to the west. 6.5 Socony Mobil Property 6.5.1 Socony Mobil Property Description Location - The Socony Mobil property is located northeast of Fanning Pt. and is bordered by Clark and Fourth Street, and Greenport Harbor. Ou7nership - Socony Mobil Oil, Inc. Acreage - 2.6 acres Zoning - One and Two Family Residential Physical Condition and Current Use - This site is utilized as a waterfront oil storage terminal. There is a 600 ft. bulkhead at the site. Because of shallow inshore waters, oil tankers offload at a platform 400 ft. offshore. Rears pore Water Depth - 0 to 6 ft. Relationship to CBD - The site is approximately 1/2 mile away from the CBD, and is separated from it by a residential area. 48 Access - Fourth Street is a broad residential street that provides good vehicular access. Adjacent Land Use - A residential area is located to the north- is not expected to occur for some time, it is recommended that this property be reserved for a marine oriented use, should it become available. ' 6.5.3 Description of Proposed Site Improvements No specific site plan layout for the property has been prepared at this time. LIRPB, An Energy Facilities Subplan for Nassau and Suffolk Counties (Hauppauge, N.Y.:LIRPB, 1977), p. 62. 49 west and west of the oil storage terminal. ' Development Constraints - Use of the site may be constrained by the character of the adjacent residential neighborhood. Use of the site for other than petroleum product ' storage depends on private industry decisions. Recormended Use (s) - In keeping with the residential use of ' this area, phasing out of the oil storage facility is recommended over the long-term. Water enhanced uses are recommended for this site. ' 6.5.2 Site Planning Objectives The present rate of petroleum importation at Northville and the existing storage capacity at that facility are sufficient to supply the ' North Fork and allow for the phasing out of the existing terminal on the Socony Mobil property at Greenport Harbor.* This action rests with future decisions that must be made by the sector in the imple- private mentation of a regional pipeline and petroleum product storage and dis- tribution system for Long Island. Although the phasing out of the Socony Mobil terminal and the removal of storage tanks from the waterfront is not expected to occur for some time, it is recommended that this property be reserved for a marine oriented use, should it become available. ' 6.5.3 Description of Proposed Site Improvements No specific site plan layout for the property has been prepared at this time. LIRPB, An Energy Facilities Subplan for Nassau and Suffolk Counties (Hauppauge, N.Y.:LIRPB, 1977), p. 62. 49 6.6 Cappa Property 6.6.1 Cappa Property Description Location - The Cappa property is located at the end of Sixth Street. fOwnership - Armando Cappa Acreage - 2 acres (1 acre in Southold Town; 1 acre in Greenport Village. Zoning - One and Two Family Residential Physical Condition and Current Use - An old, unused oyster shucking facility and boat basin occupy most of this ' site. Outside of the boat basin the shoreline is bulkheaded for a distance of 380 ft. Nearshore Water Depth - 0 to 6 ft. ReZationship to CBD - This site is over 1/2 mile from the CBD ' and is separated from it by large residential area. a ' Access - Sixth Street is a broad residential street that provides good vehicular access. Adjacent Land Use - The Village Park lies east of this site. There are residential uses north and southwest of the site. ' DeveZopment Constraints - The site lies in both the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold; therefore, two municipalities would be involved in reviewing site plans, etc. Recommended Use (s) - This site should continue to be used in support of commercial fishing activities, with special emphasis on the needs of the bay fisherman. 50 6.6.2 Site Planning Objectives The facilities at this site should be upgraded and maintained to support commercial fishing activities that are primarily associated with the nearshore fin and shell fisheries, for which relatively small boats are used. Such use is consistent with present and historic uses of the site. Reserving the site for such activities as small boat berthing, gear storage, limited shellfish processing and product packing and shipping would not only help meet an existing need, but would also provide an alternative home base for those fishermen that will eventually be displaced as a result of facility development at other currently used sites in the village. The site may also offer an opportunity for the provision of on -shore support facilities that would be required in the region, should a mariculture development program be implemented in the Acreage - one acre Zoning - One and Two Family Residential PhysicaZ Condition and Current Use - The Marine Associates property is a vacant, grass covered parcel of land bisected by a Peconic/Gardiners Bays in the future. 6.6.3 Description of Proposed Site Improvements No specific site plan layout for the site has been developed at this time. ' 6.7 Marine Associates Property and Sweet Shipyard Site 6.7.1 Marine Associates Property Description Location - The Marine Associates property is located on the north side of Sterling Avenue adjacent to the Shelter Island Oyster Company, on the Stirling Basin waterfront. ' Ownership - Marine Associates, Inc. Acreage - one acre Zoning - One and Two Family Residential PhysicaZ Condition and Current Use - The Marine Associates property is a vacant, grass covered parcel of land bisected by a narrow right-of-way at the intersection of Sterling Street and Sterling Avenue. A small portion of this parcel is used for parking. The shoreline section contains 130 ft. of maintained bulkhead, with tie-up ' pilings placed off -shore along its length. Nearshore Water Depth - 0 to 6 ft. Relationship to CBD - The site is over 1/4 mile away from the ' center of the CBD and is separated from it by a residential area. - Access Sterling Street to the north provides best access to ' Main Street through a short section of both residential and commercial waterfront (private docks and Preston - Marine Contractors). ' Adjacent Land Use - There is a one and two family residential district to the west of the site. Shelter Island Oyster Company is located south of this property across Sterling Avenue. Private docks and Preston - located Marine Contractors are along the shore north of the property. Development Constraints - Residential zoning of the site and the residential nature of adjacent areas are constraints to commercial use. The site is also bisected by Sterling Street. Recomnended Use (s) - The intersection of Sterling Street and Sterling Avenue should be re -aligned and an access road ' constructed to the Sweet's Shipyard site. 52 6.7.2 Sweet Shipyard Site Description ' Location The - Sweet Shipyard site is located at the end of ' Central and Bay Avenues, on the channel entering Stirling Basin. This site includes a portion of ' Rackett's Basin. Ormership - Harold and Freed Reese, Agnes McGunnigle Acreage - 4.5 acres ' Zoning - Waterfront Commercial Physical Condition and Current Use - Sweet Shipyard is an Iabandoned, overgrown shipyard comprising vacant land ' and several deteriorated structures. The site includes 1,000 ft. of shoreline frontage. The orientation of the shoreline at the site is quite irregular due to the existence of old docks and railways. The area contains ' about 2,000 ft. deteriorated bulkheading (excluding of frontage on Rackett's Basin). Nearshore Water Depth - 6 to 18 ft. Relationship to CBD - Sweet Shipyard is approximately 1/4 mile from the center of the CBD and is separated from it by a residential area. Access - Narrow residential roads and tight turns may hinder truck access to this site. Ac4jacent Land Use - There are residential areas to the west and to the southwest of Sweet Shipyard. The Shelter Island Oyster Company is located to the north. Development Constraints - Access via residential streets and proximity to residential areas may constrain commercial ' development. Development would require shoreline 53 realignment and removal of debris. The site will not ' be available for fishing related uses if condominiums are constructed on the site as proposed by the Vector Yardarm Corp. IRecommended Use (s) - Fish processing facilities and full service dockage for commercial fishing vessels are recommended for this site. A full service -facility includes product distribution and storage, cold and freezer storage, ice -making, fuel, retail sales, gear repair, vessel dockage and parking. 