HomeMy WebLinkAboutOki-Do, Ltd (2) e
o Planning Transportation Land Development Environmental Services
Creating results for our clients and benefits for our coirununities
October 8,2014
Ref: 28836.00 --------
VIA
_ _
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL—RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
{i {�.l
Mr.Jun Yan,P.E. + OCT ® 9 2014
Project Manager, Eastern Section ;
United States Army Corps of Engineers I )
New York District ---m- -�--r-- _�
5outnold To.m
Jacob K.Javits Federal Building ,_,• _r `nar�1�f T us efs,
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1937
New York,NY 10278-0090
Re: Public Notice Comment Response
USACE Permit Application No. NAN-2013-01475-EYA
Proposed Bulkhead Replacement,Revetment Construction and Maintenance Dredging Project
2835 Shipyard Lane
Hamlet of East Marion,Town of Southold
Suffolk County,New York
Suffolk County Tax Map No.:District 1000—Section 038.00—Block 07.00—Lot No.007.001
Dear Mr.Yan:
VHB Engineering,Surveying and Landscape Architecture,PC(VHB)is in receipt of your two September 19,
2014 letters,which include comments from the Town of Southold Planning Board and the general public
regarding the United States Army Corps of Engineers(USACE)public notice for the above-referenced project
(copies enclosed as Attachment A). Pursuant to your request,VHB is hereby submitting the following
responses on behalf of the applicant and property owner(Oki-Do, Ltd.).
Comments were received from the Planning Board of the Town of Southold(hereinafter the"Planning Board")
and the following five organizations and individuals expressing concerns that the proposed bulkhead
replacement,revetment construction and maintenance dredging project(hereinafter,the"proposed action")
has been improperly"segmented"from a redevelopment project proposed for the above-referenced property
(hereinafter,the"subject property"):
> East Marion Community Association
> Marion Manor Property Owners Association
•> Cleaves Point Condominiums
> ' Jacqueline A.McKee
> Karen Sauvigne.
VHB Engineering,.Surveying
and Landscape Architecture, P.C.
100 Motor Parkway,Suite 135
Hauppauge,New York 11788 j
631.787.3400 o FAX 631.813.2545
www.vhb.com
r
Ref: 28836.00
Mr.Jun Yan,P.E.
October 8,2014
Page 2
There is no merit to this assertion,as the work proposed for permitting by the USACE is independent of any
potential future development of the subject property. The property owner is currently proposing to replace
the bulkhead and jetties,construct a bulkhead revetment and conduct maintenance dredging,in order to
address damage caused by various storms over the years and to prevent further damage from occurring.
Currently,and particularly after Hurricane Sandy,portions of the existing bulkhead have become non-
functional,and timberjetties have been seriously damaged. This work is necessary in order to protect the
property from erosion,undermining and other storm effects,as the damage to the bulkhead and jetties has
caused severe erosion and undermining of the subject property shoreline. In addition,the boat channel
connecting the existing marina basin to Gardiners Bay has silted in,preventing boat access between these two
water bodies. Thus,in addition to the replacement of bulkhead and the repair of the jetties,dredging is
proposed to restore the basin connection to Gardiners Bay,and to protect and enhance the habitat of the
basin(by dredging, daily tidal flow to the basin will be restored,thereby benefiting the habitat).
i
The proposed action was discussed at length with the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation(NYSDEC)Bureau of Marine Habitat representative,Alexa Fournier,during a meeting with VHB
held on March 1,2013. During this meeting,it was discussed that the property has suffered significant erosion
and undermining as a result of Hurricane Sandy and other storms,and that the bulkhead/jetty measures are
necessary in order to protect the property from further damage.It was agreed that,with the exception of the
extreme western portions,the subject property bulkhead along the Gardiner's Bay shoreline is no longer
"functional."It was further discussed that there was a previous tidal wetlands permit application associated
with a redevelopment plan for the property,however,the current tidal wetlands permit application will be a
proposal to rebuild/repair the bulkheads and jetties at the site,and to dredge the inlet to the marina basin,in
order to protect the property from further erosion and reestablish a navigable connection between the basin
and Gardiner's Bay, respectively. It was agreed that dredging of the boat channel would result in a significant
ecological improvement by reestablishing daily tidal flow to the basin and associated tidal wetlands. As
proposed by VHB,this mitigation could be enhanced by planting of wetland vegetation in the intertidal zone at,
the eastern portion of the basin. Additionally,it was agreed that the proposed action was in keeping with a
previous NYSDEC permit issued in 1995 for a similar project to replace 1,438±-feet of bulkheading along
Gardiners Bay and to perform maintenance dredging of the aforementioned boat channel(copy included as
Attachment B).Finally,it was discussed that the NYSDEC would be involved in any future redevelopment plans
for the subject property,both as part of the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA)process and with
any associated tidal wetlands permitting.
VHB subsequently submitted a tidal wetlands permit application to the NYSDEC on October 23,2013. The
permit application package included a completed New York State Short Environmental Assessment Form
(SEAF),detailing the proposed bulkhead/jetty replacement,revetment construction and maintenance
dredging as a distinct and separate project from any future redevelopment plans for the subject property,due
to the immediate need to protect the subject property from further damage.Based upon written comments
received from the NYSDEC following their field inspection of the subject property,the size of the proposed
bulkhead revetment was reduced,in order to minimize potential adverse impacts to aquatic habitat,while still
providing the necessary degree,of protection to the shoreline area. The NYSDEC subsequently issued a tidal
wetlands permit for the proposed action,dated May 6,2014(copy included as Attachment Q.
le
L
f
Ref: 28836.00
Mr.Jun Yan,P.E.
October 8,2014
Page 3
Concurrent with the submission of the NYSDEC tidal wetlands permit application described above,VHB also
submitted the proposed action for review by the New York State Department of State(NYSDOS) New York
Coastal Management Program. As part of the review process,VHB provided the NYSDOS with a complete copy
of the NYSDEC tidal wetlands permit application,including the SEAF. Based upon the aforementioned
modifications to the proposed action made in response to the NYSDEC's comments,the NYSDOS issued a
General Concurrence for the proposed action,dated March 25,2014(copy included as Attachment D).
Separate and apart from the aforementioned measures designed to protect the subject property from the
immediate threat of further erosion and undermining due to coastal storms,the applicant is proposing to
develop the subject property with a transient motel with 114 sleeping units,a two-story main building and
various associated improvements(hereinafter the"property development proposal"),which has been pending
since 2003. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)was prepared,in accordance with the State
Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA)and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617,and
pursuant to a Positive Declaration and a Final Scope adopted by the Planning Board,as lead agency for the
property development proposal,on November 6,2006. The DEIS was filed in September 2008 and comments
were issued by Nelson, Pope&Voorhis, LLC(NPV),the Town of Southold's environmental consultant,in a
memorandum dated November 17,2008. Subsequent to receipt of comments,the applicant was forced to
delay the project,but is now seeking to move forward with the property development proposal. This
development proposal is completely separate from the work that is the subject of the pending USACE permit
application,and neither are dependent on the other.
Although the proposed action is intended solely to protect the subject property from further storm damage,
the Planning Board and the organizations/individuals listed above raised comments regarding whether the
environmental review of this protective work is being improperly segmented from the environmental review
of the property development proposal. As set forth below,the separation of the environmental review of the
bulkhead,jetty and dredging effort from that of the property development proposal clearly does not represent
improper segmentation.
Pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617.2(ag):
"Segmentation means the division of the environmental review of an action such that various
activities or stages are addressed under this Part as though they were independent,unrelated
activities,needing individual determinations of significance."
It is important to understand that in this situation,there are two separate actions under consideration: the
first action(bulkhead/jetty replacement,revetment construction and maintenance dredging effort)is being
proposed to protect the existing property from further damage,the second action(property development
proposal)is being proposed to permit the development of a transient motel on the property. These are not
activities or stages of one action. They are independent and unrelated actions.The SEQR Handbook(New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation,http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/47636.html) provides
relevant guidance on segmentation as follows:
is
Ref: 28836.00
Mr.Jun Yan,P.E.
October 8,2014
Page 4
3. What is the basic test for segmentation?
When trying to determine if segmentation is occurring agencies should consider the following factors.If the
answer to one or more of these questions is yes,an agency should be concerned that segmentation is taking
place.
> Purpose:Is there a common purpose or goal for each segment?
> Time:Is there a common reason for each segment being completed at or about the same time?
> Location:Is there a common geographic location involved?
> impacts:Do any of the activities being considered for segmentation share a common impact that may,
if the activities are reviewed as one project,result in a potentially significant adverse impact,even if
the impacts of single activities are not necessarily significant by themselves.
> Ownership:Are the different segments under the same or common ownership or control?
> Common Plan:Is a given segment a component of an identifiable overall plan?Will the initial phase
direct the development of subsequent phases or will it preclude or limit the consideration of
alternatives in subsequent phases?
> Utility:Can any of the interrelated phases of various projects be considered functionally dependent on
each other?
> Inducement:Does the approval of one phase orsegment commit the agency to approve other phases?
In this case,although the same property is affected,as explained above,this situation involves two separate
and distinct actions—one to protect the existing property from further storm damage and the second to allow
new development on the subject property.
Furthermore:
> There is no common purpose or goal for these two actions. The purpose of the first action is to
replace/repair existing structures to protect the subject property from further storm damage and to
dredge in order to restore the boat channel to previously-existing conditions. The purpose of the
second action is to permit new development.
> There is no reason for these actions to be completed at or about the same time. In fact,it is intended
that the first action would proceed as soon as possible because,as explained above,it is designed to
protect the property from further storm damage. The new development at the site would be
undertaken after completion of the extensive SEQRA process(which is still underway)and upon
issuance of required approvals.
> There are no common impacts between the two actions. As explained above,the first action involves
replacement/repair of existing structures to protect the property from further storm damage and
dredging to restore the boat channel to previously-existing conditions. The second action would
result in impacts from new development(e.g.,modifications to land use,traffic generation,soils
impacts,increased water use,sanitary discharge).
> There is no common plan of which these two actions are components. Moreover,the first action
(replace/repair existing structures to protect the property from further storm damage and dredging
to restore the boat channel to previously-existing conditions)has no effect on whether the
development proposal is ever approved or constructed. Furthermore,it would not limit the
consideration of alternatives to the proposed development plan. It is noted that alternatives to the
proposed development plan have already been identified as part of the SEQRA process,as follows:
D
1
Ref: 28836.00
Mr.Jun Yan,P.E.
October 8,2014
Page 5
> SEQRA-mandated No-Action Alternative;
> Alternative Site Layout(Preferred Alternative);Potential Acquisition of the Site;
> Development in Accordance with Prevailing Zoning;Development of Ferry Terminal and
Restaurant;and Development of Fish Processing Facility;
> Alternative Parking Layout;
> Alternative Removing Cottages from East Property Line;
> Alternative with Reduced Building Mass;
> Alternative Dumpster Locations;and
> Alternative with Gillette Drive Driveway for Emergency Access Only.
> The first action(replace/repair existing structures to protect the property from further storm damage
and to dredge in order to restore the inlet connection)is functionally independent of the proposed
development plan. They are separate actions and are not interrelated phases of the same action.
> The approval of the first action(replace/repair existing structures to protect the property from
further storm damage and to dredge in order to restore the inlet connection)in no way induces any
agency to approve the proposed development plan.
Based on the foregoing,it is clear that there are two separate actions,and that the separation of the
environmental review thereof does not constitute segmentation.
Nevertheless,even under the inaccurate assumption that separation of the environmental review of these
individual actions represented segmentation,such segmentation would not be improper. The SEQR Handbook
explains when segmented review is acceptable,to wit:
4.Is segmented review ever acceptable under SEQR?
There are some limited circumstances where a segmented review may be justified. For example,the following
circumstances, when considered together,may warrant segmentation when a project has several phases:
> information on future project phase(s)is too speculative;
> future phose(s)may not occur;
> future phase(s)are functionally independent of current phase(s).
If circumstances suggest that a segmented review is appropriate,such justification must be clearly noted in the
determination of significance and in any subsequent EIS by providing supporting reasons and demonstrating
that such review will be no less protective of the environment.For example,functionally independent projects
might be capable of segmented review.
In this case,as explained above,the proposed development plan is in the midst of an extensive SEQRA
process. At this point,it is not known if the proposed development plan will be approved,and if approved,
what the density;configuration,etc.will be. As indicated above,as part of the DEIS that is being prepared,the
lead agency(i e.,Planning Board)is requiring the analysis of numerous alternatives.
Ref: 28836.00
Mr.Jun Yan,P.E.
