Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOki-Do, Ltd (Correspondence) G P M FOR THE EAST END V E ; MAY 3 2016 ; ,W4 April 20,2016 outhoid Town ;Sf I mW President John Bredemeyer &Members of the Southold Town Trustees Town of Southold " P.O. Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 Re:Coastal Erosion&Wetland Permit Application of Oki-Do Ltd - = (SCTM#1000-38-7-7.1) Dear President Bredeme er and Members of the Board of Trustees: ry, - On behalf of Group for the East End, please accept the following comments regarding the Coastal Erosion and Wetland Permit Application of Oki-Do Ltd. Group for the-East 3'z End strongly recommends that the Trustees deny the applications as proposed for the FV m enumerated r� reasons a ted below. >z , m •_ ,.,` for the record,Group for the East End has previously commented extensively on the r " site plan'application of Oki-Do Ltd.for this particular property. We,strongly opposed the proposed resort complex and its'extensive list•of uses-du`e-to the intensification of use of Fro. the property, located in a residential neighborhood in addition to the high likelihood of nw'j4"¢ 4 negative environmental impact. At this time,we are concerned that the overall project, including the actions proposed in the applications before this Board are being segmented from a proper and Y '. = comprehensive environmental review process. To our knowledge,there is no application before the Planning Board. Therefore,there isn't an intended primary use for the property and no information describing the intended use and purpose of the proposed dock and need for channel dredging. According to Town Code Section 280-13 (3), boat-docking facilities are permitted as;an :' �•` z:' accessory use subject to special conditions. i Additionally,while reviewing the applicant's-request for replacemen't,'of bulk heading: . _ PP 4 and the proposed construction of new 500+-foot rock revetment we strongly-; `q recommend•6xamining the necessity of these'structures and im ortantly an otential impacts-these shore-hardening devices will-impose on adjacent;propecties -� application does not document nor demonstrate property loss--or--a n-yimpact'srthat , Protect-Ling she nature of the pace you , love „ p . r . a f° might suggest that these structures are necessary for the intended purpose of "restoration and protection of the subject property.” Until additional information is provided and proves not to create negative environmental impact,we strongly recommend that the application be denied. If a site plan application should be submitted,then both of the applications should be examined comprehensively under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA) with ample input and participation by all involved agencies. G~ We appreciate your consideration of these comments and strongly urge the Board of -"` Trustees to take the most comprehensive approach to the review of this property,and t its many potential impacts on the Peconic Bay Estuary. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. I can be reached at(631)765-6450 ext.213 or at bdeluca@eastendenvironment.org. Since7dt H " Robert S. DeLuca E V E -DD President MAY - 3 2016 Southold Tovai Y ', Board ofT 3/21/2016 Dear President Bredemeyer and Southold Town Trustees, As full time residents of East Marion we ask the Board of Trustees to give ample time and scrutiny to review the application by Oki-do Ltd for the requested Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for the former Oyster Factory Property. Over the years the property has not been properly maintained by the current owner. While certain improvements may be in order, the owner's intent for future use of the property (proposed spa, motel, restaurant and marina) should be taken into consideration before any permits are issued by the Trustees. Consideration should be given to the property owner's motives in applying for the Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits prior to the completion of a State Environmental Quality Review under the lead agency : The Town Planning Board of Southold. In addition to bay waters, the oyster factory property is surrounded by mostly year round residential homes. The only property access other than via water is from Shipyard Lane or Gillette Drive. Both are narrow streets as can be observed in`the'mornings when families with school children stand on the sides of the road waiting for-the school bus. If these permits are granted, the replacement of the bulkhead, dredging, installation of jetties and construction of docks will have a major impact upon our waterways and the natural landscape and will bring major noise, traffic and disruption to the neighborhood. The unique land and water property is the home to a variety of native wildlife, plants and animals. Please consider the possible negative impacts that the proposed renovations could have and do not issue the requested permits until additional required environmental studies are completed and approval to move forward is granted by the Southold Town Planning Board. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerel , D C E I V ' MAR' 2 5 2016 S Marty Sarandria outhold Town Eva'McGuire' v Private Road 7 ___-- East Marion NY J Twomey, Lathar>�; -C,_Cebrariny Over 40yars oo Service MAILING ADDRESS Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo LLP Post Office Box 9398 A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Riverhead,New York 11901-9398 MAIN OFFICE Thomas A.Twomey,Jr 33 West Second Street (1945-2014) Riverhead,New York 11901-9398 Stephen B.Latham John F Shea,III Telephone:631.727.2180 Christopher D Kelley Facsimile:631.727.1767 David M Dubin o www.suffolklaw com Jay P.Quartararo r Peter M Mott khoeg@suffolklaw.com Janice L Snead Anne Marie Goodale Extension 269 Bryan C Van Cott• Direct Fax:631.727.23 85 Kathryn Dalli Laura I.Dunathan March 23, 2016 Lisa Clare Kombnnk - Patrick B Fife Melissa H Sidor D 0 E I � E Marten D Finnegan o Kelly E Kmirons Stiles Lauren E.Stiles VIA EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERY I �� PatriciaJ Russell MAR 2 3 2016 Reza Ebhmu Bryan J rDrago John M. Bredemeyer III, President Bernadette E.Tuthill Board of Trustees ---- -- — - ! Craig H.Handler .0:illi:(I 1u;1,1 Alexandra Halsey-Storch Town of Southold z j Melissa S Doris Town Hall Annex/First Floor - Daniel R Bernard. 54375 Route 25 OF COUNSEL Kevin M.For Southold,New York 11971 Karen A.Hoeg Jennifer P Nigro o NY S LA BARS Re: Board of Trustees Application of Oki-Do Ltd.,Dr. Kazuko J LL IN TAXATION Tatsumura Hillyer,President ♦ NYS NJ BARS O NY,NJ S PA BARS SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1 2835 Shipyard Lane,East Marion, New York Dear Mr. Bredemeyer: This office represents the Cleaves Point Condominiums whose address is 2820 Shipyard Lane, East Marion, which are located directly across Shipyard Lane to the east of Applicant's commercial property. We submit this letter in response and in opposition to the application of Oki-Do Ltd. for a Trustees permit for replacement of 1,323 linear feet of"functional and non-functional"bulkheading, and construction of a 505 linear foot(3,640 sq. ft.) rock revetment along Gardiner's Bay. Additionally, the Applicant seeks to dredge the existing channel between the boat basin and Gardiner's Bay and remove 4,622 cubic yards of sediment, and to replace 186 linear ft. of"non-functional" channel jetties. In addition, the Applicant seeks to replace a 8'x70' linear ft. dock in the boat basin with a floating dock in a new location. Furthermore, the Applicant seeks to implement a planting plan within a 5,086 square- 20 MainHER StreeFICE t LOCATIONS foot portion of the boat basin intertidal zone. This application should be denied on 20 Main Street East Hampton,NY 11937 the grounds that the Applicant is clearly seeking to segment this longstanding project 631 324 1200 and, in addition,the Applicant should be directed to file any applications to develop 51 Hill Street the roe with the Town Planning Board who has been designated as the lead Southampton,NY 11968 property�' g g 631 287 0090 agent under SEQRA. 490 Wheeler Road Suite 1650 Hauppauge,NY 11788 631 265.1414 56340 Main Road PO Box 325 Southold,NY 11971 631.765.2300 Y � �`p March 23, 2016 _� _fit Page 2 f�� MAR 2 3 2016 BACKGROUND FACTS Southold Town SEQRA T This project was initially commenced by the Applicant by the filing of a site plan in the Southold Town Planning Department back in June 2003. In 2006, the Applicant's site plan application filed with the Southold Town Planning Board sought to construct a holistic health center with transient motel rooms, spa, restaurant, gift shop,personal service treatment suites, manager's residence, and pool, including replacement of the existing bulkhead, and dredging of the private marina basin. In fact, the EAF filed by the Applicant in 2006 included in the project description"... reconstruction of existing bulkheading, dredging, removal of deteriorated shoreline protective structures, construction of new shoreline protective structures ..." On July 11, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617, Article 6 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), initiated the SEQRA process for this Type I action pursuant to Part 617.4 (b)(6)(i). After assuming lead agency,the Planning Board, on September 11, 2006, issued a Positive Declaration under SEQRA, and therefore,the Planning Board required the Applicant to prepare and file a Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS). When the DEIS eventually was submitted by the Applicant in September 2008,the Planning Board requested on November 18, 2008, among other things,revisions to the site plan. In fact, in a letter from the Planning Board to the Applicant's attorney dated April 24, 2013 (copy attached), the Planning Board not only required an updated site plan application, it directed the Applicant to file "... concurrent updating of the applications with the other Town agencies with jurisdiction, including the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Board of Trustees. These applications will all be run concurrently to avoid segmentation of the SEQRA process." (Emphasis added). Two years later, in a June 5, 2015 Planning Board letter to the Applicant's attorney, a copy of which is attached, the Planning Board found that because of the amount of time that had elapsedi.e 9 years since the SEQRA scoping was conducted), and because of the inability of the Applicant to address a number of the Planning Board's concerns identified in the original scope, the Applicant was required to start anew under SEQRA, including beginning with a new scoping session and filing a revised site plan application with the Planning Board. The Applicant did not follow the Planning Board's directions. Instead, in an effort to circumvent the SEQRA process,the Applicant is now claiming that the project as proposed is to "protect and restore"the shoreline. In a letter dated October 8, 2014 to the Army Corps. of Engineers seeking a permit, Jun Yan of VHB Engineering claimed that the"work is necessary in order to protect the property from erosion ... and to protect and enhance the habitat of the basin." If this in fact is the purpose of the project, then the Applicant, under SEQRA, should have reapplied to the Planning Board as the lead agent and not to the Trustees. The purposes of the SEQRA process include providing comprehensive input in the decision-making process for use by involved agencies in preparing their own findings and issuing decisions on their respective permits. The DEIS is required to contain, among other things, technical information and an analysis to allow the lead agent to make a determination whether a project may have a significant E C DiD March 23, 2016 MAR 2 3 2016 Page 3 L $Outhoid To�Vr� f Tru e adverse environmental impact. The SEQRA review process is critical in commercial projects such as this, especially when the project involves construction and reconstruction of structures on the shoreline and in water bodies, which the Applicant's application itself states will "physically disturb" 5.4 acres, within a property which the application states contains 64,904 square feet of wetlands, and which the Applicant proposes that 4,622 cubic yards of material in the public domain be dredged. The Applicant's attempt to seek approval from the Trustees including a new, relocated floating dock that appears to have expanded to a proposed 8' x 60' floating dock plus a proposed 5' x 30' proposed ramp, and a proposed 4,622 cubic yards of material to be dredged, is a clear attempt to segment this thirteen year old project. SEQRA prohibits "segmentation,"which is defined as the "division of the environmental review of an action such that various activities or states are addressed under this Part as though they were independent, unrelated activities, needing individual determinations of significance." 