54 6.7.3 Site Planning Objectives Both the Marine Associates property and the Sweet Shipyard site are currently underutilized. However, the Vector Yardarm Corp. has recently entered into an agreement to purchase the Sweet Shipyard site, and has plans to construct condominiums on this portion of Greenport's waterfront. A contingency planning proposal has been developed by the LIRPB for use in the event that this condominium project fails to come to fruition. This plan involves utilization of both the Marine Associates property and the Sweet Shipyard site for commercial fishery related facilities. The contingency proposal is described in section 6.7.4. The Marine Associates, property should be utilized to provide for the expansion of the Shelter Island Oyster Company operation and for public access to the waterfront. Facilities suitable for the site include warehouse storage, parking for automobiles and trucks, a waterfront boardwalk, a bulkheaded docking area, and a small park along the waterfront. The intersection of Sterling Street and Sterling Avenue should be realigned, and a new access road constructed to the Sweet Shipyard site. 54 fl 55 6.7.4 Description of Proposed Site Improvements The site plan for the Marine Associates property and Sweet Shipyard site is shown on Plate 8. The plan calls for the construction of a storage building on the northeastern portion of the Marine Associates property. This building, which constitutes a part of an expanded Shelter Island Oyster Company facility, is utilized for product and equipment storage, and allows more efficient operation of the existing shellfish processing facility by alleviating the present crowded storage conditions. A small waterfront ' boardwalk for park and are planned the shoreline portion of the property. The existing bulkhead and private vessel dockage should be upgraded, and a parking lot provided. The new truck access route connecting the Sweet IShipyard site to Sterling Street passes through the center of the parcel. A full service commercial fishing dockage and processing facility is recommended for the Sweet Shipyard site. Development of this site for a commercial fishing facility will require realignment of the waterfront through bulkheading and filling. Nearshore dredging will be necessary to accommodate larger vessels of 65 ft. length and greater. The existing filled pier extending to the east will have to be widened and improved to provide vessel dockage, gear storage, and fuel, ice, and carton supply ' facilities. The proposed facility is designed to service a maximum of 15 commer- cial fishing vessels, including dockage for 10 vessels of 65 ft. in length ' or greater. An offloading basin allows three vessels to offload simul- taneously. A pier at the center of this basin is utilized to transfer the ' catch to the processing plant. Two other vessels may dock temporarily in this basin while awaiting offloading. Direct truck loading from vessels is possible at the northern bulkhead of the offloading basin. fl 55 A large central building containing approximately 22,000 sq. ft. is located along the dock area. This building is divided into a receiving 1 Ii it 56 and sorting area, a processing plant, an outlet for retail sales, an ice residential plant, and a freezer and cold storage section. A loading dock (with capacity for four tractor -trailer trucks) is located at the south end this facility is via Ludlam Place and the of the building. Pretreatment of the sewage generated from the process- proposed Sterling Street ing treatment facility located Commercial traffic to and from this plant occurs at a at the north end of the facility would encourage premises, and the mouth of Rackett's Basin. This facility would be use the Sterling Street extension, connected to Greenport's sewage treatment plant. Offices, a fishermen rather than Ludlum Place, supply store, and a meeting hall are located in a building at the residential street. southern end of the property. Spaces are allocated for approximately 130 cars. Tree and shrub buffers are located along the border of the 1 Ii it 56 property adjacent to the residential area to the west. Vehicular access to this facility is via Ludlam Place and the proposed Sterling Street extension. Commercial traffic to and from this facility would encourage vehicles to use the Sterling Street extension, rather than Ludlum Place, which is a residential street. 1 Ii it 56 i� APPENDIX A - CORMSPONDENCE REQUESTING BOARD ASSISTANCE Officers MAYOR GEORGE W.HUBBARD 11 t �J Yillaye of 9reel ort z' INCO:PORAT[D U]• NCW INC011 W111TION •/1111 7, 1..• 11[•INCCOPONITION UNO[N G[NCRAL LAW MAT 20, 1004 ......L rp:NO. ISLAND nar..a .r 236 THIRD STREET GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 Mr. Lee E. Koppelman Nassau -Suffolk Regional H. Lee Dennison Building Hauppauge, N.Y. 11787 Dear Mr. Koppelman: Planning Board TELEPHONE (516) 477-0248 November 16, 1979 The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the commitment of the Village Board of Trustees to study and improve Greenport's deep water harbor. As you are surely aware, Greenport has suffered severe economic decline over the last thirty years and only now are signs of recovery beginning to show. We, of the Village, feel that long term success in our recovery depends on a carefully balanced combination of tourist, housing and industrial efforts. Our tourist industry has blossomed nicely in recent years and our historic housing stock is experiencing a ren- aissance resulting from private sector investment along with the activities of Greenport's Community Development Program. However, the unemployment rate in Greenport remains high and the need clearly exists for expanded industry. The obvious oppor- tunity for industrial development in Greenport lies in the f1shing industry. Underutilized, if not blighted, sites exist in several waterfront locations that are highly suited for use as fishing industry support. Unfortunately, deterioration of these properties is so exten- sive that a comprehensive feasibility study is a prerequisite to planned development. The Village of Greenport is not financially capable of conducting the necessary study without assistance. On November 8, 1979, Dewitt Davies of your office attended a conference held in Greenport on the subject described herein, (minutes enclosed). At this meeting representatives of EDA and LNew York State Coastal Zone Management indicated that planning L A-1 TRUSTEES WILLIAM D. ALLEN ' HENRY CARL.OZZI WILLIAM H. LIEBLEIN ROBERT T. WEBB CLERK JOHN L. PECKHAM 11 t �J Yillaye of 9reel ort z' INCO:PORAT[D U]• NCW INC011 W111TION •/1111 7, 1..• 11[•INCCOPONITION UNO[N G[NCRAL LAW MAT 20, 1004 ......L rp:NO. ISLAND nar..a .r 236 THIRD STREET GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 Mr. Lee E. Koppelman Nassau -Suffolk Regional H. Lee Dennison Building Hauppauge, N.Y. 11787 Dear Mr. Koppelman: Planning Board TELEPHONE (516) 477-0248 November 16, 1979 The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the commitment of the Village Board of Trustees to study and improve Greenport's deep water harbor. As you are surely aware, Greenport has suffered severe economic decline over the last thirty years and only now are signs of recovery beginning to show. We, of the Village, feel that long term success in our recovery depends on a carefully balanced combination of tourist, housing and industrial efforts. Our tourist industry has blossomed nicely in recent years and our historic housing stock is experiencing a ren- aissance resulting from private sector investment along with the activities of Greenport's Community Development Program. However, the unemployment rate in Greenport remains high and the need clearly exists for expanded industry. The obvious oppor- tunity for industrial development in Greenport lies in the f1shing industry. Underutilized, if not blighted, sites exist in several waterfront locations that are highly suited for use as fishing industry support. Unfortunately, deterioration of these properties is so exten- sive that a comprehensive feasibility study is a prerequisite to planned development. The Village of Greenport is not financially capable of conducting the necessary study without assistance. On November 8, 1979, Dewitt Davies of your office attended a conference held in Greenport on the subject described herein, (minutes enclosed). At this meeting representatives of EDA and LNew York State Coastal Zone Management indicated that planning L A-1 ' - 2 - monies were available through their agencies for an effort such as ours. In addition, Mr. Davies indicated that technical assistance ' might be available to us from your office. Since the November 8th meeting I have had extended discussions with EDA and CZM during which both agencies expressed optimism con- cerning availability of assistance for Greenport's port study. However, EDA's participation is contingent to participation on State, County and local levels combined. In summary, I wish to request County participation in Greenport's effort in the form of technical assistance from the ' Nassau -Suffolk Regional Planning Board. We would like to use this assistance to put together specifications for a request for proposals that would, with your continued aid in selection, result ' in a consulting arrangement with a port development expert who would then undertake the comprehensive study described herein. This consultant would be paid with EDA and CZM funds. The Village contribution will come in the form of salary for the Community Development Supervisor and additional Village labor required for the project. I thank you in advance for your help in this matter. I have placed Community Development Supervisor David Kapell in charge of this project. Would you therefore address your reply and any ' questions to Mr. Kapell at: Village of Greenport ' 236 Third Street Greenport, N.Y. 11944 516-477-0248 Very truly yours, rGeorge W. Hubbard Mayor r r r r r r A-2 r' Officers George Hubbard MAYOR TELEPHONE Yilla e Ol 9reelzp O�,f (516) 477-0248 ' GEORGE W. HUBBARD Steven Clarke - George Rowson - Greenport Yacht & Shipyard S. T. Preston Marine �Neew►owArco na• Robert Cooper - TRUSTEES NCYY IN tow►ONATION APOIL T. 1868 Reg Hudson - Chairman, WILLIAM D. ALLEN AC•iNCOw►OwATIO N UNO[A GCNCwAA. LAW MAY ,., 1914 Walter Burden, HENRY CARLOZZI Robert Mitchell WILLIAM H. LIEBLEIN . ••••• •••_• Robert White - ROBERT T.WEBB ••• c William Pell - CLERK4J :NC I S LAN , '�� William Claudio JOHN L PECKHAM •.a....A w'd �' lE Halsey Rackett - Resident 236 THIRD STREET P;L" David Kapell - Community Development Supervisor GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY James Monsell - Superintendent of Utilities NEW YORK 11944 Mr. Monsell is Chairman of the committee. January -15, 1980 1 Dr. Lee Koppelman Long Island Regional Planning Board H. Lee Dennison Building Hauppauge, New York 11787 Dear Lee: I am pleased to enclose a copy of a resolution passed unanimously by the Village Board at their January 14, 1980 regular meeting requesting your Board's assistance in conduct- ing a Waterfront Study in the Village. Included in the reso- lution is the formation of a committee to work with your staff on this project. Following are the persons named to the com- mittee: fl A-3 William Lieblein - Trustee George Hubbard - Mayor William J. Mills - Mills Company, Inc. Steven Clarke - George Rowson - Greenport Yacht & Shipyard S. T. Preston Marine Robert Cooper - Cooper Seafoods Reg Hudson - Chairman, Industrial Development Agency Walter Burden, Jr. - East End Supply Co. Robert Mitchell - Mitchell's Marina & Restaurant Robert White - Washington White's Sons Hardware William Pell - Supervisor, Southold Town - Pell's Seafood William Claudio - Claudio's Dock & Restaurant Halsey Rackett - Resident David Kapell - Community Development Supervisor James Monsell - Superintendent of Utilities Mr. Monsell is Chairman of the committee. fl A-3 - 2 - We all look forward to this project eagerly and I await instructions from you on when and how to start. Thanks for your help. Enclosure A-4 Sincerely, ��E�W, id Kapell Community Development Supervisor r RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees wishes to encourage development of Greenport's waterfront and, ( WHEREAS, underutilized sites exist within'the Village which are suitable for fishing, tourist or marine oriented industry ' and, . WHEREAS, the Village Board has determined that professional assistance is needed to help the Village select the best use for each underutilized site and, WHEREAS, the Nassau -Suffolk Regional Planning Board has expressed a keen desire to assist Greenport in conducting such a study, and, WHEREAS, the Nassau -Suffolk Regional Planning Board is able to fund the study through it's contract with the New York State Coastal Management Program, ' THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Village Board hereby requests that a waterfront study of the Village of Greenport be undertaken by the Nassau -Suffolk Regional Planning Board, and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a committee of Greenport resi- dents, businessmen and officials be formed to work with the Regional Planning Board and Community Development Supervisor David Kapell, who shall be named co-ordinator of this project. 1 A-5 IAPPENDIX B - SOURCES OF INFORMATION I B-1 Several staff members of the LIRPB visited the Village of Greenport on 10 March 1980 for a "walking tour" of the Greenport waterfront. Bill Lieblein, a Village Trustee, guided a boat tour of the Greenport waterfront. This was followed by a walking tour of the Village led by David Kapell, the Greenport Community Development Director. A summary meeting with the Greenport Waterfront Study Committee was held after the Village tours, which included a short project presentation by DeWitt Davies of the LIRPB. On 16 April, another meeting of the Greenport Waterfront Study Committee was held. This meeting was attended by David Kapell; H. John Plock and H. John Plock, Jr., owners of Shelter Island Oyster Company; Bill Claudio, owner of Claudio's Restaurant and Dock; Bill Lieblein; Steve Clark, Greenport Yacht and Shipbuilding; Joe Pufahl, a Village Trustee; Walter Smith, Suffolk County Community College; and Jane Williams, Village Planning Board. This meeting discussed the potential for growth of the Greenport commercial fishing industry, and possible ' sites for locating newly constructed fishery -related facilities along the Village waterfront. A follow-up interview of several key commercial fishing and waterfront development interests, on 13 May, provided specific details on current waterfront operations and future expansion plans. These interviews included H. John Plock, Sr. and H. John Plock, Jr., Bill Claudio; Steve Clark; Ritchie Mitchell, Mitchell's Restaurant and a ' docking service for recreational vessels; Buddy Mintz, captain of a commercial fishing vessel; and Bob Cooper, owner of Cooper's Fish Processing Company. A land use survey of nearshore property, site specific photography, and historical research on the Greenport fishing industry was conducted by LIRPB staff on several informal visits to the Village. Several contacts were consulted in order to obtain information and design criteria regarding the construction of commercial fishery related facilities. Mr. Robert Temple, Chief, Fisheries Development Division, Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, Mass. indicated that the best source pertaining to the development of fishery ports was an FAO book entitled, Fishing Ports and Markets. This book contains a comprehensive review of all facets of planning and developing full service fishery ports, including preliminary physical investigations, layout, ' structural design and product handling and marketing. Emphasis is placed on European fishery harbor experience. A brief description of this publication is found in this appendix. The Office of Coastal Zone Management, Coastal Zone Information Center, Washington, D.C. conducted a search but no information pertaining to fishery port criteria was found. Mr. Richard Raymond, New York State Assembly Subcommittee on Ports and Terminals, New York City provided information on the proposal to I B-1 develop Erie Basin as a service base for the commercial fishing industry. Mr. Raymond stated that the proposed facility would be owned by a public authority, which would lease space to interested fish processors and retailers. A bibliography on fisheries related work occurring in other states was sent to the LIRPB. Coastal Information, Naragansett, Rhode Island conducted a search of Sea Grant research reports and the Lockheed/DIALOG file. A list of contacts and several abstracts were sent to the LIRPB. Staff from the New England River Basin Commission indicated that their ports and harbor study was not limited to fishery development, and suggested that the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office be con- tacted. This office was contacted, but no information provided. Ms. Barbara Beitel, Middle Township, Cape May, New Jersey was con- tacted for information on the fisheries facility program for the devel- opment of facilities in Cape May County. No information was provided. Mr. Gerhardt Muller, Supervisor of Market Development, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey provided copies of several reports on the concept of developing a seafood park in the City of New York. A prime site for this type of facility is the Authority -owned Erie Basin in Brooklyn. A meeting was held with Mr. Muller to determine the scope of this seafood park proposal and to ascertain whether or not large-scale fishery devel- opment in the New York harbor would interfere or have negative impacts on Long Island's commercial fishing interests. A copy of the report entitled, Fisheries Development Opportunities for New York, which discusses the Erie Basin seafood park proposal, was obtained subsequent to this meeting and is summarized at the end of this appendix. Mr. Kerry Muse, Executive Director, Mid -Atlantic Fisheries Develop- ment Foundation, Annapolis, Maryland, provided the name and address of Mr. Stan Beebe, Program Director, Coastal Plains Regional Commission, Charleston, South Carolina as an information source. Mr. Beebe was contacted, and while the Commission has no listing of technical criteria or other engineering data for the design of fishery facilities, copies of two fishery related feasibility studies - Feasibility Study of a Seafood Industrial Park for South Carolina; Commercial Fishing Port Development in North Florida - were sent to the LIRPB. These studies are summarized later in this appendix. Ms. Ann Kaplan, Executive Director, New Hampshire Oceanographic ' Foundation provided a copy of the report, Portland Fish Pier Feasibility Study. Mr. Douglas Harbit, Deputy Administrator of Commerce, City of Newport News, Newport News, Virginia sent the LIRPB the report, ' Economic Feasibility and Master Plan for a Small Boat Harbor and Seafood Processing Industrial Park. Both of these study reports are summarized in this appendix. B-2 L Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1970. Fishing Ports and Markets. Report published by FAO and Fishing News (Books) Ltd. Whitefriars Press Ltd. London. 396 p. 11 This compilation of papers presented at the 1968 Bremen conference on Fishing Ports and Port Markets was edited by staff members of the Fisheries Economics and Institutions Division and Fishery Industry Division, Dept. of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The 51 papers submitted and the ensuing discussions are organized under the following topics: - Preliminary Physical and Economic Investigations - Planning and Layout of Fishing Harbours - Improvements to Existing Minor Landing Places - Coastal Drift and the Uses of Hydraulic Models - Structural Design:Construction and Maintenance of Harbours - Construction and Layout of Market Halls - Market and Auction Systems - Unloading, Handling and Supply Facilities - Vessel Servicing Facilities - Planning of Processing and Transportation Facilities - Government and Industry Roles in Harbour Development - Capital Costs and Financial Administration - Harbour Administration and Control - Administration and Management of Port Markets I B-3 1 Westgate & Associates. 