October 8,2014
Page 6
Thus, until the SEQRA process is concluded,it is unknown if the proposed development plan will be approved
(and if so,at what density/configuration). Thus,the new development may not occur,and clearly,the
replacement/repair of existing structures(bulkheading/jetties)to protect the property from further storm
damage and dredging in order to restore the boat channel to previously-existing conditions are functionally
independent of any new development that may ultimately be approved on the subject property. For these
reasons,even under the inaccurate assumption that segmentation was occurring in this situation,such
segmentation would not be improper.
In addition to the comments discussed above,two additional comments regarding the proposed action were
received. The first comment,received from Carol and Louis Wirtz includes the following text:
"Please stop the dredging permit from being applied for in the above. Peconic Bay,its estuaries and
the intrusion of bay water into the only source of water the East End of Long Island and is in trouble
must be stopped."
Based upon the above text,it appears that the commentators may be concerned that dredging the boat
channel to reestablish a navigable link to the basin would result in salt water intrusion to the local
groundwater aquifer. It is important to note that the basin was previously connected to Gardiners Bay via the
aforementioned boat channel,which was formerly maintained by periodic dredging. As such,the basin was a
marine feature that was subject to daily tidal flushing,rather than an expression of the local groundwater
table. Currently,due to sedimentation of the boat channel,the basin is subject to infrequent tidal influences
during extreme high tides and/or storm events. In either case,no direct connections are known to exist
between the basin and the local groundwater aquifer,and no records exist to indicate that this was ever the
case. As such,no impacts to local groundwater are anticipated as a result of the proposed dredging.
The final comment,from local residents Martin and Audrey Green, reads as follows:
"As residents of East Marion,we hereby request that you deny the application for a dredging permit
to Oki-Do, Ltd.
The owners of the property in question have yet to comply in any way with the Town's requirements
to clean up the property under their ownership in compliance with environmental requirements prior
to beginning any work. The dredging would constitute a conflict of the stated requirements of the
Town of Southold.
The area in question is abutted by residential homes and condominiums on both sides and the impact
of this dredging without the required clean up would be detrimental to the properties adjacent to the
properties in question. The current owners have in no way provided the basic maintenance to this
property and the buildings and grounds are a hazard which must be dealt with prior to any
consideration of dredging.
We thank you for your review and consideration of our concerns"
r -
e
f ,
Ref: 28836.00
Mr.Jun Yan,P.E.
October 8,2014
Page 7
The applicant has invested in and undertaken numerous efforts to secure the subject property and the.existing
structures. Nevertheless,as the existing bulkhead and timber jetties along Gardiner's Bay have become non-
functional as a result of storm damage,significant erosion and undermining of the shoreline area has
occurred,including shoreline areas located proximate to existing structures.As such,the proposed action is
necessary due to the immediate need to protect the subject property and structures from further damage due
to erosion and undermining from coastal storms.
I
i Based on the foregoing,it is respectfully submitted that the comments received by the USACE with respect to
the pending permit application are without basis. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If additional
I
information is required,or should you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me.
I
Sincerely,
i
VHB Engineering,Surveying and Landscape Architecture,P.C.
i
David Kennedy,M.S.
Project Scientist
DK/ba
enc.
cc: Donald Wilcenski,Chair,Southold Town Planning Board
John M. Bredemeyer III,President,Southold Town Board of Trustees
\\vhh\prof\Long1s1and\28836 00 Shizen Hotel\ProjRecords\FinalDocs\Yan USACE Letter_10-8-14.doa
0
r"
Attachment A
r 7f
E '
FIF ; f ?
OCT - 9 2014 ,`
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW YORK DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS
JACOB K.JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK,NEW YORK 10278-0090
Regulatory Branch -- Eastern Permit Section SEP 19 2014
Subject: Permit Application Number NAN-2013-01475-EYA _
by Oki-Do Ltd ;;;,
Oki-Do Ltd. r 1 ? F(}
20 West 60 Street, Suite 24E OCT e 9 2014
New York, NY 10023 �.
Dear Sir: - -_• •— __Aaarti c f Tastes
Correspondence from the Town of Southold expressing concerns regarding the
Public Notice issued for your proposal has been received by this office. A copy of the
letter is enclosed. You must demonstrate to this office that you have satisfied the Town of
Southold's request to complete the SEQRA process.
Please note that in order for us to continue processing your application you must
submit the above requested information to this office within 30 days of this letter.
If any questions should arise concerning this matter, please contact Jun Yan at
(917) 790-8092.
Sincerely,
un Yan,
Proje ;ager
East n Section -
Enclosure
Cc:�
Mr. David Kennedy—VH,B Engineering
Mr. Donald Wilcenski -Town of Southold
MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS `�®F so P.O.Box 1179
DONALD J.WILCENSKI — Southold,NY 11971
Chair ham ®
4"MA*
OFFICE LOCATION:
WILLIAM J.CREMERS �- Town Hall Annex
PIERCE RAFFERTY G _ 54375 State Route 25
JAMES H.RICH III
MARTIN H.SIDOR (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
CQUti� Southold,NY
Telephone: 631765-1938
www.southoldtownny.gov
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
J RECEWEU BY REGULATORY
September 9, 2014
SEP 12 204
Ms. Jodi M. McDonald, Chief, Regulatory Branch NYDIST,COIFSOFENGINEERS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New York District ' t--.
Rm. 1937, 26 Federal PlazaJacob K. Javits Federal Building
i
L
ocr �
New York, NY 10278-0090 9 2014
Re: Public Notice Number: NAN=2013-0'1475-01475 '-TO n- -�
__'_R,guard of rrrsi M_.,..
Dear Ms. McDonald:
The Town of Southold Planning Board is in receipt of the Public Notice, dated
August 12, 2014, in connection with the Oki-Do Ltd. Department of the Army application
and objects to its issuance at this time for the reasons set forth'below:
1. In 2003, the Town of Southold Planning Board accepted a Site Plan
Application to construct a holistic health cbnter located at the southerly
end of Shipyard Lane on Gardener's Bay, in`the hamlet of East Marion,
Town of'Southold, County of Suffolk,'on an 18.7-acre parcel in the Mil
Zone also identified as SCTM #1000-38-7-7.1. The proposed Site Plan
included a total of-114 transient motel rooms consisting of 23 guest lodges
totaling 87,accessory motel units, a main spa building along with a 185-
seat restaurant (103 private guest seats, 72 public guest seats), 10 public
bar seats, office space, retail gift shop, 27 personal service treatment
suites and accessory uses. The proposed project also involved a 3,864
sq..ft. private restaurant annex with 45-99 private guest seats and a
covered 758 sq. ft. deck, 1,987 sq. ft. Manager's residence with a 687 sq.
ft. deck, pool, a 7,205 sq. ft. maintenance and utility building, a sanitary
waste treatment facility, 1,160 sq. ft. for three (3) gazebos and man-made
water features. Additionally, and most pertinent for your review, the
subject project also included the replacement of the existing bulkhead,
dredging of the 16-slip private marina basin, and various outdoor
amenities.
Ms. Jodi M. McDonald
Page 2
September 9, 2014
2. In 2006, the Town of Southold Planning Board was established as Lead
Agency for the action and, as such, conducted a coordinated review and
issued a Positive Declaration. In connection with its review, the Planning
Board required scoping and a Final Scope, dated November 6, 2006, was
adopted (copy. attached). Thereafter, a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (hereinafter referred to as "DEIS") was submitted, but was
found to be incomplete with respect to the aforementioned Final Scope.,A
letter requesting revisions to the DEIS was sent to the applicant on
November 18, 2008, and no further action was taken by the applicant for
approximately five (5) years.
3. On February 26, 2013, the Planning Board issued a letter to the applicant
indicating that the application would be considered withdrawn due,to
inactivity, unless a letter was submitted within 60 days stating,the reasons
for the delay. On March 8, 2013, the applicant submitted a response to
the Planning Board indicating that it was the intent of the applicant to
continue with the Site Plan, however, to date, we have not received any
further communication from the applicant.
Based on the foregoing, the Planning Board respectfully requests that you suspend your
review of the Oki-Do Ltd. permit application until the applicant completes the pending
SEQRA process. The Planning Board is awaiting a DEIS it requested in 2006 and,,
cannot continue its review until receipt. Further, it is the position of this Board that the
cumulative impact analysis required by 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"
Here, the approval sought from the Army Corps is part of the "whole action" and
any issuance of a Dept. of the Army permit would be premature as the full
environmental impact analysis as identified by the Final Scope is incomplete.
Please contact this office if you have any further questions.
Very truly yours,
Donald J. Wilcenski
Chairman
Enclosure
Ms. Jodi M. McDonald
Page 2
September 9, 2014
cc: Joseph Martens, NYS DEC Commissioner
Sheri Aicher, NYS DEC, Stony Brook, NY
Mark Wolfgang, NYS Department of Transportation
Jennifer Street, NYS Department of State
Christopher Lubicich, PE, Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Kimberly Kennedy, Suffolk County Water Authority
Andrew Freleng, Suffolk County Planning Commission
Honorable Scott A. Russell, Supervisor
Martin Finnegan, Town Attorney
Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk
Leslie Weisman, Chairperson, Zoning Board of Appeals
Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector _
John Bredemeyer, Chairman, Board of Trustees
Michael Collins, Town Engineer
Mark Terry, LWRP Coordinator
Southold Town Architectural Review Committee
MAILING ADDRESS:
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS 0g so P.O.Box 1179.
'Southold, NY 11971
JERILYN B.WOODHOUSE
Chair OFFICE LOCATION:
Town Hall Annex
KENNETH L.EDWARDSCAR 54376 State Route 25
MARTIN H.SIDOR
GEORGE D.SOLOMON (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
JOSEPH L.TOWNSEND Coll Southold,NY
Telephone- 631765-1938
Fax:631765-3136
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
P
November 6, 2006
Patricia C. Moore, Esq. OCT 9 2014
51020 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Proposed Site Plan for Gaia Holistic Circle, Oki-Do Ltd.
Located approximately 3,278 ft. s/o New York State Road25at the s/e end of Shipyard
Lane known as 2835 Shipyard Lane in East Marion
SCTM# '1 000-38-7-7.1 Zone: M-11, Marine 11 District
Dear Mrs. Moore:
The following resolution was adopted at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on
Monday, November 6, 2006:
WHEREAS, this proposed action requires a special exception and site plan to construct a holistic
health center with a total of 114 transient motel rooms consisting of 23 'guest lodges totaling 87
accessory motel units (14,lodges containing 3 unit motel rooms & 9 guest lodges containing 5 unit
motel rooms). The remaining 27 motel units are to be located in the main spa building along with a
185 seat restaurant (103 private guest seats, 72 public guest seats), 10 public bar seats, office
space, retail gift shop, 27 personal service treatment suites and accessory-uses. The proposed
action also involves a 3,864 sq. ft. private restaurant annex with 45-99 private guest seats and a,
covered 758 sq. ft. deck, 1,987 sq. ft. managers residence with a 687 sq. ft. deck, pool, a 7,205 sq.
ft. maintenance and utility building, a sanitary waste treatment facility, 1,160 sq. ft. for three (3)
gazebos, man-made water features, replacement of the existing bulkhead, dredging of the 16 slip
private marina basin, and various outdoor amenities on a 18.7 acre parcel in the Mll Zone located
approximately 3,278 ft. south of New York State Road 25 at the south east end of Shipyard Lane
known as 2835 Shipyard Lane in East Marion. SOTM # 1000-38-7-7.1, and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2006, the Southold Tow6 Planning Board, pursuant to Part 617, Article 6 of
the Environmental Conservation Law acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
initiated the SEQR lead agency coordination process for this Type I action pursuant to Part 617.4
(b) (6) (i); and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2006, the Southold Town Planning Board assumed lead agency for this
Type I action; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2006, the Southold Planning'Board adopted a Positive
Declaration for the proposed action; and
GALA Holistic Circle (OKI-DO) Page Two November 6, 2006
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2006, that pursuant to Article 617.13 of the 6NYCC, Part 617 i
State Environmental Quality Review Act the applicant agents will be financially responsible for
costs incurred for the review and posting of the draft and final Environmental Impact
Statements by the Town of Southold; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2006, the Southold Planning Board pursuant to Article 617.8 held
a public scoping meeting from 4:30p-6:00pm and allowed for comments to be received at the
Planning Department up to October 26, 2006; be it therefore
RESOLVED, pursuant to Article 617.13 of the 6NYCC, Part 617 State Environmental Quality
Review Act the applicant will be financially responsible for costs incurred for the review and
website posting of the draft and final Environmental Impact Statements by the Town'of
Southold as reflected in the estimate of Nelson Pope & Voorhis dated October 30, 2006,
subject to modification; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board pursuant to Article 617.8 adopts the
FINAL SCOPE FOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT prepared by Nelson Pope &
Voorhis, LLC dated November 6, 2006 and require that the agent address all issues.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
?erilyn B. Woodhouse
Chairperson "
I
cc:
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Suffolk County Department of Health Services
t
Southold Town Building Department NYSDEC -Stony Brook
Southold Town Cleric for Southold Town Board New York State Department of Transportation
Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor Suffolk County Water Authority
Southold Town Board of Trustees Suffolk County Planning Department
Southold Town Engineer Architectural Review Committee
Marie Terry, LWRP Coordinator Army Corps of Engineers
Commissioner, NYS DEC Suffolk County Department of Public Works
New York State Department of State Suffolk County Department of Health Services .