6 NYCRR 617.2. Segmentation is prohibited because if a proposal is broken into enough pieces, each piece may not seem significant, although the impact of the sum of the pieces may be significant. In Sun Company, Inc. v. City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency, 209 A.D. 2d 34, 625 NYS 2d 371 (4th Dept. 1995),the court held that SEQRA review of the Carousel Landing Project could not be segmented from environmental review of the redevelopment plans for the Onondaga Lakefront Area. See also, Kirk-Astor Drive Neighborhood Ass'n v. Town Board of Town of Pittsford, 106 A.D. 2d 868, 483 NYS 2d 526 (4th Dept. 1984). Under the segmentation analysis,the Applicant here is the same owner("... the different segments under the same ... ownership"), the project is in the same location("... a common geographic location"), and the present proposal is part of the same project ("... a component of an identifiable overall plan") that was before the Planning Board over ten years ago. See The SEQRA Handbook(New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). While the Applicant asserts that there is a need for its proposal by claiming it is to preserve its property, what does a new floating dock,reconfigured jetties, or large-scale dredging have to do with preserving their property? The answer is absolutely nothing. And if there was an urgent need, where has the Applicant been for the past 10 years? There has been an inadequate study and information furnished to the Trustees to demonstrate the effects on the shoreline and neighboring properties of this very substantial amount of work, including what effect the dewatering on site of 4,022 cubic yards of sediments and the 3,640 sq. ft. rock revetment will have on the indigenous species, neighboring properties and shorelines. Due to the dynamic nature of shorelines, it is often difficult to predict the precise impacts of coastal structures such as the reconstruction and reconfiguration of the jetties. The reconstruction of the jetties may result in severe impacts to downdrift properties. Additionally, there has been no analysis or impact study done of the effects of reconfiguring the jetties, which may also constitute a navigable hazard. As is evident from aerial photographs,the jetty to the east have clearly interrupted the longshore transport of sediment. There has been substantial accretion of sediment resulting in the establishment of duneibeach habitat along the shoreline to � 6 ;s �s MAR 2 3 2016 - March 23, 2016 Page 4 LL5�ilL f 7r the east. What will be the impact to beach habitat and surrounding shorelines if the jetties are reconstructed? TOWN CODE Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shoreline As stated in the Southold Town Code, Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shoreline was enacted in part due to the significant increase in the applications for and the numbers of fixed and floating piers and docks accessory to upland residential and other uses. As these structures and the uses they support are located on or in publicly owned land and waters,they have "some effect on physical, biological, ecosystem functions and values, development patterns and the aesthetic character of the area,"making it"essential to regulate the type and placement of such structures." Chapter 275-3(A). Significantly, the Code does not allow for the replacement of a "largely non-functional" bulkhead. What it does allow for is in place replacement of existing "functional"bulkheads. Also, under Town Code Section 275-11,the proposed floating dock (with a 5' x 30' ramp and an 8' x 60' floating dock") vastly exceeds the limit of 120 square feet. DREDGING, JETTY HAZARDS AND POLLUTION The Applicant's proposal also includes dredging a very substantial amount of materials within the public domain, i.e., 4,622 cubic yards according to the Applicant,that should remain in the public domain. Clearly,there are many public uses for the dredged sand, and the Applicant should not be allowed to keep the sand for its own purposes. Furthermore, the Planning Board should not allow the groin/jetty to extend into waters because of the potential impact upon neighboring shorelines and navigation. Likewise,the Board should not allow any treated lumber for the bulkhead sheathing due to its potential adverse impacts upon the environment. There is also no evaluation or discussion by the Applicant of potential pollutants that will be released into the Bay as a result of the proposed massive dredging and treated lumber proposed to be used for the large bulkhead. Even more significant is that no analysis or study has been done to discuss the environmental impacts to neighboring shorelines and native habitats when the boat basin is dredged. Certainly, at a minimum,the Applicants should be required to study and report upon the potential impacts that the proposed large-scale dredging will have on surrounding properties and their habitat, so that the Town can protect its shoreline,beaches and residents. Additionally,the Applicant has not provided any Construction Protocol detailing how the jetties are going to be reconstructed and how the property will be accessed to perform the reconstruction work. There is also no information provided as to where the construction materials and debris will be stored. FLOODING There is also no evaluation or discussion in the application about storm water runoff that could potentially flood Shipyard Lane if the bulkhead was reconstructed, and the potential for March 23, 2016 MAR 2 3 2016 Page 5 So61hu'sd {uvm, B and of Tru eP flooding of neighboring properties, including Cleaves Point Condos. The Applicant has not proposed any flooding control devices such as catch basins that would aid in storm water runoff. COMMUNITY SAFETY For years, neighbors have complained about the unsafe conditions that exist at the subject property, including inadequate fencing, which enable teens and others to access the property. At present,there is no fencing on Gillette Drive, and the fencing on Shipyard Lane is in disrepair. The Applicant should be directed to remedy this situation immediately. CONCLUSION Not knowing and fully identifying the environmental impacts of this large-scale commercial project is the reason why a complete SEQRA review is critical. The application should be denied and the Applicant should be required, as it had been directed by the Planning Board in April 2013 and again in June 2015 (see attachments),to submit a revised site plan to the Planning Board to start the SEQRA process, including a coordinated review. Under Section 275-12,the Trustees may direct the issuance of a permit only if they determine that such operations will not substantially: "[a]dversely affect the wetlands of the Town, [c]ause damage from erosion,turbidity or siltation, [c]ause saltwater intrusion into the fresh water resources of the Towm, [a]dversely affect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the natural habitat thereof, [i]ncrease the danger of flood and storm-tide damage, [c]hange the course of any channel or the natural movement or flow of any waters, [w]eaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity, [o]therwise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town, or [a]dversley affect the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas." Without a thorough, complete and coordinated environmental review under SEQRA, the impact of this project cannot be adequately assessed at this time, and a number of the above-cited concerns may be adversely affected. Therefore, the application should be denied, and Applicant should be directed to proceed before the Planning Board to begin its SEQRA review. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. Kindly file this letter in the record. Ve t yours, aren . oe David M. Dubin MAILING ADDRESS: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 0�SQU P.O.Box 1179 DONALD J.WILCENSM b�� rye Southold,NY 11971 Chair OFFICE LOCATION: WILLIAM J.CREME RS 41 Town Hall Annex PIERCE RAFFERTY G ' 54375 State Route 25 JAMES H.RICH III (cor.Main Rd.&Youngs Ave.) MARTIN H_SiDOR O`�CQ(]iY l�y��y Southold,NY IY 1 Telephone:631765-1938 Fax:631765.3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 24, 2013 D. " ESV Patricia C. Moore, Esq. MAR 2 3 2016 6 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 . Souihoid sown Board of Trus e Re: Site Plan for Shizen, SCTM#1000-38-7-7.1 Dear Ms. Moore: The Planning Board has reviewed your letter dated March 8, 2013, providing a response to our request for a justification for your client's four and a half year delay in submitting a revised DEIS for this application.The Board has accepted the reason provided;however upon review of the file and surrounding circumstances, the Board has found that too much time has passed to simply pick up the application process where'it was left in November, 2008. Since that.time there have been Southold Town Code changes, changes to FEMA flood maps, as well as potential changes to property itself from a series of storms which were known to have eroded shorelines-in this'area.These and any other changes require that the application be updated. To continue processing this site plan application,the applicant must update the site plan application to ensure it is consistent with all current Town Code and any other applicable requirements. Please update and submit all relevant Planning Board site pian application forms and plans.This update must include a'revised Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department, as well as concurrent updating of the applications with the other Town agencies with jurisdiction, including the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Board of Trustees.These applications will all be run concurrently to avoid segmentation of the SEQRA process. . I In addition, the SEQRA documents will also need to be updated to be consistent with current requirements,though to what extent remains to be determined.The Planning Board will apply the previously paid site plan application fee to the updated application. Please, if you have any questions regarding this site plan or its process, do not hesitate to call this office. Very truly yours, 0o � Donald J.Wilcenski Chairman cc: Michael J.Verity, Chief Building Inspector Leslie Weisman, Chairperson,Zoning Board of Appeals James F. King, Board of Trustees President rCE 6{ ;i� 5 !yt MAR 2 3 2016 So�fth,lid Tovrn Board of Truslees 2 4 , * MAILING ADDRESS: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ��®V so jty� P.O.Box 1179 DONALD J.WILCENSKI Southold,NY 11971 Chair OFFICE LOCATION: WILLIAM J.CREMERS G Town Hall Annex PIERCE RAFFERTY i0 64376 State Route 25 JAMES H.RICH III {� (cor.Main Rd.