1980. Fisheries Development Opportunities for New York. Report prepared for NYSDOS. Executive Summary. 162 p. This report recommends that the City of New York encourage the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to proceed with a staged development of Erie Basin in Brooklyn as a major seafood complex. The site, which comprises about 30 acres of land and 60 acres of water, is already owned by the Port Authority. Erie Basin, if developed as a seafood complex, will provide space and facilities for: - landing of fish frozen at sea - landing of mixed groundfish - gear storage - vessel facilities: fuel, ice, berthing, repairs - bulk loading/offloading of fish - processing - retail fish market - restaurant - schoolship - university laboratories - related government agencies The reasons for establishing a major seafood complex in N.Y.C. are detailed in the report. Based upon site selection criteria and site descriptions of nine shorefront candidate sites in N.Y.C., Erie Basin is the best of the locations offered for consideration. The development planned for each phase of construction for the seafood complex, as well as the operational arrangement, financing, revenue generation and economic benefits are discussed in the report. Steps that need to be ' taken in order to implement report recommendations are also listed within the report. n ii i Ci B--4 McKenzie, Michael D., Liao, David S., and Joseph, Edwin B. 1976. Feasibility Study of a Seafood Industrial Park for South Carolina. Tech. Rep. No. 14. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Dept., Charleston, S.C. 95 p. d 1 The central problem facing commercial fishermen along the South Carolina coast is the lack of adequately equipped harbors, docks and facilities. Fishermen must seek separate exchanges to obtain a variety of services (fuel and ice, engine and equipment repair, hull repair, dealers/buyers/processors, inspection and advisory services). Isolated and scattered docks and limited storage capacity result in excessive hauling, transportation, and storage costs. An inefficient marketing system results. Attraction of large volume market organizations (retail chains, institutional buyers, etc.) has been difficult. This is due in part to the existence of numerous, widely scattered, unloading and processing installations of small scale. Recently enacted and proposed EPA and FDA regulations on shellfish sanitation will adversely affect small seafood processors and dealers. The need for a centralized seafood port facility was based on the following: 1. efficiencies resulting from concentrating goods and services at a single location; 2. the need for waste disposal facilities; 3. market requirement for large volumes of seafood products; 4. the capability of matching seasonal supplies of fish with year-round demands; 5. the need to stimulate improvements in product quality, thereby increasing returns to fishermen and consumers; 6. efficient use of capital available to the fishing industry. The report suggested two plans for fishery port facility construction, which would be funded under different sources. Plan I calls for con- struction of a total facility through State funding, including dockage, fuel and ice, fish processing, equipment supply and repair services, with a price tag of $5 million. Plan II provides only for construction of a dock, fuel and ice, and sewage facilities at a cost of $3.5 million. This plan expects governmental funding of these facilities, and assumes lessees will construct their own facilities and buildings. B-5 The shrimp fishery is the most valuable commercially harvested ' species in South Carolina. Oysters, crabs, clams, and finfish are also important commercial fisheries, but are underutilized. The_demersal finfish (snapper, grouper, porgy) and pelagic finfish (mackeral) fisheries have the greatest potential for expanded commercial fishery utilization; however, they constitute a questionable fishery resource base for a modern seafood port. d 1 The central problem facing commercial fishermen along the South Carolina coast is the lack of adequately equipped harbors, docks and facilities. Fishermen must seek separate exchanges to obtain a variety of services (fuel and ice, engine and equipment repair, hull repair, dealers/buyers/processors, inspection and advisory services). Isolated and scattered docks and limited storage capacity result in excessive hauling, transportation, and storage costs. An inefficient marketing system results. Attraction of large volume market organizations (retail chains, institutional buyers, etc.) has been difficult. This is due in part to the existence of numerous, widely scattered, unloading and processing installations of small scale. Recently enacted and proposed EPA and FDA regulations on shellfish sanitation will adversely affect small seafood processors and dealers. The need for a centralized seafood port facility was based on the following: 1. efficiencies resulting from concentrating goods and services at a single location; 2. the need for waste disposal facilities; 3. market requirement for large volumes of seafood products; 4. the capability of matching seasonal supplies of fish with year-round demands; 5. the need to stimulate improvements in product quality, thereby increasing returns to fishermen and consumers; 6. efficient use of capital available to the fishing industry. The report suggested two plans for fishery port facility construction, which would be funded under different sources. Plan I calls for con- struction of a total facility through State funding, including dockage, fuel and ice, fish processing, equipment supply and repair services, with a price tag of $5 million. Plan II provides only for construction of a dock, fuel and ice, and sewage facilities at a cost of $3.5 million. This plan expects governmental funding of these facilities, and assumes lessees will construct their own facilities and buildings. B-5 ' Beaufort County, S.C. was suggested as the area presenting the highest acceptance level and positive regard for a seafood industrial park. The economic and sociological characteristics of this county in- ' dicate the need for industrial growth. The lack of employment opport- unities is reflected in a declining population and emigration of young people. Approximately 410 employment opportunities would be created for ' the local community when all the basic and support units are in operation. The biggest question is the adequacy of the resource to support the facility at a successful level. Full expense analyses and site layouts ' are included in the report. Mathis, Kary et al. 1978. Commercial Fishing Port Development in ' North Florida. Industry Report 78-6. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. 222 p. ' This report, prepared for the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc. identified seven counties with major fishing activities on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of north Florida. Two major ' fishing ports are rapidly -growing urban areas (Pensacola and'Panama City); the remaining five fishing ports (Port St. Joe, Apalachicola, Eastpoint, ' Carabelle, and Panacea) have smaller populations, but commercial fishing is still relatively important. At the non -urban ports, docking, gear storage, and ice supply are needed to support any increase in commercial fishing effort. Fisheries growth in north Florida is dependent on increased fishing for under- utilized or unutilized species. A single major industrial seafood port, built as a completely new development, is not feasible at present. ' Improved shore facilities at the major fishing ports could stimulate and attract more fishermen, placing Florida in a better position to make greater use of many underutilized species. Improvements in dockage and gear storage facilities would be best suited for public funding. Private investment should be applied to the provision of ice plants, bait and ' fuel services, repair and supply facilities. 1 ' B-7 t 1 11 C� 0 �I C -E Macquire, Inc. 1978. Portland Fish.Pier Feasibility Study. Report prepared for City of Portland. Executive Summary. 44 p. The focus of this study was on the provision of a facility that meets local commercial fishery needs, yet serves as a catalyst to state- wide development of Maine's fishing industry. Development of any new facility must include more than simply added docking and off-loading space and sites for processing. The proposed pier represents the"only reasonable opportunity to address the need for action to 1. improve the stability and reliability of supplies, 2. provide quality control incentives, 3. yield sufficient volume to ensure an appropriate role in price and market determination, 4. introduce operational efficien- cies based on volume and new technology, and 5. attract large-scale processors to the region. The pier concept highlights the potential for centralization and integration of key operational elements (e.g. off-loading, sorting, and cold storage) and use of the pier as a point for consolidation and distribution of fresh and processed products from eastern. Maine and Canada. This concept includes a Portland -based fish auction, which plays a major role in improving the local/regional price structure and market potential for fishery products. Flexibility with respect to species mix and volumes, vessel and gear characteristics, and activity patterns must be emphasized in management plans, accommodating a variety of possible future conditions. Approximately 160 commercial fishing vessels operate out of the Portland waterfront including 35 groundfish trawlers, 5 redfish