Environmental Notice Bulletin Department of Ecology, Kimberly Shaw
File
Enc: Final Scope
Ill ,
NELSON,POPE & VOORHIS,LLC
Environmental Consultant to the Planning Board ENVIRONMENTAL • PLANNING - CONSULTING
572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD,MELVILLE.NY 11747-2188
Town of Southold, New York (631)427-5665 FAX(631) 427-5620
npv@nelsonpopc.com —
FINAL SCOPE FOR ®Cr m 9
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 2014
11GAIA HOLISTIC CIRCLE" r Soufil ll Tol;Iil
„_..l r f Trustr_es
Proposed Special Exception Permit,for Transient Motel ......ii
Shipyard Lane, East Marion,Town of Southold
Suffolk County,New York
Prepared for: Town of Southold
Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road,
P.O.Box1179'
Southold,NY 11971
(631)765-1938
Prepared by: Nelson,Pope&Voorhis, LLC
572 Walt Whitman Road
Melville,New York 11747
(631)427-5665
Contact: Charles J.,Voorhis,CEP,AICP
Date: November 6, 2006
1..0 Introduction
This document is the Final Scope of the issues and analyses to be included iri the DEIS for the
proposed transient motel on a,/17.325-acre parcel located at the southerly end of Shipyard Lane
on Gardener's Bay, in the hamlet of East Marion, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk known
as Gaia Holistic Circle,
The analysis of the Gaia Holistic Circle project in a DEIS has been required by the Town of
Southold Planning Board, as Lead Agency for administration of the subdivision review and as
required by the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA). The requirement
for a DEIS was contained in a Positive Declaration issued by the Planning Board on September
11, 2006.
The information prepared in conformance with this scope and the SEQRA process is intended to
provide comprehensive input in the decision-making-pro- cess for use by involved agencies in
preparing their own findings and issuing decisions on their respective permits. The document
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
must be concise but thorough, well documented, accurate and consistent. Figures and tables will
be presented in support of the discussions and analyses contained in the document. I Technical
information will be summarized in the body of the DEIS and attached, in their 'entirety in an
appendix.
2,0 Brief Description of the Proposed Project
The proposed action requires a special exception and site plan to construci�a holistic health
center with a total of 114 transient motel rooms consisting of 23 guest lodges totaling 87
accessory motel units (14 lodges containing 3 unit motel rooms & 9 guest lodges containing 5
unit motel rooms). The remaining 27 motel units are to be located in the main spa building along
with a 185 seat restaurant (103 private guest seats, 72 public guest seats), 10 public bar seats,
office space, retail gift shop, 27 personal service treatment suites and accessory uses. The
proposed action also involves a 3,864,sq. ft:private restaurant annex with 45-99 private guest
seats and a covered 758 sq. ft. deck, 1,987 sq. ft. manager's residence with a 687 sq. ft. deck,
pool, a 7,205 sq, ft. maintenance and utility building, a sanitary waste treatment facility, 1,160
sq. ft. for three (3) gazebos, man-made water features, replacement of the existing bulkhead,
dredging of the 16 slip private marina basin, and various outdoor amenities on a 18.7 acre parcel
in the MII Zone located approximately 3,278 fl: south of New York State Road 25 at the south
east end of Shipyard Lane known as 2835 Shipyard Lane in'East Marion.
A parking area containing 162 spaces is proposed along the length of the western property line
and extending into the northwest portion of the site. � A total of 27 stalls will be landbanked for
future parking .area expansion. The practicality and adequacy of the proposed parking lot
location is not known at this time, and may vain, based on the proposed site uses and duration of
guest stay. Three (3) ingress/egress points are proposed along Shipyard Lane. An additional
gated ingress/egress point is proposed from Cleaves Point Road along the eastern property
boundary. A loading dock will be provided at the transient hotel building and will be accessible
fro-in the proposed access point located at the southwestern comer of the property. A 20-foot
wide interior, gravel roadway is proposed along the northern and eastern property line to connect
the parking lot area to the Cleave Point Road entrance. It is not known if the Cleave Point.Road
access will be utilized for emergency access only, or if this access ,will be utilized far through
traffic and maintenance vehicles.- Ornamental landscaping is proposed throughout the site,
including the required minimum twenty-foot buffer of supplemental landscaping and natural
vegetation maintained along the eastern and norther property perimeters and required minimum
15-foot buffer is proposed along the western property line.
r'
The proposed project also includes repairing/replacing the existing wooden bulkhead that
extends along the western half of the boat basin and adding boat slips along a new dock. This
portion of the bulkhead is in fair to poor condition. The wooden bulkhead indicated on the Site
Plan along the southwest property boundary fronting Gardiners Bay is dilapidated and no longer
functioning. This portion of bulkhead will be replaced with a rock revetment to match that
located on the adjacent Cleaves Point Village property, Information regarding NYSDEC
jurisdiction and permitting is discussed in the Wetlands section below.,Any dredging'or removal
of fill from the access channel or the boat basin will require acquisition of all the applicable
Page 2
• ��r�u;i�..,r u�rcis r.«aa,,tt.as -
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
permits from the Town Board of Trustees, the Army Corps of Engineers, the NYSDEC, and the
NYS Department of State (discussed in the Wetlands section below).
A large manmade pond, containing a landscaped island, several recreational bridges and wooden
decks are proposed in the central portion of the property. The water feature will be accessible
from several different paths throughout the site and will be surrounded by Japanese Gardens and
native landscaping.
A drainage system of catch basins, leaching pools and piping is proposed throughout the site. A
wastewater treatment facility is proposed for the northwest corner of the site. However, no
sanitary calculations are provided in the plans, Additionally, a series of leaching pools and catch
basins are proposed for Cleaves Point Road, in the vicinity of the proposed entrance. The
proposed density and design will be subject to review and approval by the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services,
Site History
The subject property was improved with an oyster-processing facility circa 1964, together with
three smaller detached wooden and metal buildings. One or more of these detached buildings
was used for maintenance and/or repair activities, since equipped with waste oil and other oil
USTs, and as a machine shop. In addition, an existing metal storage and maintenance building,
likely used for boat maintenance, was completed in 1983 and East End Diesel, Inc., a diesel
engine repair and remanufacturing company,occupied the southernmost building fi-om the late
1980s to circa 1996. The oyster-processing facility ceased operations circa 1988 and the subject
property is currently vacant. Single-family homes and crop fields historically surrounded the
subject property.
Approvals
In order to develop the site as proposed, the following approvals are required:
^1W.E= !�- :' -M1S'S• �i iFm{u �i'i!".: �J' H Rr.
Town of Southold Board of Appeals Special Exception Use
Town of Southold Planning Board Site PIan
Town of Southold Highway Department Road Work Permit
Town of Southold Town Trustees Wetlands Permit
Suffolk County Department of Health Services Article 4 Water Supply
Article 6 Sewage Treatment Plant
Suffolk County Water Authority Water Supply Connection
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 1. Notice of Intent—SPDES General
Permit for Stormwater Discharges
During Construction Activities
2. SPDES Discharge Permit
3. Tidal Wetlands Permit
4. Mining Permit for Ponds(if
applicable)
NYS Department of State Coastal Consistent
U.S.Army Cor
ps of Engineers Individual Permit
K4sxE s vae �ua Page 3
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.0 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts'
The following description of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed,project has been taken
verbatim from the Planning Board's Positive Declaration of September 11, 2006: -
1. The site has been evaluated in accordance with the Criteria for Determining Significance as contained
in SEQRA 6NYCRR Part 617.7 (c), The proposed action has been evaluated through review of the
following materials:
• Site and architectural pian and architectural elevation drawing prepared by Butt, Otruba-
O'Connor Architects,
• Part I and II of the Environmental Assessment Form(EAF),
• Site plan application,
• Traffic Impact Study prepared-by Dunn Engineering,
• EnvironmentaI Site Assessment(ESA)Report prepared by Longshore Environmental,
• Site plan use,diagram,
• Informational letter from Butt,Otruba-O'Connor Architects,
• Independent site inspection,-
• Planning Board deliberation on materials supplied by the applicant, the consultant, and planning
staff.
Based upon this thorough review, the Planning Board identified potential significant adverse
environmental impacts in connection with the proposed project. Additional supporting findings are'
provided below.
2. The Criteria for Determining Significance are specifically evaluated with respect to this,action, as
follows:
a. Substantial adverse change in existing ground or surface water quality or quantity, traffic or noise
levels, increase in solid waste production; leaching or drainage problems.
The proposed action may significantly change the subject site such groundwater or surface water
quality,- traffic, noise levels, solid waste production, leaching or drainage problems may occur.
Insufficient information has been provided in which to accurately assess these impacts.
b. The removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation or other significant adverse impact to
natural resources.
The NYS Heritage Program Database Records indicates there are no known rare species or
ecological communities located within the project area; however, historical and recent records
indicate the presence of several threatened and endangered vascular plants and birds in the
vicinity of the project site.
c. The impairment of the environmental characteristics of a Critical Environmental Area as
designated'pursuant to subdivision 617.14(g).
The EAF indicates that the subject site is not located within a Critical Environmental Area
(CEA). However, due to the site's location on Gardiners Bay / Orient Harbor, potential
Page 4
` Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
significant adverse impacts were identified as a result of the proposed project,particularly as it
relates to water quality, harbor use and scenic resources.
d. The creation of a material conflict with a community's current plans or goals as officially
approved or adopted.
The proposed project had a preliminary evaluation in terms of land use, zoning, and land use
plans that establish a community's plans and goals. The overall size and scope of the project
appears to be in conflict with adjoining land uses and zoning. The project's consistency with the
East Marion Hamlet Study,Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, State Coastal Management
Program, etc.shall also be evaluated.
e. The impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural, or
aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character.
NYS OPRHP has noted that the area of the proposed project has not been comprehensively
surveyed and recommended that a Phase I archeological survey be conducted unless sufficient
evidence of substantial prior ground disturbance can be documented.
f, A major change in the use of either the quantity or type of energy.
The proposed project involves a significant increase in energy use. Impacts to local facilities
shall be analyzed.
g. The creation of a hazard to human health.
The proposed project may result in unsafe pedestrian movement throughout the site in addition: to
use of puhlic streets for site operations.
h. A substantial change in the use, or intensity of use, of land including agricultural, open space or
recreational resources,or in its capacity to support existing uses,
The proposed project significantly increases the intensity of use on the site, resulting in potential
adverse impacts to traffic, sanitary and water generation/use, water quality, noise and visual
resources, as well as community character.
i. The encouraging or attracting of a large number of people to a place or places for more than a few
days,compared to the number of people who would come to such place absent the action.
It is expected that the proposed action would attract a significant number of people for more than
a few days; however, proposed site uses, possible public access to site facilities like the
restaurants and duration of guest stay have not been specified.
j. The creation of a material demand for other actions that would result in one of the above
consequences.
The proposed project is not expected to create a material demand for other actions that would
exacerbate or create other impacts,
*#18Page 5
� �e+ +R CrcSivQ..Tr.ca
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
k. Changes in two or more elements of the environment,no one of which has a significant impact on
the environment, but when considered together result in a substantial adverse impact on the
environment.
The proposed project does propose a significant physical site alteration and the intensity of
proposed use may have combined adverse impacts on the environment.
1. Two or more related actions undertaken, funded or approved by an agency, none of which has or
would have a significant impact on the environment, but when considered cumulatively would
meet one or more of the criteria.
There are no other pending projects in the vicinity of the project site which when considered
cumulatively with the proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental
impacts.
3. The site's sensitive waterfront location and area resources may be affected by the proposed project
and insufficient information has been provided in which to accurately assess significant
environmental impacts that may be associated with the proposed project. Anticipated adverse
impacts do not appear to be minimized or mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Alternatives
to the proposed action that will reduce potential impacts shall be examined.