&Youngs Ave.) MARTIN H.SIDOR CQUI { Southold,NY Telephone:631765-1938 www.southoldtownny.gov PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 5, 2015 ® E E � V 'I Patricia C. Moore DID Attorney at Law MAR 2 3 2016 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Southold Town Re: Shizen/Oki-Do Ltd. Board Pi Trustees SCTM#1000-38-7-7.1 Dear Ms. Moore: I am writing in response to your letter dated May 22, 2015. At our meeting with you and your team on April 24, 2013, you explained to us how the project referenced above would be changing. At that meeting we all agreed that, due to those changes and the very long time since the original Notice of Disapproval (February, 2006), the next step to move this forward was to submit the new plans to the Building Department for a revised Notice of Disapproval, and revise the site plan application and all related forms accordingly. We also stated at that April, 2013 meeting that the Planning Board may need to conduct the scoping process again for SEQRA,to account for any changes that may have occurred during the time lag. To date, almost nine years have passed since SEQRA scoping was conducted. The Planning Board will be able to determine this after having the opportunity to review the revised application materials, including the new EAF required under SEQRA. Over two years have passed since our last meeting, and the Planning Board has not yet received a revised application. Regarding the check you have returned to us, the Planning Board does not have the authority to accept them. All documentation needed for accepting funds to be held in our Deferred Revenue account have expifed and cannot be renewed until a revised application is submitted.We have enclosed the check for you to return to your client. At such time when new funds are needed to cover the Planning Board's costs for review of O a Southold Town.Planning Board Page 2 June 5, 2015 a future DEIS, the applicant will be advised as to the amount required. This cannot be known until the application has been revised and re-evaluated under the current circumstances. Please call me with any questions. We look forward to receiving your revised site plan application materials. Sincerely, Heather Lanza, AICP Town Planning Director Encls. E � V E Cc: William Duffy, Town Attorney 11D MAR 2 3 2016 i Souihoid Torn BoaBoaW of Trustees PO BOX 747 1250 Shipyard Lane East Marion,NY 11939 March 22,2016 Dear Southold Town Trustees, My family lives on Shipyard Lane in East Marion. We built our house,with the help of my parents, 10 years ago knowing there was an abandoned oyster factory at the end of the road. We knew that there was always the potential for something to be built on this property. My husband and I work locally, I as a teacher and my husband as a mechanic. We have one son who is 8. We work very hard each day to be able to afford to live in Southold Town. We decided to live in East Marion because it is a hamlet in which you know your neighbors and you're not afraid to let your children ride their bike. In the summer this is almost impossible now. The magnitude of the OKI DO project is just too big for a small hamlet like East Marion or let alone anywhere in Southold Town. It would destroy the quality of life as we know it here. No more kids riding their bikes or playing in the yard. This type of project would create a ghost town in East Marion. No one will want to live here, except for the workers who will end up renting,because I can't imagine they will be able to afford to live in the town. What concerns us now is that effort to get approval for a part of this OKI DO project. We wrote the Army Corps. Of Engineers(many households, as well as our 2 associations)asking that they deny the application of August 2014 for dredging. Now it seems that the applicant is attempting a back door effort to get a part of the project approved. By segmenting, she can point to"progress"and more easily continue. Why are you granting a public hearing? There is NO current DEIS,no plan for environmental remediation. The lagoon is full of lead paint chips, likely asbestos, and who knows what else. The channel has been closed for more than 20 years. That is nature's way. If nothing else,the pond should be drained prior to any trustee action. Quality of water, wetlands, and our bays depend on your actions tonight. Jetties,floating docks; there has never been a floating dock on that property. All should wait until the entire project is vetted and the ZBA acts on the laundry list of variances considered. Don't fall for a trick. Let this application,which is beginning again,unfold as it should. Please remember with approval for this segment of the project you will be changing the waterfront for the Town of Southold residents. OkLv E VEEIIDDatore Agosta aA— MAR 2 3 2016 Southold Town B a of Tru ee BOX 779 East Marion,NY 11939 March 22,2016 Dear Southold Town Trustees, Summit Estates Homeowners Association would like it noted e t and are emsobe tryinst the current o t OKI DO project. The owner has not been transparent with her is realized that she has started the project segment a project so she W� k door an tiers o thet town trustee board. knowing there are two ne We vehementlyoppose the currently request for a Wetland permit and Coastal erosion permit it f or The owner is not looking to"clean"up the property fo safety, as the restoration of the property. doesn't the owner have to follow it could be deemed dangerous in its current condition. Why town code when it comes to maintaining her property? Sincerel , ummit Estates Homeowners Association MAR 2 3 2016Board 3' Sa;�tt�uid 1cw�� f Trusloes ,4 r March 23, 2016 To Southold Town Trustees, I am writing this letter to voice my concern over the proposed OKI-DO dredging and bulkheading project.The property located at 2835 shipyard lane has been neglected after its closing in 1986. Since that time there has been no attempt by previous or current owner to prevent any damage or erosion to said property. I have multiple concerns. First would be any ground or water contamination.The buildings and structures were built during times when use of asbestos and lead paint were extensive.The buildings have been so extensively damaged that portions of it are located all across the property including the water and waterfront. I am also concerned with the cesspools along the waterfront and any contamination that may have resulted from their exposure. Numerous discharge pipes that dump out along the bulkhead should also-be'tested for contamination to the surrounding areas. What cleanup and remediation-will be-performed prior to any work? My'next'concern,is in regards to public access along the waterfront.The neglect ofthis property has led to public beach access below the high tide mark for the entire stretch of beach between ? Gillette.Drive and-Shipyard Lane.The former channel has been completely filled in cutting off the:ma'rina'ba'sin from the bay.There is a very large section of beach that is now in its place. Water flow from the bay to the basin is cut off completely except for certain times of storm surge combined' 'With high tides. I am concerned that this project will prevent future public access that has been available for many years. No prior attempts have been made to protect or repair the waterfront. I believe since the channel was abandoned years ago that this should be treated as a new project and not simply repairs. I also have concerns about any backfilling covering up,contamination from the former oyster factory.There will also be a significant impact on the marine life that lives in the shallow waters and beach of the proposed dredging area. I hope that the town takes all of these points into consideration when reviewing the application by OKI-DO. Sincerely, D E C E � V E Brian Wills MAR 2 3 2016 Southold Town Jana Zapletalova E C EIVE DD J.Kent Email: jkemail.pobox@gmail.com Phone: ��(�1)�✓��"5 MAR 2 3 2016 J 03/23/2016 Southold Town Board of Trustees Subject: The oyster factory site, Shipyard Lane, East Marion SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1. To the Southold Town Board of Trustees: We the property owners adjacent to the site, residents and members of the public are concerned about the current proposals for the old oyster factory site on Shipyard Lane in East Marion SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1. The proposed site is known as Oyster Factory (also Oyster Farm or Oyster Plant). This plant became operational in 1940 and closed its operation in spring 1986. The site is abandoned for about 30 years. The site is now in a state of disrepair; the channel to the boat basin is closed; the bulkhead is in disrepair; and the docks are virtually nonexistent. The proposed action for a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion and the restoration of the subject property brings out more questions than answers. The lack of sufficient information causes extreme public concerns. For example, what is in the marina basin? Would the proposed dredging release various pollutants and toxins into the bay? Perhaps the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) should be initiated. SEQRA requires the environmental values to be integrated within the planning and approval process. The SEQRA defines environment— quoting: "... the physical conditions that will be affected by a proposed action, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, resources of agricultural, archeological, historic or aesthetic significance, existing.patterns of population concentration, distribution or growth, existing community or neighborhood character, and human health." Shipyard Lane is a residential area that changed since 1940's. A large number of small children are living on Shipyard Lane. There are around 50 private homes and 62 condominium units. The existing East Marion community and/or neighborhood character changed as well since 1940's. We the property owners adjacent to the site, residents and members of the public are concerned about the current proposed application. However, we have right now more questions about this huge proposed project than acceptable answers. Jana Zapletalova J.Kent Hand Delivered Petition Southold Town Board of Trustees 03/23/2016 a E E 11 E DD MAR 2 3 2016 Jana l l Za etaova f p Southold Torn Boo Of Trustees J.Kent Email: jkemail.pobox@gmail Phone: 1(631)477-5915 To the Southold Town Board Trustees: We the undersigned are property owners, residents and members of the public interested in the development proposals for the old oyster factory site on Shipyard Lane in t anon SCTM # 1000-38-7-7.1 � We are worried about what we do not know. MAR 2 3 1116 �IIU We do not know what environmental impacts would result fi om efmi*nsed shoreline rocks, new bulkheads and dredging. s ara-ulflurus 0 We do not know what is in the bottom of the former boat basin. We do not know at what point "maintenance and repairs" ends and proposed actions are considered new construction. Print Name ign a Date Contact Phone/Email ;Y =-- l'----- --- -------- - ----�--- --------------------------��---���---------------i�- ----------------- --------- -�- ` - ---------------- --- --- -------- ----------------- L9 %c--------------------� -1 � --- --- __I__ ________________ _ zZ 17 ____ ___ _ ___________________________ ? ----- = �- - `=---- --- -------- -!!2'=1--!