trawlers, 32 gill netters, 8 seiners, and 80 lobster boats. The mixed groundfish fishery represents 62% of the total finfish vessel capacity. Fish market prices depend on the ability to deliver a steady non- seasonal product supply, of consistent quality, and comprised of a mix of species. Maine is at a disadvantage with respect to all three factors. Typically, fish shipped from Portland bring lower prices since they are brought in over road and are therefore, older and of poorer quality. The pier concept would provide an integrated physical configuration and a market auction/commodities exchange, allowing for expansion in harvesting and product capacity. The integration of the proposed Port- land system with outlying ports was suggested as a means to supply a large, reliable volume of product. The regionwide integration of out- lying ports would provide a net employment growth by 1990 of 2,175 jobs, of which 1,200 would be created within the City, 659 within the remainder of the region, and 325 else where within the state. The expected net increase in local employment in the mixed ground -fishery directly attributable to the pier - 550 jobs - represents a 46% increase over the present local labor force of 1,200 in all fisheries. RIN Division of Commerce, City of Newport News.. 1979. Economic ' Feasibility_ and Master Plan for a Small Boat Harbor and Seafood Processing Industrial Park. Newport News. 75 p. 1 i B-9 The Division of Commerce, City of Newport News, Virginia prepared a report in 1979 which investigated the development potential of the Small Boat Harbor site as a Seafood Processing Industrial Park by the ' City of Newport News. This study focused specifically on the prospects for a park oriented toward the food finfish processing and marketing segment of the industry. Developers of this plan are seeking maximi- zation of job opportunities with expansion of year-round employment. Labor-intensive businesses, like finfish fillet operations are preferred to those activities that are lower in labor intensity, such as crab and ' scallop processing. A lower priority was assigned to businesses that provide support ' functions, such as fuel and ice, repairs (hull, net,engine), electronics and cold storage. This report also suggests termination of non -compatible leases within the area. The overall project includes eventual develop- ment of a marina, park, motel, farm produce and fish market, and fish processing facility. Project costs, projected income yield, and design diagrams are included. 1 i B-9 1 APPENDIX C - CONCLUSIONS ABSTRACTED FROM A MARINE FISHERIES SUBPLAN FOR NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES I C-1 Over 100 species of shellfish, crustaceans and finfish have been harvested by New York fishermen on a commercial basis during the last 100 years. The relative importance of individual species landings to the total catch has varied over time because of a number of factors. At the turn of the century oysters, bluefish and weakfish dominated State land- ' ings; hard clams, scup, tilefish and whiting dominated State landings in 1979. ' ° The harvesting sector of New York State's commercial fishing in- dustry is dominated by activity on Long Island. In 1979, reported fishery landings in Nassau and Suffolk Counties amounted to 95% by weight and 96% by value of total New York State Marine District production figures. Over 35 million pounds valued at 37 million dollars were landed on the Island in 1979. The commercial fishing industry on the Island can be conveniently divided into two segments: deep water and shallow water. The deep water segment consists of offshore operations in Long Island Sound, Gardiners Bay and the Atlantic Ocean that require the use of rela- tively large, deep draft vessels. These vessels fish the entire New York Bight as well as areas to the south and east of Cape Cod, including Nantucket Shoals and Georges Bank. Major deep water segment centers include Montauk, ' Shinnecock, Freeport/Jones Inlet and Greenport; Port Jefferson Harbor, Mattituck Inlet and Orowoc Creek are minor activity centers. Fishing activity in the shallow water segment is focused in areas such as the Great South Bay, Oyster Bay, Gardiners/Peconic Bays and along the shoreline of ' the deeper bodies of water. The target species of the shallow water fishermen are primarily shellfish and finfish that frequent the estuaries. The economic impact of the Long Island commercial fishing industry, determined on the basis of available landings statistics and economic multi- pliers, ranges from about $95 million for the region's economy to $150 million for the State as a whole. These estimates measure the effect of direct fishermen income, on the local and State economy, up to but not in- cluding retail activities. Approximately 8,500 people from Nassau and Suffolk Counties are included as either full or part-time fishermen. Hun- dreds of others are involved in activities ancillary to the commercial fishing industry such as fish packing, processing, transportation and re- tailing. Conflicts have existed between commercial fishermen and other users of Long Island marine waters and shoreline. Commercial dock and pier facil- ities have often been displaced by other uses in the past. In most cases, port and harbor facilities at the major commercial fishing centers on Long Island are inadequate even for current use, let alone the levels of use that could develop in the region due to Long Island's proximity to produc- tive fishing grounds within the U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone. Indeed, the major impediment to expansion of seafood production is the ports and harbor situation. Coupled with the need for additional dock and product transfer facilities is the requirement for deep water access to these sites. ' Channel dredging to provide sufficient depths for vessel movement, especially I C-1 P at inlet and docking areas, should proceed with harbor improvement and de- velopment. ° At present, only a small number of Long Island firms process the fin and shellfish that are landed in the region. The bulk of fishery landings are handled in the fresh fish market, which has been dominated by the Fulton Market in New York City. Establishment of processing facili- ties on Long Island will provide local fishermen with alternative market opportunities for a variety of species, and may also result in benefits to consumers in the region. The Island would also capture the added bene- fits in terms of jobs.and income that local fish processing implies. ° The commercial fishing industry on Long Island is characterized by a high degree of fragmentation, with the harvesting, processing and dis- tribution sectors separated from one another. This tends to make the development of new industries on the Island a difficult task. Tradition remains strong within the industry, and existing marketing techniques rely heavily on the sale of fresh seafood to local and regional outlets. This mode of product sale will probably continue to a large measure in the future. The development of alternative product marketing schemes in the region will require the cooperation of fishermen, processors and government. I C-2 ° There has been a large increase in deep water segment activity on Long Island since passage of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, which extended U.S. fishing authority to 200 miles. This activity has centered in Shinnecock,, Montauk and Freeport/Jones Inlet. The Long Island vessel fleet has increased from 137 vessels in 1975 to 175 in 1978. During this same period, however, there appears to have been a decrease in the number of people engaged in commercial shellfishing on Long Island. In 1979, 7,583 shellfish digger permits were issued by the State to Nassau - ' Suffolk residents, while over 2,100 more were issued in the peak year of 1976 (9,961). Federal Government studies have indicated that foreign and domestic ' markets exist for processed fishery products involving several non-tradi- tional species. For the Mid -Atlantic and New England region, domestic market opportunities exist for whiting and ocean quahog, while excellent export opportunities exist for squid and mackerel in foreign countries. The de- velopment of fisheries on Long Island for these species appears to be the principal benefit of extended jurisdiction that would accrue to the region during the next decade. Other benefits associated with the stock recovery of traditional species caught by Long Island fishermen due to the implemen- tation of fishery management plans may also materialize. ° The Long Island fishing industry has suffered from the lack of port and processing facilities to the extent that fishermen from other states fish the waters adjacent to Long Island and then sell their catch at ports in New England and other mid-Atlantic states. Some of these out -of- state vessels use Long Island ports, when it is advantageous, on a transient basis. ° Problems of the shallow water segment center on the need for facili- ties providing access to the water and for product transfer sites. Given the decentralized nature of most of the Island's shellfish industry activity, ' and characteristics of shellfish management authority, solutions to the I C-2 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 problems of access are primarily the responsibility of local governments. C The principal problems of the shallow water segment of Long Island's commercial fishing industry include public health constraints and the loss of shellfish producing areas because of pollution, and the virtual existence of a shellfish industry of