4.0 Organization and Overall Content of the DEIS Document
The DEIS must conform with the basic content requirements as contained in 6NYCRR Part
617.9 (b)(3). The outline of the DEIS shall include the following sections:
COVER SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
1.1 Project Background,Need, Objectives and Benefits
1.1.1 Background and History
1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives
1.1.3 Objectives of the Project Sponsor
1.1.4 Benefits of the Project
1.2 Location and Site Conditions
1.3 Project Design and Layout
1.3.1 Overall Site Layout
1.3.2 Grading and Drainage
l.3.3 Access,Road System and Parking
1.3.4 Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply
1.3.5 Site Landscaping and Lighting
1.3.6 Open Space
1.4 Construction and Operation
1.4.1 Construction
1.4.2 Operation
1.5 Permits and Approvals Required
_ Page 6
J13 W-
%L.- .WN�1TaJCi
Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental impact Statement
2.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
2.1 Soils and Topography
2.1.1 Existing Conditions
2.1.2 Anticipated Impacts
2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation
2.2 Water Resources
2.2.1 Existing Conditions
2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts
2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation
2.3 Ecology
2.3.1 Existing Conditions
2.3.2 Anticipated,Impacts
2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
3.1 Transportation
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
3.1.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.2 Land and Water Use,Zoning'and Plans
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.3 Community Facilities and Services
3.3.1 Existing Conditions
3.3.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.3.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.4 Aesthetic Resources and Community Character
3.4.1 Existing Conditions
3.4.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.4.3 Proposed Mitigation
3.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources
3.5.1 Existing Conditions
3.5,2 Anticipated Impacts
3.5.3 Proposed Mitigation
4.0 OTHER REQUIRED SECTIONS l
4.1 Construction Related Impacts
4.2 Cumulative Impacts
4.3 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided
4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
4.5 Growth-Inducing Aspects
5.0 ALTERNA'f1VES
5.1 No Action Alternative
5.2 Alternative Site Designs
6.0 REFERENCES
APPENDICES
`�°�"" AL « Page 7
l Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
5,0 Extent and Quality of Information Misting and Needed
As required under SEQRA, the DEIS shall include "a statement and evaluation of potential significant
adverse impacts at a level of detail that reflects the severity of the impacts and the reasonable likelihood
of their occurrence". Included in this evaluation shall be reasonably related short-term and long-term
impacts,with other required sections identified in the Section 6.0 of this scoping document. This section
further describes the level of analysis and the type of analysis expected with respect to the key
environmental impacts of the project as outlined in the,Positive Declaration. Each major section is
followed by a description of the extent and quality of information needed to perform the evaluation of
each of the impacted resources.
Description of the Proposed Project
Background and History
• There shall be a brief description of the site and application history; this shall include a
full description of the existing and historic use of the site, dredging and site
improvements, status of current use, site ownership and related background and history.
• Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments related to site conditions shall be
summarized and attached or excerpts attached,to establish background conditions; site
remediation shall be identified.
Public Need and Municipality Objectives
• Include justification of proposed project in terms of Town goals for site.
• Public need for the project shall be discussed; indicate market study used to assess the
need and viability of the facility; indicate potential for conversion of site to other use
based on non-viability of facility or lack of- need.
• Population served by the project shall be identified.
• Public access to the waterfront shall be discussed.
Objectives of the Project Sponsor
• The objectives of the project sponsor shall be included and discussed.
• The objectives of the project sponsor shall indicate the Gaia Holistic Circle form of
treatment/lifestyle as related to site use and design.
Benefits of the Project
• Include a discussion of the_community benefits expected to accrue from the proposed
proj ect.
Location and Site Conditions
• Using appropriate mapping and/or tables, describe location of site, in terms
adjacent/nearby significant properties,zoning and service districts, available services, etc.
• The existing conditions of the site in terms of bulkheads, mean high water, mean low
water, site survey, structures, vegetative cover shall be provided as an overall background
of existing site conditions.
• A summary of subsurface conditions and features,,suspected contamination on the site
and in the area proposed for development, as well as remediation initiatives.
Page 8
?
s.q ��,
Gaia llolistic Circle
iPrellminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Prgject Design and Layout
• Overall Site Layout - include a brief description of the site and project layout; describe
basis for site yield, proposed structures, services, utilities, access points, road system,
drainage, marina-and include a site quantities table.
0 Use Design/Description - address breakdown of use areas from a structural standpoint;
indicate if the "patio" will be covered; describe any retail activities on site (sale items,
access to public).
• Architecture- the architecture,height and appearance of structures shall be identified.
• LEED -Details on the LEED green building certification being sought for this project.
• Regulations -ADA compliance features and FEMA Flood Plain development compliance
as related to structural improvements; indicate requirements, design parameters and
proposed design; indicate first floor elevations of buildings required and proposed.
• Dredging - details on dredging and bulkhead project; dredge spoil, volume and quality;
dredge spoil dewatering, dredge spoil disposal.
• Marina and Bulkhead/Revetment - the marina installation shall be fully described
including bulkheading and revetment(including cross sections, materials used, stone size,
bulkhead type, backfill, etc.), dredging, piles and floats, access, function; etc.; indicate if
fuel tanks will be installed anywhere on premises and who will have access.
• Grading - the grading program and associated areas disturbed shall be discussed along
with volumes of soil excavated, cut/filled, removed from site and maximum depths of
cut/fill; fill needed for sanitary, drainage or structures shall be identified; grading for the
proposed access to the managers residence shall be outlined; quantity of fill behind
proposed bulkhead.
• Drainage - site drainage and proposed drainage system and provide capacity and function
information shall be provided along with a discussion of conformance to NYSDEC
SPDES stormwater and erosion control regulations for construction and post-construction
conditions; use of the lake/stream system for drainage shall be identified if intended as
well as function, capacity and viability in view of depth to groundwater constraints.
• Lake/Stream System - details on the lake and stream system, method of
construction/lining; water,supply; soil removal/re-grading, design,and depth of features,
make-up water and source, vector control, filtration/treatment equipment, stocking with
fish and species, wildfowl control, stormwater retention qualities if applicable;vegetation
and landscaping.
Access - the vehicle access points, internal roadway layout and traffic circulation shall be
identified.
• Parking- the adequacy of on-site parking shall be discussed; required parking as required
by a breakdown of parking requirements for each sub-use shall be provided; this will
establish the basis for the parking variance; the amount and adequacy of proposed
parking shall be determined; use of permeable pavement shall be described in detail in
terms of location and use; identify the location of loading docks and dumpster locations.
• Water Supply - include a description of water supply source, infrastructure and
availability, water main routing to access the site; irrigation well water supply,
lake/stream "make up" water, and proposed wastewater handling and corresponding use
of water supply and sanitary design flow.
W `
Page 9
1
1 Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Utilities -the sizes and locations of all utilities and services shall be described along with
the status of future possible connection.
• Lighting-the Town lighting requirements, proposed lighting and an illumination analysis
shall be provided and described for all aspects of the project including parking areas, the
'restaurant and other site improvements; compliance with"dark skies" shall be identified.
• Landscaping - information on the type, amount and location of landscaping proposed
shall be provided as well as information on maintenance requirements such as irrigation
and fertilization under operation and maintenance; information on buffers around the site
perimeter, retention of existing trees and other buffering techniques shall be identified;
the plant list shall be reviewed and described to ensure that "invasive" species are not
introduced to the site; screening of dumpsters, recreational activities and parking shall be
addressed.
• Amenities — describe all amenities on site including outdoor use, tennis courts, arenas,
playgrounds,use of beach and limits on off-site use of facilities, etc.
• Open Space Management - include a discussion on retained open space areas; areas of
dedication, areas of retention by applicant; easements or restrictions to ensure retention of
open space.
Construction
• The construction and operation/maintenance of the site shall be fully discussed.
• Demolition of the existing buildings including safety and protection of neighboring
properties.
• Remediation based on the Phase I/II ESA.
• Project phasing(if applicable).
• Method of construction, 'construction schedule/timetable, days of the week; indicate
Town code restrictions of nuisance activities and compliance.
• Construction management, equipment storage/staging, delivery routes,- hours' of
operation,workers' parking, protection of natural and sensitive areas.
• Protection of workers and worker safety during construction shall be evaluated.
• Need to modify overhanging trees on Shipyard Lane for construction or operation.
• Quantity of soil import/export, truck routes, management and mitigation.
• Dredging and bulkhead project details; staging areas; construction methods; dewatering
areas; disposal areas; dredge removal truck trips; time frames for construction. -
Operation
• In terms of operation, describe the management and protection of open space; describe
Organization management and operation; describe road, landscape and open space
maintenance practice, describe any special conditions which may apply.
• Detailed description identifying which of the site uses (if any) will be open to the public
(i.e., the marina,restaurant, spa, etc.) and which will be exclusive for hotel guests.
• Uses expected of various locations and facilities within the site;'seasons of use, intensity
of use, whether the site will be open to special events such as weddings, conferences or
catering events,retail sales.
• Projected number of employees required for the various uses for weekdays, weekends
and seasonal peak periods.
_ Page 10
m_ /fi LLQ
Er4t(��J�1.,.•-F?f1/ri1Pi7.f7R�LLTK7 -
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
• Indicate activities such as outdoor parties,placement and use of loudspeakers, concerts or
special events including frequency;location'time periods and schedule.
• Truck sizes expected for deliveries and delivery routing, delivery times and truck
unloading areas.
• Location of dumpsters,, truck access to dumpsters, hours of dumpster pickup shall be
addressed; indicate if trash compactors will be used.
• Details on internal traffic circulation plan, use of gravel road and general on-site
activities.
• Description of use of golf carts on site.
• Valet parking shall be.fully described.
• Description of any generators proposed for the facility.
• Description of operation of the proposed marina, users, frequency of use, etc.
• Seasons of operation of various components of the facility.
• Lighting operations in terms of type, hours lit and controls shall be discussed.
• Snow removal shall be described as related to parking surfaces and operation.
• Entity responsible for site operations.
• Restrictions on Emergency Access (if proposed) and how the restrictions will be ensured.
• Lake/stream system operation and maintenance; lake "make-up" water; fish stocking;
wildfowl population control;nutrient influx control; mosquito/vector control; aesthetics..
• Water use shall be fully described including: maximum size of vessels, turning radius,
depths, vessel speeds in marina, potential' for-increased number of private vessels
docking, channel enhancements (increased dredging potential, 'navigation aids), and
access to existing navigation channels.
• Use and management of open space areas.
• Operation of the marina shall be identified; indicate if fuel storage will occur for marina
patrons.
Permits and Approvals Required
• Identify all required permits and reviews
• Indicate the filing date and status of submissions to the lead and involved agencies.
Natural Envirotunental Resources
Soils and Topography
• Existing.soil, subsoil and topographic conditions shall be analyzed in terms of existing
conditions, proposed conditions and measures which may be employed to minimize
potential significant adverse environmental impacts.
• The existing soil types shall be determined pursuant to the Suffolk County Soil Survey.
• Soil borings shall be described to determine subsurface soil quality and depth to
groundwater.
• The topography of the site shall be determined using site specific topographic surveys of
the property.
• The soil quality shall be described in terms of analytical results from Phase II sampling.
jj
Page 11
Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental impact Statement
• Impact to soils shall be discussed in terms of soil constraints pursuant to the Suffolk
County Soil Survey based on the type of land use proposed and the constraints for each
soil type. ,
• Constraints in terms of depth to groundwater shall be evaluated by establishing that
sanitary and drainage systems can functionproperty; vertical profiles of these systems
establishing minimum surface elevation, maximum groundwater elevation and system
installation to required design standards shall be included.
• Topographic alteration of the site shall be determined through evaluation of the grading
proposed for the site and determination of resultant,slopes, volume and disposition/origin
of cut or fill, and proposed changes to topographic elevations; impact of fill for sanitary,
drainage and buildings shall be evaluated; evaluation may,include description, profiles,
contour maps and/or other methods to perform effective evaluation; impact of grading for
the proposed managers residence road shall be evaluated.
• Mitigation in terms of soil remediation, erosion control, retention of soils, fugitive dust
and related impacts shall be identified.
Water Resources
• The groundwater management zone as classified under Article 6 of the Suffolk County
Sanitary Code shall be referenced.
• The depth to groundwater in key development locations of the site shall be determined by
use of on-site soil borings; soil borings in all areas of proposed leaching must be included
given constrained site soils, fill, oyster shell, etc.
• The expected direction of groundwater flow based on,hydrologic interpolation shall be
identified.
• The existing,groundwater quality shall be referenced from existing literature.