=�L -4- - -------------------------- ---------------------------- ---- - 5 ---------= --J� - =---- 4fie�--- ------ ---- -- ---- - --- --- 7 7 -------------- ----C�--- -�w------------------------------------------------------ To the Southold Town Board Trustees: We the undersigned are property owners, residents and members of the public interested in the development proposals for the old oyster factory site on Shipyard Lane in East Marion SCTM # 1000-38-7-7.1 L� V UWe are worried about what we do not know. MAR 2 3 2016 We do not know what environmental impacts would result fro p `rmittin the ro os d c�,m l shoreline rocks, new bulkheads and dredging. Sau;ha!d�a a f d +=e We do not know what is in the bottom of the former boat basin. We do not know at what point "maintenance and repairs" ends and proposed actions are considered new construction. Print Name Signature Date Contact Phone/Email Z6 L 7- -----�- ,r�==`-`=- --PA u r�a�2� ---- ---- -- -��-- ----- = -=t ------------------------------------------- r 7-6 IV /v VJV Li✓ ,000L� �L/1�G9�vL �-/ I�77 .3_3 -C - -- -- ------C14 - - -- - -- -------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------- --------- -- - - - ------ ------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ----- -- -- --- ---r- -10 Q _/- ----------- ------------------------------------- FAh IL�I �� �� 71z 10 7C2q 1 ------------------------- ----------------------------------- - ------------------- -- - ----- --------------------------------- h --------------------------------Q`- _---fir-- ---- ------- - - ---------------- - - ---- --- -------���� tZZ � To the Southold Town Board Trustees: We the undersigned are property owners, residents and members of the public interested in the development proposals for the old oyster factory site on Shipy # 1000-38-7-7.1 t <i We are worried about what we do not know. MAR 2 3 2016 We do not know what environmental impacts would result fro pe i j shoreline rocks, new bulkheads and dredging. t r us We do not know what is in the bottom of the former boat basin. We do not know at what point "maintenance and repairs" ends and proposed actions are considered new construction. Print Name Signature Date Contact Phone/Email -------------------------- -- - , --, -2---`---- ----- k -1- ------------------------------------------ -� -- -- ---------------�,, ------� �-�1�. ---------------------------------------------- ----- ---------------------------------=---------- ---- -- ----------------- -- 5 "------ -j1h ---------- - -- --- ----- �-1 � --3 --1�----------------------------------------------- ' ________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ------ ------------------------------------ -------7------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 QIII-x- 5 � 6 D ),, w To the Southold Town Board Trustees: We the undersigned are property owners, residents and members of the public interested in the development proposals for the old oyster factory site on Shipyard Lane in East Marion SCTM # 1000-38-7-7.1 D " E We are worried about what we do not know. 4� MAR 2 3 2016 We do not know what environmental impacts would result from p rmi ting the proposed shoreline rocks, new bulkheads and dredging. Southold Town Board of Trustees We do not know what is in the bottom of the former boat basin. We do not know at what point "maintenance and repairs" ends and proposed actions are considered new construction. Print Name Signature Date Contact Phone/Email ,94-4a�--E--------- - -- - ----------------------------- cu - OIL----------------------- i - - - ----� --------------�:- ------ 1s)a�L -! ------- -- 1 Imo) �� J2 ---------- f F ._Z _ ___ ---► _ �7__= J g-�l_� --------- 3-11-71 ------- --------- --------- ----------- ------- --- 1_. ----------------------------------- --------- 1 ------------ 0 OA- ----- ---------------------- -- -�- - --- ---- ----�-- ------------ -��- -�9-- ------- 2Z4- 1 '� , ------------ ------------------------------ - --- ------------------------ -------------- ----------------------- To the Southold Town Board Trustees: We the undersigned are property owners, residents and members of the public interested in the development proposals for the old oyster factory site on Shipyard Lane in East Marion SCTM # 1000-38-7-7.1 D 0 rim We are worried about what we do not know. fiS AR t• We do not know what environmental impacts would result from pe ittingM Mthe propose shoreline rocks, new bulkheads and dredging. i Soarhaltl Town B of Tr mtees We do not know what is in the bottom of the former boat basin. _ We do not know at what point "maintenance and repairs" ends and proposed actions are considered new construction. Print Name Signature Date Contact ,Phone/Email c - 2 C,Y�co,W,3s 4-e V\�q CV-0 3 __ a vvC� h ------------ ---------- -- - � ------------ -- - -------------------------------------------- 171- ------ -'�('-'- ------=1 -------------- ==---------- ---------- - -------------------------------- -----------------��w-�-- ----------------------------- ---- -- ---- --------------f/-ze- /-- -------- -------- ---- - 249 Ir- V-- vvz� _- �- -------------------------- -------------------------- _ I C�iJ Gil'L�3 7�1 ____ _ -____ _ __ _ _ _ ______ _ _ _ �_ _ ____ ____ To the Southold Town Board Trustees: We the undersigned are property owners, residents and members of the public interested in the development proposals for the old oyster factory site on Shipyard Lane in East Marion SCTM # 1000-38-7-7.1 We are worried about what we do not know. Dy � We do not know what environmental impacts would result from per ittg JAeRproposed shoreline rocks, new bulkheads and dredging. soudidd To ji Board of Trustees We do not know what is in the bottom of the former boat basin. We do not know at what point "maintenance and repairs" ends and proposed actions are considered new construction. Print Name Signature Date Contact Phone/Email o�__�r_rjn --�iL -------� 11-------------- �36)3-=Z-L-/2-.z------------------------- (-------.��=�� & -- ------------6 ------------------------------ 7,---�-----1- - 3-e�' ------------ 4-2 0------LjKkzIAt-V4---------------- -�� -------------G 3 _ �� �-1 l ------------------- -- 1�-�!=- - - --------!-���--�-�' --------------------------�°=�-�-=-3-Z= --==--0`---- ---------------- --`==��`1--- -JL -�,- ------------------- ------------------------------ 0 ----------------------------- ' r ---- -------------------------------------------- • s To the Southold Town Board Trustees: We the undersigned are property owners,residents and members of the publiinterestedin.xhe__dey_elopment proposals for the old oyster factory site on Shipyard Lane in East Marion SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1 , We are worried about what we do not know. 1`' MAR 2 3 2016 ' t i We do not know what environmental impacts would result from permitting t e proposed shoreline rocks,,new bulkheads and dred n �- -- ---� g c,!Wo:d WIMI boprd of fru ee We do not know what is in the bottom of the former boat basin. We do not know at what point"maintenance and repairs"ends and proposed actions are considered new construction. Print Name Signature Date Contact Phone/Email --- ------------RD -- 1«r-i Sn�r @ � R�i d�� rv� ------------- - �---- ----- ------- --�1`--JOC� tc_ �✓Y1,4���C��1- ------- ----- — ---- ---- --- - - --- -- --- -Dum---- ------ 9z- --- ---= - J- - ----=---------------------------------------- j fl`It t�.�(t_tS �,�3 -- 1191�.ol� �c1�r�e��1 yc�1�oD crn, -------------------------------- vlq /qol� J--LYqLI-Qo-o-@ Ah ----�-- --------- - - ------------ --------- -- ------------------------------ - -------------------------------- --- ---------------------- ------------------- - ------------------ -� - ------------------------------ - - ---------------------- =----------------- - To the Southold Town Board Trustees: We the undersigned are property owners, residents and members of the public interested in the development proposals for the old oyster factory site on Shipyard Lane in East Marion 5LM # 1000-38-7-7.1RI E C E 19 E We are worried about what we do not know. DD MAR 2 3 2016 We do not know what environmental impacts would result from erm2'ttm the shoreline rocks, new bulkheads and dredging. Southold To n B a of Tru ees We do not know what is in the bottom of the former boat basin. We do not know at what point "maintenance and repairs" ends and proposed actions are considered new construction. Print Name Signature Date Contact Phone/Email 02,/9, 10/-C eolwd 0 !R U N C� t-40A 41 02. /9. jwle 9mar Norte --- -------------------------- ------ -- ------ ---- --------------------- -- ---- ---- ------------- Z�e-Z�------- - ---- �-�-n =---_��__c - --- -.�- --- - --------- ------ 3 -==-�7-= - ------------ r c7 �? ---------—------3------------ 7 --- --C-�p�4� GAJ- 77F ; --- ------- ---------------------------7 7Z'- Z,5 --1 aih_ -s- Cbc)---I �U - - - -- ---��� ��---���-_�7Z-��Z-z--------------------- To the Southold Town Board Trustees: We the undersigned are property owners, residents and members of the public interested in the development proposals for the old oyster factory site on Shipyard L 1000-38-7-7.1 ® E CDi � ' We are worried about what we do not know. ROAR 2 3 2016 We do not know what environmental impacts would result from pe itt' , shoreline rocks, new bulkheads and dredging. r T� We do not know what is in the bottom of the former boat basin. We do not know at what point "maintenance and repairs" ends and proposed actions are considered new construction. Print Name Signature Date Contact Phone/Email �.�S-, �e_ �-0- �----- -----------------------3-r S_1 ------------L 3 ---� y-- �=� ----------------------- -- --- - --------- 1_t ---------------- - - -- ---------------- 5-11- --------------`5.1 =1 ------ 3 l-q--�-�---=-a-kE-7(P CA `.��� _ _________ l_ _1__ _____s �_=_ 3 ______ --------- To the Southold Town Board Trustees: We the undersigned are property owners, residents and members of the public interested in the development proposals for the old oyster factory site on Shipyard L East Maw 1000-38-7-7.1 , E C E IVE D We are worried about what we do not know. MAA 2 3 2016 We do not know what environmental impacts would result from pe ittL g4", g e shoreline rocks, new bulkheads and dredging. Board of Tmtees We do not know what is in the bottom of the former boat basin. We do not know at what point "maintenance and repairs" ends and proposed actions are considered new construction. Print Name Signature Date Contact Phone/Email .. - - �- � � ---- -- ---- -------- ---- ------------��-O-Ar ---------/-------------------- 1 . Qc q� ) L -V---- ---- -- - -------- ---- ------------t------I-------- 77.. � �� ------------ -------------------- -- ----- -�-- --------- L��---.��� �-------------- ' -- ----------- --------------------- -- ------- =------ --------------------------- - - - -- ------- 1 --------- �- -- ------- ------------ ---- =--- ------ --► -------------------------- -/--W--- - -------- ---- -------------- --- - I..... ----------------- l_ ------ ------- --- ----------- C, 5, -tv&Y4� 3 2 3 � � ------ ------------------------- ---------------- ---------- -- - ------- -------- --------------------------------------------- 9'I't--------------- ---------- ----- /V ^ N � 21 Z3 - To the Southold Town Board Trustees: We the undersigned are property owners, residents and members of the public interested in the development proposals for the old oyster factory site on Shipyard �� �,, �� 1000-38-7-7.1 L G, , ��� UD We are worried about what we do not know. MAR 2 3 2016 We do not know what environmental impacts would result from pei mijvwd— shoreline rocks, new bulkheads and dredging. Board oj Tru We do not know what is in the bottom of the former boat basin. We do not know at what point "maintenance and repairs" ends and proposed actions are considered new construction. Print Name Signature Date Contact Phone/Email --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Patricia Brennen <pbrenI1111@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 3:38 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Subject: Oki-do This is not good for East Marion. Please listen to our representatives. 