any magnitude in the future given the current laissez-faire attitude towards management that has historically been prac- ticed. Although research programs and management efforts are beginning to address the question of maintaining resource yields at levels.that will support fisheries in the future, the outlook for the industry at this time remains uncertain. Sustained production of various shallow water species may require the development and implementation of harvest controls and re- liance on mariculture technology. c-3 APPENDIX D - COMMERCIAL FISHERY FACILITY EXPANSION PLANS AT MONTAUK, SHINNECOCK AND FREEPORT/JONES INLET 1 D-1 Montauk has been the center of most new commercial fishery facili- 1 ties development on L.I. Existing product transfer and processing sites (Gosmans Dock, Mid -Atlantic Fish Buying Co., Ltd. and Pier 1) have been expanded, and additional commercial fishery facilities are in the plan- ning stages for both the N.Y. Ocean Science Laboratory (N)USL.) property at Fort Pond Bay and a privately owned parcel of waterfront land located on the east side of Lake Montauk. NYOSL is attempting to lease a portion ' of its facility to firms interested in processing fish; it is currently negotiating with a food processor from the midwest that has expressed interest in the site. Rent obtained from the lease holder(s) could help NYOSL overcome its financial problems and enable it to continue its re- search efforts on such topics as fish processing techniques. The private commercial fishery facility proposed for the east side of Lake Montauk would accommodate a maximum of 22 boats. The plan for the facility calls for the construction of 585 + linear feet of steel bulkhead (including returns) along the existing shoreline and associated timber dolphins, and two timber docks approximately 160' x 14' and 270' x 18' respectively. It has also been proposed to dredge 35,000 cu. yds. of material to create a depth of 13' at mean low water. The dredged material will be placed on an upland disposal area where it will be suitably retained by an earthen embankment and weirs. The upland disposal site will be regraded and pre- pared for the construction of a transfer office and crating building, cooler, repair shop, ice -making building, storage buildings, loading stalls, fuel tanks and protective berm, and impervious parking area. In the future, ' other buildings associated with the operation of the facility may be con- structed on the northern side of the parcel. Catches will be iced and loaded onto trucks for shipment to market. No fish processing will occur at this facility. The partial conversion of Nick's marina, a recreational facility near Shinnecock Inlet, to accommodate commercial fishing vessels has helped mitigate overcrowding at the adjacent commercial fishery facility, C & N Fisheries. The continued demand for shoreside facilities at Shinnecock and the limited amount of private land available at Shinnecock for use by the commercial fishing industry has spurred interest in the development of a publicly owned commercial fishery dockage facility on a portion of land owned by Suffolk County near Shinnecock Inlet. The proposed facility has been subject to lengthy discussions held between county and town offi- cials and various commercial fishing interests. General agreement on the need and siting of this facility has been obtained. Indeed, $55,000 has been appropriated by the Suffolk County Legislature in the Suffolk County Capital Budget to assist in the planning and construction of the proposed facility, and the Town of Southampton has formed the Southampton Fisheries Development Committee to expedite planning and construction of the project. By resolution, the Suffolk County Legislature has authorized a) the use of a portion of the county owned land near Shinnecock Inlet for the siting of the fishery facility; and b) the Suffolk County Planning Department to apply for funding from U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Admini- stration for the construction of the facility. 1 D-1 The Long Island Regional Planning Board has used a $10,000 grant fron the NYS Department of State under the NYS Coastal Management Program to assist in the preparation of preliminary engineering design plans for the proposed facility. A portion of the $55,000 appropriated by the Suffolk County Legislature is being used to complete the preliminary en- gineering plans and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the facility. The preliminary engineering plans and EIS are scheduled for completion by the autumn of 1980. A profile and preliminary appli- cation requesting $550,000 for the preparation of final engineering plans and construction of the proposed facility have been submitted to the U.S. Economic Development Administration for public works funding consideration. ' Commerical fishery facilities at Freeport are centered at the "Nautical Mile" on Woodcleft Canal. This area provides dockage for commercial fish- ing vessels that sell their fish in retail markets along the canal. About ' 30 charter and/or party boats and a sizeable pleasure boat fleet sail from Freeport. Thirty-three commercial fishing vessels, ranging in size from 35-72 ft., docked in Freeport and the Jones Inlet area in 1978. The shallow waters of Freeport Channel and Jones Inlet are an obstacle to the fleet's growth. The demands of local fishermen for improved access was brought before Congress by a local representative. In May 1979, the House Public Works and Transportation Committee authorized $950,000 for a four- year engineering and economic study to determine the feasibility of widening and deepening channels from Jones Inlet to Freeport. 1 r� t 1 D- 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX E - RESIDENT AND TRANSIENT COMMERCIAL FISHING VESSEL DATA Table E1 Summary of Resident Commercial Fishing Vessels Utilizing Greenport Harbor (1979)* Vessel Name Length (ft. Full -crew illori II 37 .B 3 Brucenda 38 2 Cirrus 75 4 Corrina 55 2 Dan Dee 31 2 Flo 69 3 Geo. A. Kirby 38 3 Hustler 33 1 Lottie Lee 36 1 Maru 39 2 Miss Nancy 65 3 Onward II 49 2 Patty Anne 37 2 Pisces 30 2 Privateer II 39 2 Smitty 42 2 Virginia 49 2 * This table does not reflect the additional number of commercial fishing vessels utilizing Greenport Harbor as home port during 1980, such as the Elizabeth Ashley - a 90' vessel with a crew of 12. A total of 17 commercial fishing vessels, ranging in length from 30' to 75' with a full -crew of 38, consider Greenport their home port. E-1 Table E2 Summary of Transient Commercial Fishing Vessels Utilizing Greenport Harbor (1979)* Vessel Name Length (ft.) Full -crew Homeport Amelia Isle 52 4 N. Carolina Bette Ann 51 2 Connecticut Calvin & David 70 9 N. Carolina Capt. Rose 83 4 N. Carolina Cayman 68 4 N. Carolina Chickadee 66 4 N. Carolina Chris -and Jen 78 4 N. Carolina Helen Mae II 64 4 N. Carolina Joan & Serine 85 4 Massachussets Joyce Moore 69 5 N. Carolina Kathy Rose 84 13 N. Carolina Lady Marjorie 72 4 N. Carolina Lady Phillis 80 3 N. Carolina Lady Sandy - 4 N. Carolina Lois Joyce 79 4 N. Carolina Margaret Rose 84 13 N. Carolina Matthew Mark - 3 Connecticut Mijoy 747 76 6 Connecticut Miss Helena 67 4 N. Carolina Miss Milak 63 3 N. Carolina Rosemary R 58 3 Connecticut Tomahawk 70 7 N. Carolina Virginia Sands 90 6 Virginia Yvonne Michelle 81 11 N.C./Virginia * Additional transient commercial fishing vessels utilizing Greenport Harbor during 1980 are not included in this table. A total of 24 commercial fishing vessels, ranging in length from 51' to 90' with a full -crew. of 128, use Greenport on a transient basis. E-2 APPENDIX F - SUMMARY OF LEASES ON THE LIRR PROPERTY IN THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT Property leased:land parcel of 49,350 sq. ft. (44,600 sq. ft. upland, 4,750 sq. ft. filled-in land) including the passenger station building and the adjacent dock. Exceptions to the use of the dock: - no vessel may dock on the north side of the dock, or shall any use of the dock interfere with the operation of the Shelter Island and Greenport Ferry Company. 1 F-1 - no pilings, slips or other structures may be erected on the south side of the dock such that any portion of these structures, or vessels docked, shall extend beyond a line parallel to the dock and 50 feet to the south. Lessor (LIRR) has right to repair or replace any and all existing rail- road facilities on the demised premises, or install new facilities. Lessor has right to convey work rights to any party for repair of pole, wire, and pipelines over and under premises. 1 Lessor has right to lease no less than 528 sq. ft. of station bldg. for snack bar, and retain rental income from this and any other concessions operated (taxi, bus, phone, newsstand, etc.). The following improvements can be made by Lessee (Suffolk County) at Lessee's expense: - grading and paving, including a roadway between 3rd and 4th Streets (not to become a public roadway). ' - renovation of the station building for use as a museum, provided it incorporates a ticket office, waiting room, and snack bar. L(Approval of Lessor's Chief Engineer is required before commencement of renovations. No other improvements are to be made by Lessee without Lessor's written consent) 1995) for Lessee holds the premises for 20 years (1 July 1975 to 30 June the sum of $20.00. Further sum of all water and sewer rents and all taxes levied against future improvements, and assessments for public improvements levied against the premises are to be paid to the Lessor when demanded. If Lessee desires to use any portion of the premises for revenue producing purposes, Lessee must obtain Lessor's approval of intended purpose and, if approved, Lessee shall pay Lessor an additional rental equal to 10% of such gross revenue. 