• The water supply source, infrastructure and availability, service provider and capacity of
systems shall be established through communication with the water district and analysis
of impacts; water main routing and growth impacts must be evaluated; irrigation water,
well installation and impacts must be•examined.
• The expected impact of the project with respect to water,quality shall be fully examined
in terms of sanitary discharge compliance, wastewater treatment system operation and
regulatory.requirements.
Applicable Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) regulations and
requirements will be identified in terms of density and current policy on the proposed
wastewater system, and the compliance of the action with same will be evaluated.
• Calculations of projected sanitary flow and consistency with the Suffolk County Sanitary
Code will also be provided,
• The nitrogen budget for the site (considering all potential sources of nitrogen) shall be
determined using mass-balance modeling methods.
• Other water quality impacts related to pesticides, snow melt chemicals (if applicable),
chemical storage and any other sources shall be analyzed.
• The consistency of the proposed action with the findings of the Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program (NURP) and Nonpoint Source Management Handbook will be evaluated as
related to stormwater management and discharge.
• The existing stormwater management system and surface drainage conditions on the site
Page 12
4
-- Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
will be",described. This -will include, but not be limited to: stormwater generated,
available information relative to collection and management systems, and system
✓ capacity, In addition, post-development stormwater management conditions will be
evaluated. This evaluation will include: calculations of stormwater to be generated,
details of the proposed collection and management systems, 'system "capacity, future
maintenance practices for stormwater collection and leaching structures and analysis of
how the proposed stormwater management system will comply with applicable
regulatory requirements, including the NYSDEC SPDES GP 02-01 Phase 2 stormwater
regulations.
• The change in hydrology of the site in terms of quantity of recharge under existing and
future conditions,shall be established using appropriate hydrologic analysis methods; use
of the irrigation well, drawdown and potential for salt-water intrusion shall be included;
drought conditions water consumption and impact to neighboring private wells; issues
regarding increased water table elevations, functioning of sanitary/drainage recharge
systems and potential to increase flooding in the area shall be addressed.
• Constraints and impacts related•to depth to groundwater mast be evaluated; depth of
leaching structures (sanitary and stormwater) placement to ensure minimum 2-3' above
the water table,capacity and function shall be considered,
• The DEIS will provide calculations of projected water consumption for each use
proposed and, in consultation with the Suffolk County Water Authority, will evaluate,the '
ability to meet this projected water{demand; the evaporative loss of water from new
surface water features, pond "make up" water, irrigation and all water use shall be
included.
• As the proposed action includes the installation of an irrigation well, the yield of the well
must be,provided to determine the need for a Long Island Well Permit and to evaluate the
potential impacts associated therewith.
0 Area conditions in terms of drainage and potential for or reported flooding shall be
described.
0 As the site is situated in Zone AE, base elevations as promulgated by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would be identified, and a consistency
analysis with same would be included; the Flood Zone line shall be interpolated based on
"on-site"topography and shall align with the nine(9) foot contour.
• Impact of flooding on sanitary system function, generator function, and
restaurant/hotel/cottage evaculation•
• Mitigation measures which may reduce potential water quality impacts shall be
identified; measures to correct existing flooding and assurance that flooding will, not be
exacerbated shall be included; resurfacing of Shipyard Lane and installation of drainage
in the Town right-of-way shall be considered as mitigation; drainage mitigation for area
of Cleaves Point Road near east part of site.
Ecology
Existing upland Habitats shall be inventoried through an inspection of the site by a
qualified biologist/ecologist to detennine the vegetation, wildlife, and general habitat
character, An inventory of flora and fauna observed and expected will be provided in this
section of the DEIS.
*WV
«� Page 13
Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
•, In addition, protected native plants, plant and animal species listed as endangered,
threatened, special concern (ol• with other protective status) and significant habitat areas
on or in the vicinity of the project site will be identified.
• The NY Natural Heritage Program shall be contacted for site file information concerning
habitats, plant and animal species.
• Impact to upland habitats shall be quantified and discussed qualitatively in terms
ecological impact to plants and animals.
• The type, quantity and quality of wetlands present on, adjoining, or in the vicinity of the
site shall be mapped and described using current site conditions and recognizing that the
location of high water has moved landward; wetland jurisdiction of the Federal
government, State and Town shall ,be established; existing biological conditions of
proposed dredging areas including submerged aquatic vegetation.
• The jurisdiction, regulatory framework and controls of the Federal government, State and,
Town shall be established.
• Hydrologic systems supporting these wetlands shall be presented.
• Federal and State wetland maps indicate that the proposed action would be under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ALOE) and the NYSDEC as well asw
the Ton Trustees. As such, ,all required wetland permit applications to the ACOS,
NYSDEC and Trustees must be made, Copies of all existing wetland permits would also
be provided (e.g., the existing maintenance dredge permit) and-a discussion of each
permit will be included.
• Potential impacts to wetlands shall be evaluated'in terms of maintaining or enhancing all
wetlands, maintaining adequate setbacks and ensuring that the hydrology of the systems
(sanitary, stonmwater, erosion control, etc.) supporting wetlands yis not degraded in
quality or quantity.
• Water use -impact must be evaluated including: marina impacts associated with
installation and operation, adequacy of navigation channels and boat access to site as well
as boat maneuvers within site; include assessment of available pumpout facilities.
• Historical dredging of the basin and historical depth of the basin shall be documented to
establish pre-existing conditions to support the proposed"maintenance" dredging; impact
of dredging on vegetation and wildlife including osprey nests shall be evaluated.
• Dredging and bulkhead project impacts of construction; installation/spoil removal;
dewatering (odor and vector control); dredge spoil-placement(disposal; dredge spoil
quality (grain size, organic content, volatile/semivolatile organic compounds, metals,
PCB's and related contaminants) shall be included; impact,of the proposed revetment on
surrounding properties shall be determined; analysis shall include physical and biological
littoral processes and impact on submerged aquatic vegetation.
• Setbacks required by State and Town wetland review shall be located and evaluated in
terms of compliance,with maintaining setbacks for disturbance/fertilized vegetation,
structures and sanitary installation.
• Management of the land within wetland setback areas shall be formulated to ensure
corifonnanee with the code requirements.
• Mitigation 'measures to reduce potential impacts shall be identified and method of
implementation determined; details on erosion control to protect site ecology shall be
included.
- P. y��,� ..,,� Page 14
Gain Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Human Resources
Transportation
• Provide a thorough analysis of the traffic impacts of the proposed development on the
area's roadway system. The study shall consider future traffic associated with
employees, guests, visitors, and all aspects of site operations.
• Include analyses of the' proposed plan and internal ,roadway system and a full traffic
impact study assessing the proposed development's impact on the surrounding roadways.
• Sight distance at site and Shipyard Lane and Route 25, road/lane width, circulation and
parking shall be included in this analysis.
• The Traffic Impact Study will include: collection of data regarding planned roadway
improvements and other developments, field surveys and counts of existing traffic
volumes, estimates of future traffic volumes, analyses of existing and future traffic
volumes and identification and timing of required roadway improvements and-the entity
responsible for initiating those improvements, The following specific tasks will be
undertaken and documented in the traffic and transportation section of the DEIS:
I, Several personal, on-site field observations to observe the traffic movements under
various conditions.
2. A physical inventory of the adjacent street network.
I The hourly volume report of the NYSDOT traffic count on Main Road shall be obtained
and included in the traffic study. A review of the count should be performed and the peak
hours occurring on the weekday and weekend should be identified.
4. The following should be included as study intersections with turning movement counts
and analysis conducted during all the time periods:
• Shipyard Lane and Main Road;
• GiIlette Drive and Main Road;
• Cleaves Point Condominium driveway and Shipyard Lane.
S. In addition to weekday AM and PM peak period counts, Saturday peak period
intersection turning movement counts at the study intersections should be conducted
,during the afternoon and/or evening peak periods identified by review'of the Main Road
hourly volumes. Sunday is not typically the busiest weekend day. However, the hourly
volumes should identify which day should be included in the study.
6. Hourly volumes for a seven day period should be collccted on Gillette Drive and
Shipyard Lane.
7. Perform a gap study at the study intersections during the peak periods to record available
gaps in traffic along Main Road.
8. The accident analysis should include a request for accident records along Shipyard Lane
' and Gillette Drive, at both intersections with Main Road and along Main Road for an'
appropriate distance in either direction from each intersection. The accident records
should be reviewed and tabulated.
9. The trip generation calculation should be conducted based upon each of the separate uses
on the site, such as, the restaurant, marina, spa and hotel. The hours of operation, size of
each facility, maximum employees during peak activity, and whether the facility is open
to the public should be identified. Any credit assumed for internal trips should be
supported with documentation. The data from the Hotel Land,Use Code provided by ITE
is not appropriate.
10. A directional distribution analysis to distribute the site-generated traffic onto the
.a •K6LLQ Page 15
COM3 M1 TYVr
Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
operate the facility(housing, schools, etc.).
• The DEIS will include detailed projections of service demand with supporting
documentation.
• The existing tax revenue of the site shall be established.
• The DEIS shall consider future taxes, and if it is expected that the use will not be taxed, a
determination shall be made to determine if payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) is
necessary to offset potential impact to community service providers. .
• The emergency services (ambulance, police and fire) which serve the site shall be
identified and contacted for input with respect to continued ability to serve the site.
• Changes associated with the proposed project shall be evaluated in terms of emergency
service access; a practical ,approach shall be taken to ensure that safe and efficient
emergency service vehicle access to the site can be provided to the site.
• Hydrant installation/location and other development considerations which assist in
addressing emergency services shall be included. -
• Mitigation for emergency service access to ensure that equipment can ingress/egress the
site shall be included.
'J'S
I
` '►' w.""a�,`�,., :�`° ��..� Page 18
- Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Aesthetic Resources and Community Character
• The importance of the site in terns of open space character in the community shall be
established; the type of open space which the site represents and locations of other open
space in the community shall be used in this evaluation.
• The visual character of the existing site conditions shall be identified through ground and
aerial photography using a key for locations of all ground photography.
• The significance of visual character shall be established in terms of the viewing public
and view accessibility. '
• Other aspects of the existing visual character in terns of vegetation, lighting,utilities, etc.
shall be identified. "Dark sky"compliance shall be addressed.
• Impacts of the proposed project in terms of community character and visual setting shall
be determined by discussion as well as graphic methods. Locations shall be determined
through analysis of significance to the viewing public, but at a minimum shall include the
view of the site from Gardiners Bay. "To scale" photographic and architectural
renderings are anticipated, with supporting cross-section evaluation and descriptive text
to fully disclose the change of visual character of the site.
• Impact of shadows of large buildings shall be evaluated.
• The impact of use of fill, increase in site elevations, and visual appearance of structures
will be evaluated. The significance of visual impacts will be assessed and mitigation
proposed. Lighting impacts will be discussed from a visual impact perspective; the"dark
sky" compliance shall be evaluated as well as the potential for a "glow" or "halo' effect
from parking areas, the restaurant or other site improvements shall be addressed,
• The change in character and visual setting shall be detennined in terms of landscape,
vegetation, lighting and utilities.
e Impact associated with the marina operation shall be evaluated in terms of activity, lights,
noise and community land use compatibility impacts.
• The existing noise environment will be evaluated in terns of ambient noise, sensitive
receptors and community character. The potential noise impacts of the project`will be
assessed through identification of source areas, traffic circulation/volume, golf carts, car
doors, backup alarms, building/grounds maintenance, restaurant,waterfall, generator use,
dumpster location, trash compactors (if used) and use, proximity to receptors, distance
and other attenuation, and the significance of potential noise impacts will be assessed.
• Impact of special events (if proposed) shall be evaluated in terms of community
character.
• Impact of gas dock (if proposed) on community safety and pollution potential in
consideration of the surrounding area.
• Population/demographic impacts associated with the use of the site.
• Measures to minimize the impact of loss of open space and change in visual,character
and the means for their implementation shall be provided.
Historic and Archaeological Resources
• The historic and archaeological resources of the site will be addressed through a
determination of historic and archaeological sensitivity and preparation of a Stage IAJIB
Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA). The site is within an area of archaeological
"•m.- ,�Q Page 19
,a:" , ., a,.�
Gaia Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
sensitivity and therefore a Stage IA/IB is required, unless significant ground disturbance
is documented to the satisfaction of the OPRHP. Any mitigation which may be needed
shall be identified.
6.0 Other Required Sections
In addition to the key resources identified in the Positive Declaration, SEQRA identifies other
required sections for a complete DEIS as included in 6NYCRR Part 617.9 (b)(3). Mitigation
measures shall be included with respect to each key impact area as noted in Section 5.0.