1 wA Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Barbara Mckenzie <romacook4you@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 3:54 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth;Congressman Lee Zeldin Subject: Oki DO As a homeowner and as I live on Fire Road # 7 and have owned and paid taxes there for 33 years , I know full well what impact this will be on our small quiet neighborhood '. These people are trying to do PIECEMEAL what the ,government feels is a WHOLE plan ...........The environment is badly impacted . The town resources are squeezed. Or quiet neighborhood is GONE ... What if the entire project FAILS ......?? Are we then left with a HARDSHIP case that we MUST allow ..? This is a SNEAK attack on a plan that must be considered as a WHOLE .....!! Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Konstantina <dkmgns@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 3:57 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Subject: OKI-Do Good afternoon, We are unable to attend the meeting this evening. If you need any feedback from us let me know. Sincerely, Konstantina Miliokas Sent from my iPhone Cantrell, Elizabeth From: mandaplussix@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 5:11 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Subject: Ok I Do Meeting Tonight As residents of Cleaves Point Condominiums on Shipyard Lane,we are strongly against the proposed development at the Oyster Factory property. We believe that the proposed development would have a negative impact on the environment of the area as well as the quality of life. Please do not allow approval of the permits currently being requested by the owners of this property. Thank you. Sincerely, Martin and Audrey Green Audrey E. Green 1 Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Karen Sauvigne <karenlee7a@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 5:16 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Subject: Please do not allow Oki-Do development to ruin out hamlet Mr. John Bredemeyer, President Southold Town Board of Trustees Dear Sir, I am a resident of East Marion and am unable to attend the hearing on Wednesday night. I am writing to voice my opposition to the Oki-Do development project because it is so massive and, environmentally harmful that it will make our waterways and our way of life totally different from what it has been. This is a rural community with deep respect for nature and the water and such a project that includes building bulkheads, dredging of the channel, replacing jetties and docks and adding a huge commercial space (and all that traffic!) will destroy the character of our small community. Please do not allow this harmful development. Please contact me if you would like to discuss this any fiirther. Sincerely, Karen Sauvigne 350 Marion Lane,PO Box 1 East Marion Karen Sauvigne 646-229-9808 i Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Mary Ellen Connors <meinli@optonline.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 5:51 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Subject: Oki-Do This business does not belong in East Marion. My husband and I are totally opposed to it. Traffic is already heavy,in spring,summer and fall with tourists, etc. We truly do NOT need this business contributing year round to our problems. Brian and Mary Ellen Connors, Old Orchard Lane, East Marion Sent from-my iPad i a � 1 Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Adam Irving <adamjirving@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 6:00 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth; Kevin Dowling Subject: Oki-Do Proposal East Marion, NY As an Orient resident I ask that you please oppose the latest proposal for the Oki-Do project in East Marion, NY. The North Fork has an increasingly rare and unique character that should be vigorously defended. I see this proposed project as completely out of character, environmentally harmful and little more than an investor trying to maximize his return on investment Thank you for your consideration, Adam.irving Orient, NY -f Cantrell, Elizabeth From: GKBear64@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 11:39 AM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Subject: Oki-Do project It is not often I feel compelled to contact a Southold Town Official however this situation warrens,such contact. Owning property in East Marion, on the Bay, that my family obtained in 1933 there have been numerous times protection from the elements was necessary and accomplished without objection and in more recent'years with the cooperation of all government agencies involved. The bulkhead/basin situation at the old oyster facility on Shipyard Lane in East Marion requires attention As you no doubt know the bulkhead on Orient Harbor is now almost non-existent with the land between it and the building'eroding into the bay. Similar conditions exist in the basin as well as the channel-way into the basin This erosion threatens the structural integrity of the buildings involved and surrounding portions of the facility, creating a dangerous situation. I see no reason to deny the owner permits to protect their property, and help protect the road end of.Shipyard Lane, by repairing/replacing a pre-existing structure. This work would off course be done with proper permits from all government agencies involved, including yourselves. I appreciate the EMCA desires to retain the rural atmosphere etc. of the area but a property owner should be able to protect his property from the sea. It could also be possible by those objecting to obtain ownership of this parcel, pay the taxes and leave it sit, as is, if they so desire. George W.Koch . 1 Cantrell, Elizabeth From: csotdl@gmail.com on behalf of Mike Corso <mike@mikecorso.net> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 8:09 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Subject: Oki Do John, I will not be able to attend the meeting but will, via this email, express my strong support of the Oki- Do development. Throughout my life I have usually come down on the side of non-development, however, in this case, the eye sore that is the old oyster factory MUST FINALLY be removed and replaced with, what I am sure, will be a very tasteful complex. Gardiner's Bay and the people of the North Fork deserve better. Oki-Do will surely deliver an improved quality of life for all of us. Mike Corso Greenport NY ------------------ If you cannot attend the meeting please contact: John Bredemeyer Board of Trustees President En yia;1. Southold Town Miall Annex 54375 Main lid. P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 1197.1 Ph: (631) 765-1892 Fx: (631) 765-6641 Hours, Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:09 pr n Also contact ongi'assman Lee ?Mcfln i i 1 Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Dolores Quick <dquick@suffolklaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 2:31 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Cc: Dubin David Esq.; Hoeg Karen Esq. Subject: Board of Trustees application of Oki-Do, Ltd Attachments: 1-Trustees 3-23-16.pdf Elizabeth, Our office represents the Cleaves Point Condominiums, which are located directly across Shipyard Lane to the east of Oki-Do's property. Attached please find for filing with the Board of Trustees a letter in response and in opposition to the above referenced application. The original letter along with copies for the Board of Trustees' members will be delivered to the Board meeting this evening. If you have any questions, please feel free to call our office. Thank you, Dolores Quick Paralegal Dolores Quick Paralegal Twomey,Latham,Shea,Kelley,Dubin&Quartararo,LLP 33 West Second Street,Riverhead,NY 11901 631-727-2180 x 294 Fax 631-727-1767 dquick a suffolklaw coin The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient named above This message may be an attorney- client communication and as such privileged and confidential If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that you have received this message and any attached documents in error,that any review,dissemination,distribution,or copying of the message and documents is strictly prohibited If you have received this message in error,please notify us by telephone immediately and delete it and any accompanying documents 1 febrathI U1rer4Q}�r7rsa 5erlrire Twomey, Latham, t'' ' � .� MAILING ADDRESS. Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo LLP Post Office Box 9393 A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Riverhead,Nein York 11901-9398 MAIN OFFICE: Thomas A.Twomey,Jr. 33 West Second Street (1945-30141 Riverhead,New York 11901-9398 Stephen B.Larhatn John E Shea,III Telephone:631.727.2130 Chrrtnpher D.Kelley Facsimile:631.727.1767 David NI.Dubin www.suffolklaw com Jay P,Quartar to Peter M.hlntt khoeg@suffoll:law.cam Janice L.Snead Anne Matte Gm dale Extension 269 Bryan C.\hut Cott• Direct Fax:631.727.2385 Kathryn Dalli [_tura 1.Dunathatt March 23,2016 Lisa Cl.,Konibrtnk Patrick B.He Wilma 1•I.Sidnr Martin U.Finnegan D E I n,,� E C Kelly E Stiles VIA EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERY es L:ntren E StStiles Pdtddi J.Rthsall Re:a Ebrt ria John M. Bredeme er III President Aryan J.Dngo Y = t MAR 2 3 2016 , Bernadette E.Tuthill Board of Trustees Cru¢1"I.1ltndler , Alexandra 1"lalke-Stureh Town of Southold Melissa S.D„rts Y Town Hall Annex/First Floor oulh©1d ToeYn Daniel R.Bernard 54375 Route 25 OF COUNST.L Kevin nl.Fnx Southold,New York 11971 - - K.tren A.Hoeg Jennifer P.Ntgn,41 Re: Board of Trustees Application of Oki-D6 Ltd.,Dr. Kazuko tt,ii•.