1 F-1 (11) Lessee will furnish all labor and supervisory forces for the performance of any work. (12) Lessee to comply with all Federal, State, and Municipal laws. (13) In the event of termination by re-entry or ejection, the Lessee shall remain liable and will agree to pay as damages for the breach of the covenants the difference between rent reserved and rent collected. ' (14) The Lessee waives all rights to redeem under Sections 761 and 763 of the Real Property Actions & Proceedings Law of the State of N.Y., or any subsequent act giving the same remedy which becomes law during the lease term. (15) Lessee shall keep the station building and dock insured in favor of the Lessor against fire, ice, collision with ships, action of the elements, and/or collapse. t F-2 COVENANTS (1) Non-payment of rent or default in the performance of any of the covenants and agreements by Lessee enables Lessor to proceed to legally collect the specific rental and additional rentals, including expense of resuming possessions and restoring premises. (2) Lessee to maintain premises (including station building and dock) in good order and repair. (3) (deleted) (4) Lessor or authorized agents have right to enter, to inspect or make such repairs or alterations to premises as may be necessary for the safety and preservation thereof. Lessor may place "To Let" or "For 1 Sale" signs 60 days before term expiration and may show premises to interested parties. (5) Buildings, structures and improvements to be kept in good order and repair by Lessee, with no signs or advertisements other than Lessee's. (6) Lessee to keep sidewalks free of ice/snow, and any obstructions, and keep curbs and sidewalks in good order. (7) Lessee cannot store gasoline on premises. (8) Lessee must assume the risk of the premises, and indemnify the Lessor from and against all loss, except when resulting from Lessor's negligence. (9) Lessee should provide Workman's Comp. and Public Liability and Property Damage insurance both Lessee and Lessor. protecting (10) Prior written consent required for any improvements, and any ' improvement upon a structure owned by Lessor shall be the property of Lessor, and shall be surrendered at the termination of lease. (11) Lessee will furnish all labor and supervisory forces for the performance of any work. (12) Lessee to comply with all Federal, State, and Municipal laws. (13) In the event of termination by re-entry or ejection, the Lessee shall remain liable and will agree to pay as damages for the breach of the covenants the difference between rent reserved and rent collected. ' (14) The Lessee waives all rights to redeem under Sections 761 and 763 of the Real Property Actions & Proceedings Law of the State of N.Y., or any subsequent act giving the same remedy which becomes law during the lease term. (15) Lessee shall keep the station building and dock insured in favor of the Lessor against fire, ice, collision with ships, action of the elements, and/or collapse. t F-2 (16) Should a vessel sink within 50' of the southern edge of the pier, ' the Lessee is responsible for raising this vessel. (17) Improvements and uses allowed on premises include fishing dock, museum, parking, docking of fishing and pleasure boats, and road- ways. Hazardous businesses (those increasing fire insurance rates) are prohibited. PROVISIONS V SIONS I. Upon the expiration of the lease term, or any other termination, Lessee will at its sole expense, remove any improvements not owned by the Lessor. Lessee will leave the land in a condition satisfact- ory to Lessor; all necessary restorations will be performed at Lessee's expense. I II. If premises are unfit for occupancy by fire or other casualty not due to Lessee's negligence, Lessee will (1) surrender the premises and pay the rent apportioned to time of damage; or (2) Lessor may enter and repair, provided it elects to and such damage can be repaired in 60 days hence. If slight damage occurs, Lessor agrees to repair with reasonable promptness. F-3 III. In the event Lessor wishes to sell premises or requires all or any part thereof for its own corporate purposes, Lessor can terminate lease at any time provided Lessee is given 3 months prior written notice. If Lessor exercises the right accorded in this clause Lessor will grant Lessee a license ($1.00/year) for access purposes across that portion of the upland leading to the dock from Third Street for the unexpired portion of the lease. IV. No warranty of title to any property is given. ` V. Lessee may sublet all or any portion of the demised premises to the Town of Southold and/or the Village of Greenport subject to all lease terms. VI. Upon the taking of premises for public use, the lease, at the option of the Lessor, shall become null and void. Lessee receives no part of any award. VII. If charges payable by Lessee are unpaid, or if Lessee shall fail to comply with any covenants of the lease and are not remedied within 15 days after written notice, then the lease shall terminate. Lessee waives service of any notice to quit possession, or of intention to re-enter that may be provided for by any law of the State of N.Y. VIII. All notices shall be sent by U.S. Registered Mail or served personally. F-3 IX. The failure of Lessor to compel a fulfillment of any covenant shall not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach in covenants. X. All rights and liabilities given to or imposed upon either of the parties shall extend to the successors and assigns of such party. F-4 Summary of Sublease Agreement Between Suffolk County ' and the Village of Greenport L 7. Sublessee will maintain liability insurance (amount to be approved by Lessor) insuring Lessee, Sublessee and Lessor against claims for property damage or personal injury caused by conditions or activities on premises caused by negligence of Sublessee. 1 F-5 This agreement constitutes a formal transfer to the Sublessee (Village of Greenport) of the responsibilities, covenants and provisions contained in the LIRR/Suffolk County lease agreement dated June 6, 1975. The terms and conditions of this sublease agreement are outlined below. 1. Lessee (Suffolk County) shall demise the entire premises to the Sublessee. 2. Sublessee acknowledges that lessee is now leasing the subject property from Lessor under a basic lease dated June 6, 1975 (incorporated by reference). Sublessee agrees to assume and be bound by the same responsibilities, rights, privileges and duties that Lessee has from Lessor, and Sublessee shall fully indemnify Lessee against any responsibility or liability that Lessee may incur by virtue of the sublease or the occupancy by Sublessee of the demised premises pursuant to the basic lease dated June 6, 1975. Sublessee shall add to this sublease any amendment, revision, supplement, or addition to the lease between Lessee and Lessor and keep Lessee indemnified against all actions, claims and demands whatsoever in respect to the covenants, conditions and stipulations in the basic ' lease agreement. Sublessee shall have the right at any time, at the expense of Lessee, ' to take any action required of Lessee under the lease of June 6, 1975, that Lessee fails to timely perform and that may be necessary to prevent a default under the terms of that lease. ' Sublessee's enforcement of any rights shall be at his own expanse and he shall indemnify Lessee against all expenses, including reasonable counsel fees, that Lessee may incur in connection with any ' proceeding so undertaken. From any damages or other amount of recovery obtained by Sublessee, Lessee shall be compensated for any injury or loss sustained by him as a consequence of the default by Lessor or any other party and the amount recovered shall otherwise be the property of the Sublessee. 3. The premises demised under the sublease are to be used by Sublessee for recreational, civic and all purposes as allowed under the lease between Lessor and Lessee. 4. and 5. Sublessee will be given the same terms of the basic lease dated June 6, 1975 (1975-1995 and with rent of $20.00). ' 6. Sublessee will pay for utilities and all other charges as found in the basic lease. L 7. Sublessee will maintain liability insurance (amount to be approved by Lessor) insuring Lessee, Sublessee and Lessor against claims for property damage or personal injury caused by conditions or activities on premises caused by negligence of Sublessee. 1 F-5 ' 12. The Lessee shall undertake to restore the dock including pilings, deck railings and lighting, to the extent funding is available for this purpose. 11 -1 13. The Lessee shall maintain the entire dock with the exception of the actual surface decking of the dock, the maintenance of which is the responsibility of the Sublessee. The Sublessee shall be responsible for snow and ice removal from the surface of the dock. 14. Sublessee will allow Lessor or Lessee free access to premises for inspection, repair or alteration of premises. 15. Any attempt to sell, assign or sublet without written consent of Lessee shall be deemed as a default by Sublessor, entitling Lessee to re-enter the premises. 16. If Lessor or Lessee fails or neglects to perform the sublease or the provisions of the original Lease between them, then Sublessee may, after reasonable notice in writing of not less than ninety days, terminate the sublease. 17. If Sublessee violates or defaults in any of the provisions of the sublease, then Lessee may cancel sublease by giving the notice required herein and re-enter the premises. 