Alternatives to be studied are identified in Section 7.0. The following Other Required Sections
and evaluations shall be provided in the DEIS.
• Construction Impacts (Describe the impacts related to construction demolition,
construction, dredge operations, dredge spoil disposal, noise, dust, erosion and
sedimentation, area receptors, applicable nuisance' regulations, applicable agency
oversight and safeguards, phasing of the project, staging areas, parking areas, operation
areas, duration,hours, and related mitigation measures to reduce construction impacts).
• Cumulative Impacts (Describe other pending or approved projects in vicinity (East
Marion), detenmine potential for impacts due to implementation of proposed project in
combination with others and discuss/analyze impacts).
• Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided (Provide brief listing of those adverse
environmental impacts described/discussed previously which are anticipated to occur,
which cannot be completely mitigated).
• Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources (Provide brief discussion of
those natural and human resources which will be committed to and/or consumed by the
proposed project).
• Growth-Inducing Aspects (Provide brief discussion of those aspects of the proposed
project which will or may trigger or contribute to future growth in the area).
7.0 Alternatives to be Studied
SEQRA requires a description and evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives to the action
that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor. As noted in
SEQRA, "The description and evaluation of each alternative shall be at a level of detail sufficient
to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed". The following alternatives
and methods of evaluation are anticipated:
• No Action Alternative-Alternative whereby the site remains in its current condition).
• Potential Acquisition of the site,
• Alternative Design(s) - Design(s) which incorporate(s) features or combinations of
features to provide the following reduced impact alternatives:
➢ Alternative which conforms to LWRP.
➢ Alternative design to conform to a 75 foot impervious/structure setback from current
location of wetlands and placement of the rock revetment above mean high water.
Page 20
%Y.•svMrvFa.r..dnKJ1.LTYJ.
" Gala Holistic Circle
Preliminary Draft Scope for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
➢ Alternative parking layout to provide convenience to proposed use areas and reduce
impact to neighboring residential properties (more interspersed parking).
➢ Conversely, consider an alternative to centralize parking and provide internal operations
to provide access to user access to-site uses in order to better locate and buffer parking
and reduce off-site impacts.
➢ �Alternative design to reduce impervious surface area (particularly the pool patio area) to
increase indigenous landscaping and reduce stormwater, groundwater and wetlands
impacts.
Alternative to remove separate cottages near east property line.
➢ Alternative with reduced building mass of the large building to reduce visual impact.
➢ Reduction in site lighting design to reduce perimeter lighting, impact to Town roads and
adjacent properties.
➢ Alternative building locations to ensure FEMA compliance with less use of fill.,
➢ Alternative dumpster locations to reduce impact'on neighboring properties.
➢ Alternative driveway configuration to consolidate two driveways into one located farther
north from the Cleaves Point Condominiums.
➢ Alternative south end driveway location to avoid conflicts with public access to the road
end.
➢ Consideration for the use of the Gillette Drive driveway for alternate access in addition to
employee access to distribute vehicle trips.
➢ Consideration for the use of the Gillette Drive driveway for emergency access only.
➢ Consideration for use of the combination of Shipyard Lane and Gillette Drive as a
separate ingress and egress from the site.
➢ Removal of entire length of bulkhead extending seaward of upland property.
Attachments Useful in Document Preparation' t
• Town Engineer Review Letter of August 25, 2006
• Town LWRP Coordinator Review Letter of October 25, 2006
• Department of State Review Letter of October 17, 2006
Comments Issues and SCORe Items Deemed Not Relevant
• Increase in sea level due to global warming.
• Eminent domain issue.
This document is intended to fulfill the lead agency requirements for issuance of a Final Scope in
accordance with SEQRA Part 617.8. The document assists the lead agency in evaluating the
DEIS for content and adequacy for public review and assists the applicant in understanding the
extent and quality of information-needed to evaluate the proposed project and allow the, lead
agency and involved agencies to obtain the information necessary to reach an informed decision
on the project.
- ._ `�eex.+Eia.. Page 21
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
y NEW YORK DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS
JACOB K.DAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK;NEW YORK 10278-0090
Regulatory Branch— Eastern Permit Section SF? 19 20%
Subject: Permit Application Number NAN-2013-01475-EYAby Oki-Do Ltd `' .
Oki-Do Ltd.
20 West 64t" Street, Suite 24E ( OCT - 9 2014
New York, NY 10023
Sauthold toren"
Dear Sir: r-f�?stees_l_
Correspondence expressing concern regarding the Public Notice issued for your
proposal has been received by this office;, Copies of these letters are enclosed.
[X] These letters contain specific questions and recommendations; please supply this
office with a response to these questions/recommendations within 30,days of this letter.
[
X] You may voluntarily.elect tom contact objectors to resolve their objections to your
proposal. 11
If any questions should arise concerning this matter, please contact Jun Yan at
(917) 790- 8092.
Sincerely,
J Yan, P.E
roject ger `
Easterction
Enclosure
Cc:
Mr. David Kennedy—VHB Engineering
'
. .
�
OCT
Community Association LU 9 2014
PO Box 625 East Marion,NY 11939' s www.emca.us
Email: Board@EMCA.us
r~~--
September 6, 2014
N14
Jodi K8. McDonald
Chief Regulatory Branch ^'—������
USArnmyCorps ofEngineers ��x,»�wp�~~—' '
New York District
Jacob K.]avitsFederal Building
New York, N'Y. 1U27Q'8D9O
Dear Ms. McDonald, '
'
`
The East Marion Community Association strongly objects tothe granting ofapermit to
,Oki-Do, Ltd.,file Number: NAN-2013-01475-EYA for dredging with 10 year maintenance,
. .
bulkhead replacement, rock revetment construction and new dock construction for the !
following reasons: �
'
We believe 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 i
State Environmental Quality Review(SEQR) by the lead agency,the Planning Board of the Town
of Southold. The applicant's original Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DE{S)for this huge |
project was sent back to the applicant for revision by the Town of Southold Planning Board back
'
|n2OO8because|twas deemed inadequate, Todate,the applicant has never resubmitted a �
revised DE|Sfor review asrequested bvthe lead agency. |
Should your agency grant the permit, it will be splitting,this larger proposed project into �
asmaller project/dredging\vxhichahou|dbeaubiecttoathorou8hDraftEnvironmenta| hn9act
Statement(DE|8). We believe that permit beconoidered segmentation
'
' ` ' �
' oontrarytotheintentof�EQR. VVerequesrthat you review the attached documents: oreview
of the applicant's DEIS conducted on behalf ofthe Town of Southold Planning Board in,2008 .
noting the recommendations and deficiencies that have never been addressed and a letter and �
review submitted totheP|anninQ8oardbyEK4CAontheoznop|etenessoftheapp|icant'uDE|3.
'
We are committed to monitoring any actions involving this project and its impact on our |
community. We trust that you will keep us advised of any actions or decisions made by your /
agency regarding Oki-Do, Ltd.,file Number: NAN-2013-01475-EYA and its waterfront property '
on8h|pyord Lone.
}
S|ncereky, |
/~ bin mandt - '
President
|
East Marion Community Association www.emca.us � |
|
�
�
`
� If
NELSON, POPE VOORHIS, LLC
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING • CONSULTING
Environmental Consultant to the Manning d 572 WALT WHITM4N ROAD,MELVILLE,IV11747-2186
g Boar ((631) A27-5665 FAX (631) 427-5620
Town QF Southold, New York nVw
ggpelsnnpope.com
lir-01
.,f
-7 1,1` ``-) - "
REVIEW OF THE 9 2014
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT(DEIS !
.Bout+7��rr;;� r�•
SHIZEN HOTEL WELLNESS CENTER&
ON THE BEACH,SOUTHOLD9 NY
(a.k.a.GAZA-Holistic Circle)
Proposed Special Exception Permit for Transient Motel ,i � � ] 2008 ..
Shipyard Lane,East Marion,Town of Southold •''
Suffolk County,New York ;.-
Prepared for: Town of Southold tip",
Planning Board
Town Hall,53095-Main Road
P.O,Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
(631)765-1938
Prepared by: Nelson,Pope&Voorhis,LLC
572 Walt Whitman Road
Melville,New York 11747-
(631)
1747(631)427-5665
Date: November 17,2008
At the request of the Town of Southold Planning Board, and pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617.9(a)(2),
Nelson, Pope&Voorhis, LLC(NP&V)has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
prepared by Cramer Consulting Group dated September 8, 2008 (hereafter the DEIS), submitted
on behalf of the above referenced applicant. This review is for the purpose of making a
recommendation to the Planning Board whether the DEIS is adequate with respect to scope and
content for the purpose of commencing public review. At thi's time, and if the Planning Board is
in agreement, we recommend that the Planning Board require revisions to the DEIS prior to its
acceptance as,complete and adequate for public review. Comments included herein primarily
address the need to conform to the Final Scope issued by the Planning Board,dated-November 6,
2006, as well as inaccurate or confusing information requiring clarification and revision. The
recommended revisions are provided below:
Shizen(alta Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 2 of 19
General Comments:
1., A track changes reviewer's copy of the revisions is recommended,along with complete documents to
be resubmitted. The document should be reviewed,for punctuation, grammatical errors, page number
consistency, consistency of data between sections and Table of Contents uniformity, items that are
noted to be flaws in the current draft.
2. The DEIS format should follow the format specified in Section 4.0 of the Final Scope adopted by the
Planning Board. This would assist in ensuring that the preparer addresses each of the required items
contained in the scope and will facilitate the review of the document. The current document is
confusing in format,and lacks information required in the Final Scope.
3. All figures should have a cited source as well as a date of publication.
4. The project is referred differently on the cover of the DEIS than what is shown,on the plans and the
Scope.
5. There should be consistency with the naming and references to the proposed buildings. Using the
letters referenced on the site plan to refer to buildings in the DEIS would be helpful.
6. It would be helpful if the List of Appendices should indicate which Appendices are included in the
manila folders as an addendum to the document,and which are included in the binders.
7. In the document received by this office, the renderings referenced to be in Appendix M, were
included in Appendix B. Final documents should be checked to ensure that Appendices are in the
correct locations.
8. There is no clearly defined indoor pool on the site plans, although it is mentioned several times
throughout the DEIS.
Section 1.0 Executive Summary:
9. All revisions requested for the main text of the DEIS should_ be carried through to the DEIS Summary
contained in Section-1.0.
Section 2.0 Description of the Proposed Action:
10. Page 1,first title: Remove one 4;2.011.
11. Page 1, Subsection 2.1,_first sentence: The.subject property is initially listed as 18.27 acres, but the
subsequent description of the site which divides the areas between surface water and Upland area
totals 18.26 acres. Clarification of the actual site acreage is necessary.
12. Page 1, Subsection 2.1,second paragraph: The conditions of the structures currently existing on the
subject site should be disclosed in this paragraph.
13. Page 1, Subsection 2.1, second paragraph: A one-story metal building situated in the approximate
center of the parcel is mentioned,but not shown on the existing conditions survey.
' F
Sbizen(An Gnia Holistic Circle) I
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 3 of 19
14, Page 1, Subsection 2.1, second paragraph, last sentence: The term "tie line" is utilized here. The f
meaning of this term is unclear,and the sentence should be reworded for clarification.
15. Page 1, Subsection 2.2.1: Details on the historic dredging and use of the boat basin should be
included in this section,if available.
16. Page 4, Subsection 2.2.1, first paragraph: The magnitude of relief requested from the ZBA for the
area variance for setback from bulkhead in the boat basin and from the deteriorated bulkhead should
be indicated. The required and proposed setbacks should be identified.
17. Page 4, Subsection 2.2.1,second paragraph: It is stated that permission was granted for securing the
property;however,it is unclear if or when this was undertaken. Please clarify.
18. Page 5,Subsection 2.2.2: The primary benefits of the proposed project that are identified are property
tax-related and redevelopment of a vacant developed site. Are any additional benefits of the project
expected,and if so,these should be identified.
19. Page 5, Subsection 2.2.2,third paragraph, last sentence: The type of jobs included in the DEIS that
will be offered do not mention any jobs related to the spa.
20.•Page 5,Subsection 2.2.2: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are not adequately addressed, or are partially addressed in other
sections or Appendices.- This information should be collectively provided in this section in
conformance with the Final Scope.
0 Include justification of proposed project in terms of Town goals for site.
• Public need for the project shall be discussed;indicate market study used to assess the need and viability of
the facility;indicate potential for conversion of site to other use based on non-viability of-facility or lack of
need.
• Population served by the project shall be identified.
• Public access to the waterfront shall be discussed.