„�, ••• Tatsumura Hillyer,President 11"1'11111r”°- SCTM#1000-38-7-7.1 2835 Shipyard Lane,East Marion,New York Dear Mr. Bredemeyer: This office represents the Cleaves Point Condominiums whose address is 2820 Shipyard Lane,East Marion, which are located directly across Shipyard Lane to the east of Applicant's commercial property. We submit this letter in response and in opposition to the application of Oki-Do Ltd. for a Trustees permit for replacement of 1,323 linear feet of"functional and non-functional"bulkheading, and construction of a 505 linear foot (3,640 sq. ft.)rock revetment along Gardiner's Bay. Additionally, the Applicant seeks to dredge the existing channel between the boat basin and Gardiner's Bay and remove 4,622 cubic yards of sediment, and to replace 186 linear ft. of"non-functional" channel jetties. In addition,the Applicant seeks to replace a 8'x70' linear ft. dock in the boat basin with a floating dock in a new location. Furthermore, the Applicant seeks to implement a planting plan within a 5,086 square- 20%'Iain SnTLtFTICE OC:'T10`S foot portion of the boat basin intertidal zone. This application should be denied on ZO\�latn SrreLr E;nt Hampton,NY 11937 the grounds that the Applicant is clearly seeking to segment this longstanding project 631.321.1200 and, in addition,the Applicant should be directed to file any applications to develop 5I aha stton the property with the Town Planning Board who has been designated as the lead Southampton.NY 11969 P p ``'J g g 631187.0090 agent under SEQRA. : 490 Wheeler Road Suite 1656 Hauppauge,NY 11795 631165.1.114 56340 Alain I1mid P.O.Buy 325 Southold,NY 11971 631.765 2300 l a March 23, 2016 Page 2 BACKGROUND FACTS SEQRA This project was initially commenced by the Applicant by the filing of a site plan in the Southold Town Planning Department back in June 2003. In 2006,the Applicant's site plan application filed with the Southold Town Planning Board sought to construct a holistic health center with transient-motel rooms, spa,restaurant, gift shop,personal service treatment suites, manager's residence, and pool,including replacement of the existing bulkhead, and dredging of the private marina basin. In fact,the EAF filed by the Applicant in 2006 included in the project description"... reconstruction of existing bulkheading, dredging,removal of deteriorated shoreline protective structures, construction of new shoreline protective structures ..." On July- 11, 2006,the Southold Town Planning Board,pursuant to Part 61.7,Article 6 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), initiated the SEQRA process for this Type I action pursuant to Part 617.4 (b)(6)(i). After assuming lead agency, the Planning Board, on September 11,2006, issued a Positive Declaration under SEQRA, and therefore,the Planning Board required the Applicant to prepare and file a Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS). When the DEIS eventually was-submitted by the Applicant in September 2008, the Planning Board requested on November 18, 20093- among 008;among other things,revisions to the site plan. In fact, in a letter from the Planning Board to the Applicant's attorney dated April 24, 2013 (copy attached), the Planning Board not only required an updated site plan application, it directed the Applicant to file "•... concurrent updating of the applications with the other Town agencies with jurisdiction, including the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Board of Trustees. These applications will all be run concurrently to avoid segmentation of the SEQRA process." (Emphasis added). Two years-later, in a June 5,2015 Planning'l3oard letter to the Applicant's attorney, a copy of which is attached,the Planning Board found that because of the amount of time that had elapsed i.e 9 years since the SEQRA scoping was conducted), and because of the inability of the Applicant to address a number of the Planning Board's concerns identified in the original scope,the Applicant was required to start anew under SEQRA, including beginning with a new scoping session and filing a revised site plan application with the Planning Board. The Applicant did not fellow the Planning Board's directions. Instead, in an effort to circumvent the SEQRA process, the Applicant is now claiming that the project as proposed is to "protect and restore"the shoreline. In a letter dated October 8, 2014 to the Army Corps. of Engineers seeking a•permit, Jun Yan of VHB Engineering claimed that the"work is necessary in order to protect the property from erosion ... and to protect and enhance the habitat of the basin." If this in fact is the purpose of the project,then the Applicant,under SEQRA,-should have reapplied to the Planning Board as the lead agent and not to the Trustees. The purposes of the SEQRA'process include providing comprehensive input in the decision-making,process for use by involved agencies in preparing their own findings and issuing decisions on their respective permits. The DEIS is required to contain, among other things,technical-information and an analysis to allow the lead agent to make a determination whether a project may have a significant March 23, 2016 Page 3 adverse environmental impact. The SEQRA review process is critical in commercial projects such as this, especially when the project involves construction and reconstruction of structures on the shoreline and in water bodies, which the Applicant's application itself states will"physically disturb"5.4 acres,within a property which the application states contains 64,904 square feet of wetlands, and which the Applicant proposes that 4,622 cubic yards of material in the public domain be dredged. The Applicant's attempt to seek approval from the Trustees including a new,relocated floating dock that appears to have expanded to a proposed 8' x 60' floating dock plus a proposed 5' x 30' proposed ramp, and a proposed 4,622 cubic yards of material to be dredged,is a clear attempt to segment this thirteen year old project. SEQRA prohibits"segmentation,"which is defined as the"division of the environmental review of an action such that various activities or states are addressed under this Part as though they were independent,unrelated activities,needing individual determinations of significance." 6 NYCRR 617.2. Segmentation is prohibited because if a proposal is broken into enough pieces, each piece may not seem significant, although the impact of the sum of the pieces may be significant. In Sun Company,Inc.v. City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency, 209 A.D. 2d 34, 625 NYS 2d 371 (4th Dept. 1995),the court held that SEQRA review of the Carousel Landing Project could not be segmented from environmental review of the redevelopment plans for the Onondaga Lakefront Area. See also,Kirk-Astor Drive Neighborhood Ass'n v. Town Board of Town of Pittsford, 106 A.D. 2d 868,483 NYS 2d 526 (4th Dept. 1984). Under the segmentation analysis,the Applicant here is the same owner("... the different segments under the same ... ownership"),the project is in the same location{"... a common geographic location"), and the present proposal is part of the same project("... a component of an identifiable overall plan")that was before the Planning Board over ten years Mgo. See The SEQRA Handbook(New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). While the Applicant asserts that there is a need for its proposal by claiming it is to preserve its property, what does a new floating dock,reconfigured jetties, or large-scale dredging have to do with preserving their property? The answer is absolutely nothing. And if there was an urgent need, where has the Applicant been for the past 10 years? There has been an inadequate study and information furnished to the Trustees to demonstrate the effects on the shoreline and neighboring properties of tlis very substantial amount of work, including what effect the dewatering on site of 4,022 cubic yards of sediments and the 3,640 sq. ft. rock revetment will have on the indigenous species, neighboring properties and shorelines. Due to the dynamic nature of shorelines, it is often difficult to predict the precise impacts of coastal structures such as the reconstruction and reconfiguration of the jetties. The reconstruction of the jetties may result in severe impacts to downdrift properties. Additionally, there has been no analysis or impact study done of the effects of reconfiguring the jetties, which may also constitute a navigable hazard. As is evident from aerial photographs,the jetty to the east have clearly interrupted the longshore transport of sediment. There has been substantial accretion of sediment resulting in the establishment of dune beach habitat along the shoreline to March 23, 2016 Page 4 the east. What will be the impact to beach habitat and surrounding shorelines if the jetties are reconstructed? TOWN CODE Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shoreline As stated in the Southold Town Code, Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shoreline was enacted in part due to the significant increase in the applications for and the numbers of fixed and floating piers and docks accessory to upland residential and other uses. As these structures and the uses they support are located on or in publicly owned land and waters, they have"some effect on physical, biological,ecosystem functions and values,development patterns and the aesthetic character of the area,"making it"essential to regulate the type and placement of such structures." Chapter 275-3(A). Significantly,the Code does not allow for the replacement of a "largely non-functional"bulkhead. What it does allow for is in place replacement of existing "functional"bulkheads. Also, under Town Code Section 275-11,the proposed floating dock (with a 5' x 30' ramp and an 8' x 60' floating dock")vastly exceeds the limit of 120 square feet. DREDGING.JETTY HAZARDS AND POLLUTION The Applicant's proposal also includes dredging a very substantial amount of materials within the public domain, i.e., 4,622 cubic yards according to the Applicant,that should remain in the public domain. Clearly,there are many public uses for the dredged sand, and the Applicant should not be allowed to keep the sand for its own purposes. Furthermore,the Planning Board should not allow the groin/jetty to extend into waters because of the potential impact upon neighboring shorelines and navigation. Likewise,the Board should not allow any treated lumber for the bulkhead sheathing due to its potential adverse impacts upon the environment. There is also no evaluation or discussion by the Applicant of potential pollutants that will be released into the Bay as a result of the proposed massive dredging and treated lumber proposed to be used for the large bulkhead. Even more significant is that no analysis or study has been done to discuss the environmental impacts to neighboring shorelines and native habitats when the boat basin is dredged. Certainly, at a minimum,the Applicants should be required to study and report upon the potential impacts that the proposed large-scale dredging will have on surrounding properties and their habitat, so that the Town can protect its shoreline,beaches and residents. Additionally,the Applicant has not provided any Construction Protocol detailing how the jetties are going to be reconstructed and how the property will be accessed to perform the reconstruction work. There is also no information provided as to where the construction materials and debris will be stored. FLOODING There is also no evaluation or discussion in the application about storm water runoff that could potentially flood Shipyard Lane if the bulkhead was reconstructed, and the potential for I � March 23, 2016 Page 5 flooding of neighboring properties,including Cleaves Point Condos. The Applicant has not proposed any flooding control devices such as catch basins that would aid in storm water runoff. COMMUNITY SAFETY For years, neighbors have complained about the unsafe conditions that exist at the subject property,including inadequate fencing, which enable teens and others to access the property. At present,there is no fencing on Gillette Drive, and the fencing on Shipyard Lane is in disrepair. The Applicant should be directed to remedy this situation immediately. CONCLUSION Not knowing and fully identifying the environmental impacts of this large-scale commercial project is the reason why a complete SEQRA review is critical. The application should be denied and the Applicant should be required, as it had been directed by the Planning Board in April 2013 and again in June 2015 (see attachments),to submit a revised site plan to the Planning Board to start the SEQRA process,including a coordinated review. Under Section 275-12,the Trustees may direct the issuance of a permit only if they determine that such operations will not substantially: "[a]dversely affect the wetlands of the Town, [c]ause damage from erosion,turbidity or siltation, [c]ause saltwater intrusion into the fresh water resources of the Towm, [a]dversely affect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the natural habitat thereof, [i]ncre'ase the danger of flood and storm-tide darnage, [c]hange the course of any channel or the natural movement or,flow of any waters, [w]ealcen or undennine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity, [o]therwise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the Town, or[a]dversley affect the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas." Without a thorough, complete and coordinated environmental review under SEQRA,the impact of this project cannot be adequately assessed at this time, and a number of the above-cited concerns may be adversely affected. Therefore,the application should be denied, and Applicant should be directed to proceed before the Planning Board to begin its SEQRA review. Thant:you for the opportunity to submit these continents. Kindly file this letter in the record. Ve y t yours, I aren Ioe David M. Dubin +r , . , . •,. M.t1YCJiNG ADDRESS: PLAIVNWG BOARD MTMEERS �pV SO(/ , P.O.Bax 1179 DONALD J.WILCENSM �� rQJ' Southold,NY 11971 Cbdr �O OFFICE LOCATION:- f WILLIAM J.c7rMMrug Town Hall Annex PACE RAF,er r 59375 State Routs 26 JAMES H-RICH III Y� (cor.Main Rd.