18. The waiving of any of the provisions of the lease by any party shall be limited to the particular instance involved and shall not be deemed to waive any rights of the same or any other terms of the sublease. 19. Sublessee shall surrender the premises within thirty days from receipt of notice of termination of the sublease. F-6 8. Sublessee shall not cause or allow any undue waste on the premises and shall comply with all applicable laws and ordinances respecting the use and occupancy of the premises, provided that Sublessee shall not be required to make any alterations, additions or improvements to the premises in order to conform with the sublease. 9. Sublessee will maintain premises in good repair and tenantable con- dition. 10. Sublessee will obtain written consent of both Lessee and Lessor ' before any alterations are made on premises. All improvements, excluding office machines, equipment and fixtures which can be easily removed without damage to the real property, shall become the property of the Lessor. 11. Lessor agrees to paint, repair and restore the exterior of the rail- road station building prior to Sublessee's occupancy of the premises. Sublessee shall maintain such exterior for the remainder of the ' Sublease. ' 12. The Lessee shall undertake to restore the dock including pilings, deck railings and lighting, to the extent funding is available for this purpose. 11 -1 13. The Lessee shall maintain the entire dock with the exception of the actual surface decking of the dock, the maintenance of which is the responsibility of the Sublessee. The Sublessee shall be responsible for snow and ice removal from the surface of the dock. 14. Sublessee will allow Lessor or Lessee free access to premises for inspection, repair or alteration of premises. 15. Any attempt to sell, assign or sublet without written consent of Lessee shall be deemed as a default by Sublessor, entitling Lessee to re-enter the premises. 16. If Lessor or Lessee fails or neglects to perform the sublease or the provisions of the original Lease between them, then Sublessee may, after reasonable notice in writing of not less than ninety days, terminate the sublease. 17. If Sublessee violates or defaults in any of the provisions of the sublease, then Lessee may cancel sublease by giving the notice required herein and re-enter the premises. 18. The waiving of any of the provisions of the lease by any party shall be limited to the particular instance involved and shall not be deemed to waive any rights of the same or any other terms of the sublease. 19. Sublessee shall surrender the premises within thirty days from receipt of notice of termination of the sublease. F-6 ' 20. The sublease is made with the full knowledge and agreement of Lessor of the premises and Lessor accepts the sublease but retains all rights to approve or disapprove any future sublease between ' Lessee and Sublessee or between Lessee and any other party. F-7 d Q ° 1 CiA6NES GULL Q OV " LA AL , ,1 43 6 \. ! ! :❑9 Q—Al POND 1- f 3.0 `�] 1 12D 0¢II SII 11 I " o . D3 1 Iznl 6 / I � �. --- 1 n \Y / 1 II cod Q _ Ol� �O �v�'�E A.O� ° 0 O�O \ rl 1// //% 9D O �I ❑ Ili PARKING '�� 9D . ❑ "L �� P > OO,(O\ ^ ^ �` '� #10 °1r! ,.s l j 5" t Q�O O(V_J/) / 7.0 1 \ O CEM�TERY / jIl 1 - AV 1 / o \� E �( Ir O�q �❑/�� QQQ To i � .�` \ u i n � z.s oao N _ \ Qo QOQ° ° O Vy S\ \\VVV a ' u0 I (} © 1 GREENPORT- \ <�USCBGS ) 13 \ _� z! R ❑15 J I Is 01atrae j O C'i TIRLIN ❑ �� D 1 O / •» I K15 �\\ - / 3 13.! " ° O ! \ \\ " u 4.5 s op ❑ MA4. ft. i_i a>•.00 \ a _� \ � C\,, � � / ; r 65 w 9! (��A 34 �3° CJ lO�Oo�lQli q �, 1 GRENPORT �f/co a 4 p 0 s! T 8 • •p 12\ Oc3l�`p� C3 tiD 1 j�o 4 0 d a Q 4b �� \ \ 4 POIJNT S 130� rI ea Q h1 \ 1 6.0 'L B u O0 OEti�e A 4 �c" Ob• j7p 2 I ,.D / Lo ExT--�- ... •' O r 0� OpQ ��� / 15 \ /, 1 FATHOM Oayrl.s Oo�� j Q IAB q 4 0 a i� J I o I1 n L O O 0 G \�Q O •� V 2 FATHOM _ MAq ME p30P ri B�T O Q -°�•� s�. . .5 3 I 21 _ 13 F / I ID e o p 2 O O Q 0 3FATHOM 16 I s sr _. 1 -- I p Q F -j rfi.o nn " Q d Y •� v USCG GS I 00 1/ F��1 �'( . .0 8MM 373121 / o"❑ 14"u-�-�7 SgITK r11 E AcI,EPs ❑E q Is j D ° b n❑ Q �] tj 6 U D'mQ 4Q s / GREEN RT 42 4 FATHOM i' nog "usp O O _ CIGo0 I--� s ��❑�° 'tJ O� �v u O .o Is 0 / BOR \ 1❑ 00�a 4 6D O ❑ ❑�I CI ❑. ° p= �' 4 0 °❑ �� 6A �, ., ❑{ 1 . �cnoPi . '� .S �Qcoo Q •Q / JI Ira! Q 12A -p0 ❑ • <<'. ST r L^1 I ❑II I li 1 FERRY S� ,OII. I^� w�Q ❑((�" ry a 15.551 ❑ ❑ U.b- ' I] �1 J SLIPS / 'JI Ll� lJ�rt " 5 " d Q Q / ✓ 8A 1 0 �°O o165 lr J O a 'I / 0' o ° Dq160 NP aeE\ I 39 ❑ 4 — \'o \PPO 153 Q ❑ 1m o L�Q PP \Mp\Nl'a I o ~131° i05 O. �� _ ••• r•• I 1,.3D °o .. ❑ CD EM l r7 0 O 4'" O pF O ❑��N Q '-ilaa� i �>'� /. 3�1 cl nLl cro ❑�I T ° ° JJ o s � ❑ o p � ° � � GREEN T _ �' QD ap 4 o o H / OI¢ "N o o ° d / ED 4 B�B t '0 rz! ❑0 UC3❑ ��a . W o o a 4' a r,.O,KN _ - _ - � o I r:3 12 1. 11❑� �° 11D ❑ �' 2 UO O O ° / 2 °105 ST 0 CLARK c i ° ❑ Q 7 oil Ta NKS � 3 71 l C,(� 00 001 / O° D❑ / 0 90 r/ J 3 ❑ ^/ a°/ FA,9NI`�'y'�[;/ P NT 1 FATHOM 1 ~ n \ 10 / 5 2 FATHOM J / %6_ 52 i i i / 619 / LEGEND 66 / 900 YEAR FLOOD HAZAL O BOUNDARY '' ® OISTURBEO AREA -ABANDONED STRUCTURE I -BURNT OUT BUILDING -BROKEN PAVEMENT EXCAVATED LAND VACANT LOT -NATURAL VEGETATION -NO DEVELOPMENT - oEACH ® MARITIME SHRUBLANO PLATE I NATURAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GREENPORT WATERFRONT N PREPARED BY: LONG ISLAND RE61ONAL ._LE IN FEET PLANNING BOARD 0 200 400 JULY, 1960 I ()A, cl BLEACHERS .. ............... Ry GULL "'o CEMETE O Jl� It 40 I. A POND ED 7 ws b 0 4- f ra o ir N CEMETERY SAVE STIRLING BASIN K. ............. . ... . ..... ff. ... .. ... .......... GREEAIPORT HARBOR HARBOR ........ ....... T NING POINT LEGEND MARINE COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL PUSLICTRANSPORTATIaN AND UTILITIES RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE VACANT DISTURBED PLATE 2 EXISTING LAND USE ALONG THE GREENPORT WATERFRONT N SCALE IN FEET I.EIA.E. BY: I-ONG111-AN. REGIONAL PLAN.ING BOARD . .0 JULY, 1960 / 51 >r O/ MARfOQQoo'A Jn�O � Q � sr�"co" , l f.• ��.lo Q BMY325 O Ort 1 � EL 1224 � O , STI 00I] � 1pv 0 a o 13 q3 ¢Qr s> a 0 •\� ,'o Q\l\� x(55 p'',.� � �j.\, \o, o ao °i� tips O o� `rho o G lv 0 O �•J o Oa v - ❑ Q vcas ��-- ❑ QO Cl O �O `al5 Q ❑ [125 USCG ❑ �s0uiw ABM M ❑ a�`jJ _ Q �p 1zo EL B 7 la so HLE4CHEHs I M E SI:U11 I 4 P o on o I I'�� LJ l0 p a❑ q� O SGS9�Q o D ° ❑ ° �'� p4 o // Gd oo P I" r. � 5� I � ° i1z5o � •° o �� NODoIdj1 ❑ a9�`�Q�, ��� p, I❑ °� •d ��oo off• �o \ ❑G � �; � �� � � �G ❑G ❑ tel, t 0 �� t T ^V`v)/v1 r •I Q I❑ Q1o5 vo 1 FERRY 'l]I C �� � � I ❑❑p�l Iso — - �—� :� � O -? suas j} I �\IQ° ❑❑ ❑�� 46 o''I,Qo Iq O ❑ L.LR. 04 C' rl•o -0.llI ., 4 D o❑� D�45 0l, � 4 1� z.or 0 1450 ❑ la d ofl sa 1z5 ... CJ 0D Q e ❑ n e d o NT ) rL� j5 , _ a °❑ o ❑l7 0 Ill r CJII ❑ I ° �.i7 4• ° 'O I �[� ��l �or_I �.'I ° c7 o ❑all p GREEVPORT 0 HARBOR ❑ �� � � u 0711 I _ °SRR wN 1 l -- -.. --_ mop 4 0 �° 1 rO ❑ I'U ❑ I a p I wN �7 o o Q❑� �� 0l C1 � �. o l l DOD E O L I ❑ 0 4 e5 0 Yf"l .— U III I 4 I I O TANKS '(1 ll �� ❑ a,o o �� ❑ oo SOCONY 311 0 0 � I 7C •- 2.5. � GULL 43 - 05 •t POID -; 0 Ir ❑ 1 ' d 1ED � I O ; \ ° 6511 'z° ❑ill�l a �1 i// M I r / 11I7 CEt"ETERV /AIE ` I / 1.0 Il on 1 ('J � 1 1u5 5 a. MARINE ASSOCIATES P ROPERTY Jp I - SWEET SHIPYARD SITE J" 15 w BARSTOW / SHIPYARD 373 5 6.5 GRE-ENPORT 00 HARBOR o/ 1 P/ MITCHELL P OPERTY BOHACK SITE/ KAMAIKO/KESSLr PROPERTY R. PROPERTY,'/ MOBIL PROPERTY SITE YOUNG', POINT ��Htisoa ❑ o — OYSTER FACTORY PROPERTY o PLATE 3 _ / _5�ti ❑ �I � O e5i CAPPA PROPERTY WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY SITES r\ �FANNING POINT i IN THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT N SCALE IN FEET 0 200 400 PREPARED BY, LONG ISLAND REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD JULY,1980 /tom IN THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT N SCALE IN FEET 0 200 400 PREPARED BY, LONG ISLAND REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD JULY,1980 ��rzar�lT �T h N y6i Pc ��PAQr��+G G2EENR7RT AhtNJE �� ANFI21Cl�N LEGION DHOW E2 PUD A Q le s� n --/' O --�__ of ceJ 25' sN... �E C�G.I LRGiO,p 4TATfON FEIeKY LOCl.TION -iLONJfING ocaGK . WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE VILLAGE OF REENP RT 6 SITTING (aQ.EA� �1T 31A�K5MlTN SHOE+ _ OPFIGE !�A'�OL.VE�fE J- PUEL GE Scale: 1" = 180' PLATE 4 - MITCHELL PROPERTY —''ifERF.E R *602,---f Y QJC yVAl, WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE VILLAGE OF REENP T CTTi7TTTI f f f TTT1 f ITU j ulll I I i . 1 7 PICNICKING Aocs hEPTING ARF Scale: 1" = 180' — LOU+z '>IAKT owL sicNS -ewS i NEW '._yATING ASA 1 4 4aVAGK'%A2 — EV4STIN4 FWwY \ 4 LGG4TIpN OF \R�,O � EX15TINC �OGK PLATE 5 - RAILROAD PROPERTY O hE'W PARKJNCa AREA (23 CAP -5) !,•!'� - . alii' �G O RE1.'Kvr VC, BUILVNCa — �� DRY STORdgE OLlTMOR Baal STORAGE /\ 'ZOOR 50AT f,TNACif- GKEENFtDKT YACWT # 5411PDUILDING CO TRUCK DROP COOPER5 P15W PROCE551NG CO. EXISTING DEDILITATED POP, TO DE REMOVED 60AT L.AIJNCIJ \ WATERFRONT OEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE VILLAGE OF IEENP RT Scale:l" = 90' (i ) PLATE 6 - BARSTOW SHIPYARD SITE OO 6 t9 UN 115 • 37 � RAG PARKING 40 1 G d,DDTIONAL S Scale:l" = 90' viLlp cE �---xlsTI Ibl,plCrs. PARD � oust _ �►U1Zl5►1� WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE VILLAGE OF REENP T n M!IM.!` . well PLATE 7 - OYSTER FACTORY PROPERTY EXl STING WATERFRow C.OMMfiKCdAL i> � aaTtaicr Gl��srlNG r�5lpcNriAL /aRGP �y ST6 RLI NG gA-�l N 7'r TI�UGK ENTRANCc i �I I %/ y�2 r PRETREATMENT FAG' —IT `r i go— go, � - ;;, 14 AGKET`i5 PSASI IV WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE VILLAGE OF EEIMP T pOGIG1IVG �Q��p, CARS ONLY Scale: 1" = 90' PLATE 8 — SWEET SHIPYARD SITE i