&Youngs Ave.) MARTIN 33-siDCA <'�COUi , ' Southold,NY Telep4one:631765-1998 rax:631765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 24,'2013 -Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 5.1020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Site Plan for Shizen, SCTM#1000-38-7-7.1 Dear Ms. Moore: 'The,Planning Board has reviewed your letter dated March 8, 2013, providing a response to our request for a justification for your client's four and a half year delay in submitting a revised DEIS for this application.The Board has accepted the reason provided;however upon review of the file and surrounding circumstances,the Board has found.that too much time has.passed to simply pick up the application process where it was left in November,2006. Since that.time there have been Southold Town Code changes, changes to FEMA flood maps, as well as potential changes to property itself from a series of storms which were known to have"eroded shorelines-in this*,area.These and any other changes, require that the application be updated. To continue processing this site plan application,the applicant must update the site plan application to ensure-It is consistent with all current Town Code and any other applicable requirements.Please update and submit all relevant Planning Board site plan application forms and plans.This update must include a.revised Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department, as well as concurrent updating of the•,applicatioris with the other Town agericies with jurisdiction, Including the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Board of Trustees,These applications will all be run concurrently to avoid segmentation of the SEQRA process, 1 1 r j 1 In addition,the SEQRA documents will also need to be updated to be consistent with current requirements,though to what extent remains to be determined.The Planning Board will apply the previously paid site plan application fee to the updated application. Please, if you have any questions regarding this site plan or its process, do not hesitate to call this office. Very truly yours, Donald J.NIcenski Chairman cc: Michael J.Verity, Chief Building inspector Leslie Weisman, CFialrperson,Zoning Board of Appeals James F. King, Board of Trustees President 2 4 ' MAILING ADDRESS: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS R�soyoP.D. ox 1179 1971 DONALD J.WILCENSHI �d l� Southold, Chair OFFICE LOCATION: WILLIAM J.CREbMi RS en Sc Town Hall Annex PM-ROE RAFFERTY ® �O 54376 State Route 25 JAMES M RICH III �(� (cor.Main Rd.&Youngs Ave.) MARTIN H.SIDOR CQjfil(�{,�" Southold,NY Telephone:631765-1938 www.southoldtownny.gov PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 5, 2015 Patricia C. Moore Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Shizen/Oki-Do Ltd. SCTM#1000-38-7-7.1 Dear Ms. Moore: 1 am writing in response to your letter dated May 22, 2015. At our meeting with you and your team on April 24,2013,you explained to us how the project referenced above would be changing. At that meeting we all agreed that, due to those changes and the very long time since the original Notice of Disapproval (February, 2006),the next step to move this forward was to submit the new plans to the Building Department for a revised Notice of Disapproval, and revise the site plan application and all related forms accordingly. We also stated at that April, 2013 meeting that the Planning Board may need to conduct the scoping process again for SEQRA,to account for any changes that may have occurred during the time lag.To date, almost nine years have passed since SEQRA scoping was conducted.The Planning Board will be able to determine this after having the opportunity to review the revised application materials, including the new EAF required under SEQRA. Over two years have passed since our last meeting, and the Planning Board has not yet received a revised application. Regarding the check you have returned to us, the Planning Board does not have the authority to accept them. All documentation needed for accepting funds to be held In our Deferred Revenue account have expired-and cannot be renewed until a revised application is submitted.We have enclosed the check'for you to return to your client.At such time when new funds are'needed to cover the Planning Board's costs for review of ' 4 D Southold Town,Planning Board Page 2 June 5,2015 a future DEIS, the applicant will be advised as to the amount required.This cannot be known until the application has been revised and re-evaluated under the current circumstances. Please call me with any questions.We look forward to receiving your revised site plan application materials. Sincerely, Heather Lanza, AICP Town Planning Director Encls. Cc:William Duffy,Town Attorney Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Bruce Collura <jazool2@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 11:15 AM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Subject: Meeting today Good day. My name is Bruce Collura and I own a home at 170 Manor Rd. East Marion. If I have the option of offering a vote via Email, it would be a vote of NO for this issue re: Oki-Do Ltd. for a permit to restore the shoreline at the old Oyster Factory property at 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion. Unfortunately, I cannot be present to attend the meeting, but this certainly is of great concern to the residents of our Hamlet, considering the impact of what may develop from this proposal. Thank you for your vigilance. Be well. i Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Doroski, Bonnie Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 12:51 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Subject: Emailing: harper letter for truste_20160322114238 Attachments: harper letter for truste_20160322114238.pdf Hard copy to follow Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: harper letter fortruste_20160322114238 Note:To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. E C E I VE MAR 2 2 2016 Southold Town Board gf Trustees 1 MARION MANOR PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION March 21, 2016 John M. Bredemeyer III, President Board of Town Trustees ��C� -i Town of Southold ® ' EIVED Town Hall Annex 1D 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 MAR 2 2 2016 Southold,NY 11971-959 Southold Town Dear Mr. Bredemeyer, &adg-Trustees MMPOA, the Marion Manor Property Owners"Association, represents all the property and homeowners on Gillette and East Gillette Drives and Cleaves Point Road. We are unanimous in our opposition to the present proposal before you to grant a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for the restoration of the Oki-Do property at the site of the Old Oyster Factory. We are asking you to deny the permit because Oki-Do has not met the requirements established by the Town of Southold to submit an acceptable Draft Environmental Impact Statement delineating the effects the project would have on the environment and our lives. Granting a permit for dredging, rock revetment and jetties would signal a piecemeal approval of a project that has not been granted overall approval. As members of the MMPOA many of us spent hours and hours reviewing the woefully inadequate DEIS previously submitted by DEIS. Numbers and figures did not match from one section to another. The proposed solid waste treatment system had never been employed so close to sea level. It became clear to those of us who worked hard to understand what was actually being proposed, that the DEIS seemed to have been cut and pasted from previous projects and did not address the specific impact of such a large project in a vulnerable coastal area. None of these concerns has been addressed to date. There is still no acceptable DEIS, and there is still no approval of the overall project by the Town of Southold. As the immediate neighbors of the proposed project, it is the quality of our lives that hangs here in the balance.As our elected Trustees we turn to you to protect us and our coastline and deny this permit. Resp c fully submitted, Candida Harper MMPOA Executive Committee Representative 290 Cleaves Point Road East Marion,NY 11939 r - . Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Allison Kronick Stein <kronick.allison@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 5:56 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth; eastmarionnews@emca.us Subject: Re: FW: Oyster Factory (Oki-Do) Hearing Wednesday 3/23 Hi John, I am unable to attend the meeting on Wednesday evening and as a result wanted to send along my personal thoughts. I strongly oppose the proposal to restore the shoreline by Oki Do. Not only does it negatively impact the community in the ways listed below by EMCA, but I see it as an underhanded and duplicitous gesture by ' Oki Do to try to build goodwill in the community. If we were to allow Oki Do to restore the shoreline, I am confident that it would be just the first step in a long, multi-stage process to attempt to develop the property into a spa/retreat facility. I have seen and heard of her long term plans for the property, and I am strongly opposed to them. Shoreline restoration, while superficially benign, would put them in a position for a quid pro quo to dredge the small marina, remove the current structures, and begin development of a hotel that would aim to attract hundreds of visitors to tiny/bucolic Shipyard Lane per year. By allowing them to do this, we are giving them the power to begin something much larger,that I assure you, I, nor any of the other residents of the North Fork, would be in a favor of. Thank you for your listening. Best regards, Allison Stein (resident of Gardeners Bay Estates) On Monday, March 21, 2016 12:16 PM, EMCA News <eastmanonnews(a)_emca.us>wrote: T-� NOTICE OF PUBLIC UEARING' I i Oki-Do is Back! Public Hearing This Wednesday, March 23, 2016 5:30 prn at Town all The Town trustees will hold a public hearing on hearing Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 5:30 pm at Southold Town Hall on a request by Oki-Do Ltd. for a permit to restore the shoreline at the old Oyster Factory property at 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion. EMCA has sent written comments opposing this permit application to the trustees and we will attend and speak out against this application at public hearing. Please join us at the hearing to show your support. The application asks for replacement of bulkheads and construction of a rock revetment to protect the replaced bulkheads. dredging of the existing channel between Orient Harbor and the Oyster Factory boat basin, replacement of channel jetties and replacement of the existing dock with a floating dock. The East Marion Community Association wishes to see this property utilized in a way that: has minimal negative impact on the quality of life of the residents of East Marion protects the environment 1respects the rural character of the hamlet preserves open space 0 preserves anti p,-oiects public access to the bay waters for East, Marion 2 residents. l 1 We oppose the Oki-Do development because it is inconsistent with these goals f and will forever change the duality of life and rural character of the north Fork. € € If you cannot attend the meeting please contact: 1 1 John Bredemeyer Board of Trustees President i Email: -1i:. f s r Southold Town ball Annex 1 54375 Bain R . i i P.O. Box 1179 , Southold, NY 11971 Ph: (631) 765-1892, Fx: (631) 765-6641 Hours, Monday- Friday 8:00 ant - 4:00 pm 1 a lso contact 1 ` Congressman Lee Zeldin { f E ('v'7JfigUii;y;SS:)CF:tsliili i;Y;Jtti.,re.Sc:i vrxtj YJ,?arE?'CC<�tt%E11f7'il S c'i}_I.)r1E}t:8>356 fi}.!.'}2,Vx.-n 3'3.E't�81fv5'.€'3 rflt'E_8Sf�,2r"tP€:C..:7rT}C}•f..?I}1:}='.5,'sOC€ii.lfi€} i our r€}aalir3 8c ::;ss is- 4 3 clv vox 6H f E casi U ar#on,DIY 11939 1 Add us to your address book i JI, (VVe'll miss you) I P I 4 Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Eric Stein <estein@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 5:50 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Cc:. eastmarionnews@emca.us Subject: Oki-Do Application and Hearing 3/23 Hi John, As a long time home owner in the nearby Gardiner's Bay Estates (Cedar Lane), I strongly oppose the proposal to restore the shoreline by Oki Do. Not only does it negatively impact the community in the ways'well known to all, but I see it as an underhanded and duplicitous gesture by.Oki Do to try to build goodwill in the community. Restoring the shoreline would be just the first step by Oki Do in along, multi-stage process to attempt to develop the property into a spa/retreat facility. Shoreline restoration, while superficially benign, would put them in a position for a quid pro quo to dredge the small marina,remove the current structures, and begin development of a hotel-that would-aim to attract hundreds of visitors per year to tiny/bucolic Shipyard Lane. While I cannot attend the meeting on Wednesday evening, I hope my views are adequately represented. Cordially, Eric Eric Stein (917) 279-3335 i ? 1 Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Peter Stein <peter.stein@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 5:38 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Cc: eastmarionnews@emca.us Subject: Re: Oyster Factory(Oki-Do) Hearing Wednesday 3/23 Hi John, While I cannot attend the meeting on Wednesday evening, I strongly oppose the proposal to restore the shoreline by Oki Do. Not only does it negatively impact the community in the ways listed below by EMCA, but I see it as an underhanded and duplicitous gesture by Oki Do to try to build goodwill in the community. Restoring the shoreline would be just the first step by Oki Do in a long, multi-stage process to attempt to develop the property into a spa/retreat facility. Shoreline restoration, while superficially benign, would put them in a position for a quid pro quo to dredge the small marina, remove the current structures, and begin development of a hotel that would aim to attract hundreds of visitors per year to tiny/bucolic Shipyard Lane. Don't put this card in their hand! Cordially, Peter On Monday, March 21, 2016 12:16 PM, EMCA News <eastmarionnews(a).emca us>wrote: JI N0TIQ;I3 OF HEARING' PUBLIC II1:A ING' 1 Oki-Do is Back! Public Hearing This Wednesday, March 23, 2016 5:30 prn at Town Hall The Town trustees will hold a public hearing on hearing Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 5:30 pm at Southold Town Hall on a request by Oki-Do Ltd. for a permit to restore the shoreline at the old Oyster Factory property at 2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion. EMCA has sent written comments opposing this permit application to the trustees fF and we will attend and speak out against this application at public hearing. Please join us at the hearing to-show your support. The application asks for replacement of bulkheads and construction of a rock revetment to protect the replaced bulkheads, dredging of the existing channel between Orient Harbor and the Oyster Factory boat basin, replacement of channel jetties and replacement of the existing dock with a f1c.)ating dock. The East Marion Community Association wishes to see this property utilized in a way that: 0 has minimal negative impact on the quality of life of the residents of East Marion C protects the environment a respects the rural character of the hamlet 0 preserves open space preserves and protects public access to the bay waters for East Mss ion residents. 2 We oppose the Oki-Do development because it is inconsistent with these goals and will forever change the quality of life and rural character of the North Fork. If you cannot attend the meeting please contact: John Brederneyer Board of Trustees President Email: - Vl Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Rd. P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Ph: (631) 765-1892 Fx: (631) 765-6641 Hours, Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Also contact Congressman Lee Zeldin Crpynq,­.02616 Easitfvlarmr;, Yo.j are oceiving*h s---na I balwlss V0,1')n,c a nteres-,n the East Martor Commanq Associahon, Our mailing address is: _2s-1v anon Coirrn,n tv Assom'cn -10 Box 621 as'I1`anon,NY 1'939 3 . � / | � Add us to your address book / ' nmayou i . ` . - . . � < � � � ^ Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Dave Cassaro <davecassaro@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 12:34 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Subject: Oki do Please add my name to the list of East Marion residents who oppose this development Thank you David T Cassaro 3345 Cedar Lane East Marion, Ny Cell 646 248 2830 1 - Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Mary Jane Cassaro <maryjanecassaro@mac.com> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 12:38 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Subject: Oki - Do Please add my name to the list of East Marion residents that OPPOSE the Oki-Do development. Regards, Mary Jane Cassaro 3345 Cedar Lane East Marion, NY 516-695-6056 1 Cantrell, Elizabeth From: Robin Imandt <robinimandt@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 5:29 PM To: Cantrell, Elizabeth Subject: East Marion responds to Oki-Do hearing Attachments: Trustee-OKI-DO letter 03-18-16.docx Importance: High _ Dear Mr. Bredemeyer— Attached please find a letter from the East Marion Community Association regarding the Oki-Do property in East Marion. If you would like any further information please contact our Vice President: Anne Murray 477-3491. Thank you. Robin Robin Imandt, President East Marion Community Association www:emca.us robin@emca.us 631-903-7706 1 EAST MARION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION PO BOX 625,EAST MARION,NY 11939 IN{O@P_MCA.1JS March 18, 2016 John M. Bredemeyer III, President Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-959 Dear Mr. Bredemeyer, The Oyster Factory property has unique importance to East Marion and the surrounding communities. The East Marion Community Association wishes to see this property utilized in a way that: has minimal negative impact on the quality of life of the residents of East Marion, protects the environment, respects the rural character of the hamlet,preserves open space, preserves and protects public access to the bay waters for East Marion residents. The East Marion Community Association opposes the Oki-Do development proposed for the Oyster Factory property because it is inconsistent with these goals and will forever change the quality of life and rural character of the North Fork. The East Marion Community Association is committed to working with all interested parties. Including the Town of Southold, state and federal agencies, non-profit preservation groups, educational institutions and current or future owners of the property to support uses of the property consistent with our goals. Back in 2003 the Town of Southold accepted a site plan application from OKI-Do Ltd., the owner of the 18.7 acre former oyster factory parcel, to construct a holistic health center. The East Marion Community Association strongly objects to the granting of a permit to Oki-Do, Ltd. Because we believe that the applicant is attempting to circumvent a thorough environmental review of its intent—a proposed-spa, motel, restaurant and marina—which should be completed under State Environmental Quality Review(SEQR) by the lead agency, the Planning Board of the Town of Southold. Attempting to split the project into smaller segments is a violation'under the State Environmental Quality Review. Back in 2006, the Town Planning Board was established as lead agency, conducted a review and issued a positive declaration under SEQRA. The board required a scoping and final scope, which was adopted on Nov. 6, 2006. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)was submitted and found to be incomplete. A letter requesting revisions to the DEIS was sent to the applicant and no further action was taken by the applicant for five years. J1 On February 26, 2013, the Planning Board issued a letter to the applicant indicating that the application would be withdrawn due to inactivity, unless a letter was submitted in 60 days stating the reasons for the delay. On March 8, 2013, the applicant submitted a response indicating it intended to continue with the site plan, but as of September 2014, no plan was forthcoming. On August 12, 2014, the Army Corps issued a public notice that the applicant applied for a dredging permit. At the time, the Town of Southold Planning Board sent a letter to the Army Corps objecting to the issuance of a permit"until the applicant completed the pending SEQRA process," and said it was still awaiting the DEIS it requested. The Board said SEQR cannot be adequately satisfied if the project is segmented as defined by Part 617.2 (ag), to wit, "the division of the environmental review of an action so that various activities or stages are addressed as though they were independent., unrelated activities needing individual determinations of significance." In essence the board said issuing a permit would be premature until the environmental impact analysis was complete. As a result of the town's concerns, in September 2014, the Army Corps appeared to agree and wrote the applicant: "You must demonstrate to this office that you have satisfied the Town of Southold's request to complete the SEQRA process" and asked for a response in-30 days. When EMCA learned of the trustee hearing to take place on March 23, we examined the file and found that the Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit on August 25, 2015. We do not understand how the Army Corps did this without any notification to the neighborhood. We appreciate that the Town Trustees have notified us of this application. We hope that you will agree that despite the Army Corps approval taking any action now on a permit request is premature until a full environmental review of this massive project is complete. Sincerely, Robin Imandt President East Marion Community Association www.emca.us