21, Page 6, Subsection 2.3.1: The allowable uses in the M-II zone should be indicated in order to
establish the appropriateness of the zoning district for the defined transient motel.
22. Page 6,Subsection 2.3.1,first paragraph,second sentence: The DEIS states that the proposed 51,422
SF building will be located in the southeast corner of the site; however, the proposed structure
appears to be located on the southwest corner of the site on the plans. This mistake is carried on
throughout the document.
23. The DEIS does not include a section on"Location and Site-Conditions",and therefore items included
in the scope have not been included collectively in one section as indicated in the scope.
24. Page 6, Subsection 2.3.1: The Marine Plan should be described in detail so that a full understanding
of the scope of the project is identified in the Project Description and Layout section. SCDHS
requirements for a holding tank serving the pumpout facility should be identified.
25. Page 6,Subsection 2.3.1: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed or are partially addressed in other areas of the document. This
section should describe the entire project including the marine plan and other issues/details note
below:
Shizen(aka Gain Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 4 of 19
• Overall Site Layout-describe basis for site yield,proposed structures,services,utilities,access points,road
system,drainage,marina and include a site quantities table.
• Use Design/Description - address breakdown of use areas from a structural standpoint; indicate if the
"patio'will be covered;describe any retail activities on site(sale items,access to public).
• Architecture-the architecture,height and appearance of structures shall be identified.
• LEED-Details on the LEED green building certification being sought for this project.
• Regulations - ADA compliance features and FEMA Flood Plain development compliance as related to
structural improvements;indicate requirements,design parameters and proposed design;indicate first floor
elevations of buildings required and proposed.
• Dredging - details on dredging and bulkhead project; dredge spoil, volume and quality; dredge spoil
dewatering,dredge spoil disposal, C
• Marina and Bulkhead/Revetment- the marina installation shall be fully described including bulkheading
and revetment(including cross sections,materials used,stone size,bulkhead type,backfill,etc.),dredging,
piles and floats,access,function;etc.;indicate if fuel tanks will be installed anywhere on premises and who
will have access.
26. Page 7, Table 1: Areas of natural vegetation versus native landscaping should be individually
calculated. Innote 3,how much of the beach area is vegetated,if any?
27. Page 7, Subsection 2.4: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are not adequately addressed, or are partially addressed in other
sections.
• Grading-the,grading program and-associated areas disturbed shall be discussed along with volumes of soil
excavated,cut/filled,removed from site and maximum depths of cut/fill; fill needed for sanitary,drainage
or structures shall be identified, grading for the proposed access to the managers residence shall be
outlined;quantity of fill behind proposed bulkhead.
• Drainage-site drainage and proposed drainage system and provide capacity and function information shall
be provided along with a disdussion of conformance to NYSDEC SPDES stormwater and erosion control
regulations for construction and post-construction conditions; use of the lake/stream system for drainage
shall be identified if intended as well as function, capacity and viability in view of depth to groundwater
constraints.
• Lake/Stream System-details on the lake and stream system,method of construction/lining;water supply;
soil removaUre-grading, design and depth of features, makeup water and source, vector control,
filtration/treatment equipment, stocking with fish and species, wildfowl control, stormwater retention
qualities if applicable;vegetation and landscaping.
28. Page 8,Subsection 2.5,second sentence: "Infrequent"should be changed to"infrequently:'
29. Page 8, Subsection 2.5: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are inadequately addressed or are partially addressed in other
sections and should be collectively described here for a full understanding of the proposed project.
• Parking-the adequacy of on-site parking shall be discussed; required parking as required by a breakdown
of parking,requirements for each sub-use shall be provided; this will establish the basis for the parking
variance; the amount and adequacy of proposed parking shall be determined; use of permeable-pavement
shall be described in detail in terms of location and use;identify the location of loading docks and dumpster
locations.
30. Page 8,Subsection 2.6: The location of the wastewater treatment facility should be described,and the
treatment capacity estimate of 14,876 gpd of sanitary waste should be referenced as to how that
volume was determined. It is noted that this information is presented in Table 5 on Page 152,and it is
recommended that this be provided in Section 2.6. In addition,the required setbacks and conformity
to setbacks should be indicated to determine if any variances are needed for placement of the facility.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November l7,2008
Page 5 of 19
31. Page 8, Subsection 2.6: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are inadequately addressed or are partially addressed in other
sections and should be collectively described here for a full understanding of the proposed project.
• Water Supply - include a description of water supply source, infrastructure and availability,water main
routing to access the site; irrigation well water supply, lake/stream "make up" water, and proposed
wastewater handling and corresponding use of water supply and sanitary design flow.
32. Page 9, Subsection 2.7: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are inadequately addressed or are partially addressed in other
sections and should be collectively described here for a full understanding of the proposed project.
• Utilities - the sizes and locations of all utilities and services shall be described along with the status of
future possible connection.
• Lighting-the Town lighting requirements,proposed lighting and an illumination analysis shall be provided
and described for all aspects of the project including parking areas, the restaurant and other site
improvements;compliance with"dark skies"shall be identified.
• Landscaping-information on the type,amount and location of landscaping proposed shall be provided as
well as information on maintenance requirements such as irrigation and fertilization under operation and
maintenance; information on buffers around the site perimeter, retention of existing trees and other
buffering techniques shall be identified; the plant list shall be reviewed 'and described to ensure that
"invasive"species are not introduced to-the site;screening of dumpsters,recreational activities and parking
shall be addressed.
® Amenities—describe all amenities on site including outdoor use,tennis courts,arenas,playgrounds,use of
beach and limits on off-site use of facilities,etc.
33. Page 9, Subsection 2.7: Specify the coverage of fertilized versus unfertilized landscape vegetation;
this is important to determine nitrogen load impacts from fertilizer dependent vegetation.
34. Page 9, Subsection 2.7, second paragraph: Reference that the facility will comply with "dark sky"
lighting if such is the case.
35. Page 9,Subsection 2.8: The percentage of the site to be preserved as open space should be disclosed,
and the location of the open space area should be described. The proposed area of open space should
be compared to the existing area of open space in terms of area and percentage.
36. Page 9,Subsection 2.8,second sentence: The sentence is incomplete and should be corrected.
37. Page 9, Subsection 2.9.1: In the first paragraph, the phasing should be described and depicted on the
site plan.
38. Page 10, Subsection 2.9.1: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in
this section have not been addressed, are inadequately addressed or are partially addressed in other
sections and should be collectively described here for a full understanding of the construction of the
proposed project.
• Demolition of the existing buildings including safety and protection of neighboring properties.
• Remediation based on the Phase 1/11 ESA. Specifically, when will the remaining remediation necessary
occur?
• Project phasing(if applicable).
• Method of construction,construction schedule/timetable,days of the week;indicate Town code restrictions
of nuisance activities and compliance.
• Construction management, equipment storagetstaging, delivery routes, hours of operation, workers'
parking,protection of natural and sensitive areas.
• Protection of workers and worker safety during construction shall be evaluated.
Shizen(nka Gain Holistic Circle)
DE IS Review
November 17,2008
Page 6 of 19
• Need to modify overhanging trees on Shipyard Lane for construction or operation.
• Quantity of soil import/export,truck routes,management and mitigation.
• Dredging and bulkhead project details; staging areas; construction methods; dewatering areas; disposal
areas;dredge removal truck trips;time frames for construction.
39. Page 10, Subsection 2.9.1: Site preparation for development should be expanded to address required
handling of asbestos containing materials, lead-based paint, well abandonment (if applicable) and
other demolition-related matters. It is unclear if there are open issues with regard to the Phase II ESA
as identified in review of Section 3.1.3. Additional considerations regarding soil testing, removal,
remediation should be identified with respect to Construction as appropriate based on the Phase Il
ESA.
40. Page'14, Subsection 2.9.2: The hours of construction operation permitted by the Town should be
disclosed. The first two paragraphs in this section should be moved to 2.9.1 as they are more
appropriate as construction-related items.
41. Page 15 Subsection 2.9.2: Overall, the facility operations and maintenance are not adequately
described to gain a full understanding of the project. The scope identified the level of required
information. The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this section have
not been addressed,are inadequately addressed or are partially addressed in other sections and should
be collectively described here for a full understanding of the operations of the proposed project.
• Detailed description identifying which of,the site uses(if any)will be,open to the public(i.e.,the marina,
restaurant,spa,etc.)and which will be exclusive for-hotel guests.
• Uses expected of various locations and facilities within the site; seasons of use,intensity of use,whether
the site will be open to special events such as weddings,conferences or catering events,retail sales.
• Projected number of employees required for the various uses for weekdays,weekends and seasonal peak
periods.
• Indicate activities such as outdoor parties, placement and use of loudspeakers, concerts or special events
including frequency,location time periods and schedule..
• Truck sizes-expected for deliveries and delivery routing,delivery tunes and truck unloading areas.
• Location ofdumpsters,truck access to dumpsters,hours of dumpster pickup shall be addressed;indicate if
trash compactors will be used.
• Details on internal traffic circulation plan,use of gravel road and general on-site activities.
• Description of use of golf carts on site.
• Valet parking shall be fully described.
• Description of any generators proposed for the facility.
• DescrIption of operation of the proposed marina,users,frequency of use,etc.
• Seasons of operation of various components of the facility.
• Lighting operations in terms of type,hours lit and controls shall be discussed.
• Snow removal shall be described as related to parking surfaces and operation.
• Entity responsible for site operations.
• Restrictions on Emergency Access(if proposed)and how the restrictions will be ensured.
• Lake/stream system operation and maintenance;lake"make-up"water;fish stocking;wildfowl population
control;nutrient influx control;mosquito/vector control;aesthetics.
• Water use shall`be fully described including: maximum size of vessels, turning radius, depths, vessel
speeds in marina, potential for increased number of private vessels docking, channel enhancements
(increased dredging potential,navigation aids),and access to existing navigation channels.
• Use and management of open space areas.
• Operation of the marina shall be identified;indicate if fuel storage will occur for marina patrons.
Shizen(aka Gala Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 7 of-19
42. Page 16, Subsection 2.10: A "status" column should be added to the table in'this section. Also,
under "Permit/Approval" a "Coastal Consistency" permit should be added, to which the applicable
agency is the"NYSDOS."
Section 3.0 Existing Environmental Conditions
43. Page 25, Subsection 3.1.1: Soil borings 1,2 and 5 encountered bog and clay below the water table.
The characteristics•of the full borings should be described, including the profile below the water table
and this may be important with respect to potential impacts. Also, the presence and amount of
organic material within the soil should be disclosed, and limitations with regards to building should
be addressed.
44. Page 26, Subsection 3.1.2: The figure reference in the first paragraph should read"see Figure 4"as
opposed to"see Figure 3,' The general slopes on the property should be described.
45. Page 26, Subsection.3.1.3: It is very difficult to follow sequence of the Phase I and Phase II ESA,
and how that translates to required action items to ensure that the property does not retain residual
contamination for development and/or agency release. The dates and authors of the documents
referenced in subheadings should be indicated. In addition,questions raised by this section are noted
as follows:
• Are there unknown tanks remaining on the property,and how will this be addressed(page 30)?
• Have dredge spoil mounds been sampled, do they contain contaminated materials, and how will this be
addressed(page 3I)?
• Was there an endpoint sample collected after remediation of Leaching Structure#1 (page 35)?
• What is the remediation plan for Leaching Structures 99 and 10 which are contaminated(page 35)?
• In some cases an"asterisk"is used instead of a"#"sign;this should be corrected(pages 36,149,150).
• Under UST Closure Activities(page 37),the agency should be identified as the Suffolk County Department
of Health Services
• On page 38,pending samples are indicated;updated sampling should be included in the revised DEIS.
• What agency sign-offs are needed and what sign-offs have been obtained?
• What is the status of the spill(s)on site;has it been closed?
• What was the source of MTBE;was gasoline stored on-the site or could it have been?
• Are there any soil-gas concerns which may require use/design considerations for the proposed
development?
• What considerations are there with respect to asbestos,lead and well abandonment?
46. Page-34, Subsection 3.1.3: The final sentence states that leaching structure locations are depicted in
Figure 1; however, this is not true for this document, and this statement should be revised to reflect
the figures contained within the DEIS.
47. Page 39, Subsection 3.2.1: The third paragraph should describe how depth to groundwater is-arrived
at by providing both the measured depth and the surveyed minimum and maximum topography of the
site.
48. Page 39, Subsection 3.2.1: A source should be referenced for the groundwater quality in the area of
the subject site. There are more up-to-date studies of water quality for nitrogen and pesticides on the
north fork. The Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan(1987)contains
larger scale figures,and updated studies for the north fork are available from SCDHS;these should be
consulted.
Sbizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 8 of 19
49. Page 41, Subsection 3.2.1: Although the hydrogeological zone is analyzed, the Groundwater
Management Zone map is different, and should be utilized for an analysis of Article VI compliance,
as stated in the scope.
50. Page 47, Subsection 3.2.1: It should be noted that a discharge of 600 gpd/acre is permitted only
where public water supply is available.
51. Page 52, Subsection 3.2.4: A description of the benefits and function of LZ wetlands should be
provided; the National Wetlands Inventory feature west of Shipyard Lane near the site identified as
"PEM2Fx"should be described.
52. Page 73, Subsection 3.3.2: It is understood that the habitats will be grouped together for the purpose
of defining general habitat areas; however, areas that are unvegetated should be accounted for
separately,and all structures should be separated out from the larger habitat areas in the habitat map.
53. Page 92, Subsection 3.3.2: Dates of site visits should be provided, and plants actually identified on
site(vs.those expected)during the site visits should be noted in the list of expected plant species for
the subject site.
54. Page 96, Subsection 3.3.2: Seabeach knotweed is mentioned in the NYNHP letter as last observed in '
1991,and is not discussed here. A discussion of this plant should be included here.
55. Page 98;Subsection 3.3.3,first paragraph: The last sentence should be removed as it is not supported
and is more related to the"Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action"section.
56. Page 112, Subsection 3.3.3: Dates of site visits should be provided, and avian species identified on
site during the site visits(vs.those expected)should be noted in the Iist of expected avian species for
the subject site;Species of Special Concern should also be indicated by a key letter in the Species list.
57. Page 118, Subsection 3.3A: Dates of site visits should be provided, and mammalian species
identified on site during the site visits (vs. those expected) should be noted in the list of expected
mammalian species for the subject site;Species of Special Concern should also be indicated by a key
letter in the Species list.
58. Page 120,Subsection 3.3.5: Dates of site visits should be provided,and reptilian species identified on
site during the site visits (vs.those expected)should be noted in the list of expected reptilian species
for the subject site; Species of Special Concern should also be indicated by a key letter in the Species
Est.
59. Page 121, Subsection 3.3.5: In the third paragraph, the definition provided should be that of a
"threatened"species,not an"endangered"species,as listed.
60. Page 124,Subsection 3.4.1,first paragraph: The land use description of the site does not state that the
site is currently vacant. More detail on the surrounding land uses should be included according to the
scope as noted below.
61. Page 124, Section 3.4: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
'section have not been addressed, are not adequately addressed, or are not addressed in the format
prescribed by the Final Scope and should be incorporated into the document.
• This section of the DEIS will describe existing land use and zoning on the subject site and in the
surrounding area.
Sbizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle) !
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 9 of 19
• A physical description of the property(size,boundaries,etc.)will be provided.
• This section of the DEIS will also provide information on the development history of the site and
surrounding area;the existing land use character of the site and surrounding area within 1,000 feet shall be
described and mapped.
• The zoning which applies to the site and the area within 1,000 feet shall be described and mapped,and a
description of zoning regulations for the project site and surrounding area zoning shall be provided.
• Land use plans which pertain to the project site shall be outlined and discussed in terms of their general
intent and applicability to the project site,
62. Page 125, Subsection 3.4.3: The only land use plan identified and summarized was the Town's
UAW. Several studies identified in the Final Scope were omitted.
63. Page 131,Subsection 3.4.3,second paragraph: Correct spelling of"Recreational".
64. Page 131, Section 3.5: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed or are not adequately addressed,and should be incorporated into the
document.
• Circulation and parking shall be included in this analysis.
• The Traffic Impact Study will include: collection of data regarding planned roadway improvements and
other developments, field surveys and counts of existing traffic volumes, estimates of future traffic
volumes,analyses of existing and future traffic volumes and identification and timing-of required roadway
improvements and the entity responsibld for initiating those improvements. The following specific tasks
will be undertaken and documented in the traffic and transportation section of the DEIS:
Y Hourly volumes for a seven day period should be collected on Gillette Drive and Shipyard Lane.
➢ Perform a gap study at the study intersections during the peak periods to record available gaps in
traffic along Main Road.
65. Page 139,Section 3.6: The following community service providers were excluded from analysis:
• School district
• Ambulance services
• Sanitary
• Solid waste
66. Page 139, Section 3.6: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed or are not adequately addressed,and should be incorporated into the
document.
• The impact analysis contained in the DEIS will include consultations Nvith service providers regarding
existing demand for services and capacity such that die DEIS will,objectively analyze the impact of the
proposed action on community facilities and services; ability of services to address emergency needs of
site.
67. Page 140, Subsection 3.7: The following items in'the scope which should have been addressed in this
section have not been addressed, are not adequately addressed or are partially addressed in other
sections and should be collectively addressed in this section pursuant to the Final Scope.
• The importance of the site in terms of open space character in the community shall be established;the type
of open space which the site represents and locations of other open space in the community shall be used in
this evaluation.
• The significance of visual character shall be established in terms of the viewing public and view
accessibility.
• Other aspects of the existing visual character in terns of vegetation, lighting, utilities, etc. shall be
identified. "Dark sky"compliance shall be addressed.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DRIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 10 of 19
68. Page 141, Section 3.8: The noise analysis should be included in the "Aesthetic Resources and
Community Character"section, per the code. The existing noise environment should be evaluated in
terms of ambient noise,sensitive receptors and community character.
69. Page 142, Section 3.9,last paragraph: No information on the status of the additional work requested
by SHPO was indicated.
Section 4.0 Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action
70. Page 143, Subsection 4.1.1, last paragraph: Impacts related to the number of truck trips to import
15,547 cubic yards of material to the site should be analyzed in terms of trips, routes, noise, dust,
community disturbance,hours of activity and length of time of activity.
71. Page 145, Subsection 4.1.1, first paragraph: The description of the USEPA General Permit
referenced'on this page should be integrated with a discussion of the SPDES GP 0-08-001
requirements for an Erosion Control Plan,Notice of Intent and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan(SWPPP),or cross referenced to the appropriate section for this discussion.
72. Page 146, Subsection 4.1.3, first paragraph: The conclusive statement regarding". . . no significant
adverse impacts associated with construction. . .", should address construction impacts of soil
importation and other disturbance/activity during the construction period which could adversely
impact the neighborhood.
73. Page 148, Subsection 4.1.3, third paragraph: The first sentence references a "steep incline";
topographic impacts, resultant slopes, stabilization and grading in relation to ponds and other site
features should be discussed; topographic impacts 'related to construction of ponds should be
discussed.
74. Page 149,Subsection 4.1.2: The poor quality subsoils below the water table identified in Borings 1,2
and 5 should be evaluated in terms of potential impact to the functioning of sanitary and drainage
systems. The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this section have not
been addressed or are not adequately addressed,and should be incorporated into the document.
• Depth to groundwater
• Constraints in terms of depth to groundwater shall be evaluated by establishing that sanitary and drainage
systems can function property;vertical profiles of these systems establishing minimum surface elevation,
maximum groundwater elevation and system installation to required design standards shatl be included.
• Topographic alteration of the site shall be determined through evaluation of the grading proposed for the
site and determination of resultant slopes, volume and dispositiontorigin of cut or fill, and proposed
changes to topographic elevations; impact of fill for sanitary,drainage and buildings shall be evaluated;
evaluation may include description, profiles, contour maps and/or other methods to perform effective
evaluation;impact of grading for the proposed managers residence road shall be evaluated.
75. Page 148, Subsection 4.1.3, last paragraph: The depth of channel dredging referenced in this
paragraph is confusing; it appears as though the depth is being reduced rather than being made
deeper. Impacts related to dredging such as quality of dredged material,disposal,dewatering,form of
dredging,dewatering, staging on site,and removal, with discussion of related impacts have not been
adequately addressed.
76. Page 150, Subsection 4.13: This section should address the suitability of the site for the proposed
use after the questions raised in Continent 44, relating to Section 3.1.3, have been addressed under
existing conditions.
Shizen(aka GAR Holistic Circle)
DE IS Review
November 17,2008
Page 11 of 19
77, Page 150, Subsection 4.2.: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in
this section have not been addressed or are not-adequately addressed, and should be incorporated into
the document. '
• Water main routing and growth impacts must be evaluated; irrigation water,well installation and impacts
must be examined.
• The nitrogen budget for the site(considering all potential sources of nitrogen) shall be determined using
mass-balance modeling methods.
• The consistency of the proposed action with the findings of the Natiomvide Urban Runoff Program
(NURP)will be evaluated as related to stormwater management and discharge.
• The existing stormwater management system and surface drainage conditions on the site will be described.
This will include,but not be limited to:stormwater generated. In addition, post-development-stonnwater
management conditions will be evaluated. This evaluation will include: calculations of stormwater to be
generated,and future maintenance practices for stormwater collection and leaching structures.
• The change in hydrology of the site in terms of quantity of recharge under existing and future conditions
shall.be established using appropriate hydrologic analysis methods;drought conditions water consumption
and impact to neighboring private wells; issues regarding increased water table elevations,functioning of
sanitary/drainage recharge systems and potential to increase flooding in the area shall be addressed.
• As the proposed action includes the installation of an irrigatlon well,the yield of the well must be provided
to determine the need for a Long Island Well Permit and to evaluate the potential impacts associated
therewith.
• Impact of flooding on sanitary system function,generator function,and restaurant/hotel/cottage evacuation.
• Mitigation measures which may reduce potential water quality impacts shall be identified; measures to
correct existing flooding and assurance that flooding will not be exacerbated shall be included;resurfacing
of Shipyard Lane and installation of drainage in the Town right-of-way shall be considered as mitigation;
drainage mitigation for area of Cleaves Point Road near east part of site.
78. Page 151,Subsection 4.2,1,first paragraph: This third sentence indicates there would be". . .no on-
site discharge and no associated sanitary impacts to groundwater." This statement is not accurate and
should be corrected. The CromaglassTM discharge is a sanitary discharge that has a measureable
nitrogen load which must be analyzed as noted in other related comments under Comment 76 and 78.
The fourth sentence indicates that native species would be used,but does not quantify the fertilization
of landscaped areas on the site relative to nitrogen load. The last sentence indicates that, ". . . the
proposed development would not contribute nitrates to the shallow groundwater system." This is not
true as storuiwater, fertilization and sanitary nitrogen would be contributed to the shallow
groundwater system, but has not been analyzed. The revised analysis should address total nitrogen,
not nitrates.
79. Page 155, Subsection 4.2.2, second paragraph: The nitrogen load related to sanitary waste has not
been adequately addressed to support the statement that no significant adverse impacts to
groundwater quality will occur.
80. Page 155, Subsection 4.2.2,water supply: How will the pond irrigation system operate? How will a
minimum water elevation be maintained in the ponds, or will the ponds be allowed to go dry? Will
the pond receive water from a public supply to provide irrigation water during dry periods? The
statement that, ". , there would be no added demand from the public water supplies for irrigation.",
may not be accurate, depending upon'the design of these systems. Statements should be revised
accordingly,once these details are disclosed.
81. Page 156,Subsection 4.2.2, last paragraph: The quantity of la,,vn/fertilized area within the 7.98 acres
of landscaped areas,should be identified to support the statement that native species would'be used to
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DE,IS Revicw
November 17,2008
Page 12 of 19
the maximum extent practicable. It is noted that a breakdown is included on Page 159, indicating that
3.25 acres of the site would be fertilized. This should be factored into the appropriate analyses to
demonstrate that overland runoff and recharge of nitrogen are minimized to the maximum extent,as
expressed in other comments.
82. Page 166, Subsection 4.2.2, third paragraph: The reference to ". . . preparation of a SWPPP (see
Appendix B). . .",is confusing, Appendix B contains the site development plans. It does not appear
as though a SWPPP has been prepared to date. A properly prepared SWPPP may indicate the need
for containment of more than a 2 inch rainfall. What provisions are made for more than a 2 inch
storm and what impacts may occur as a result of stormwater during extreme rain events.
83. Page 168, Subsection 4.2.4, first paragraph: As noted in Comment 74, impacts related to dredging
such as quality of dredged material, disposal, dewatering, form of dredging, dewatering, staging on
site,and removal,with discussion of related impacts have not been adequately addressed.
84. Page 168, Subsection 4.2.4, second paragraph: The jurisdictional boundary of the NYSDEC under
Article 25 should be clearly-established;.the jurisdiction area of 6.6177 acres indicated on the Grading
and Drainage Plans seems too small; how was this determined. This is important so that density,
setbacks,and related Part 661 requirements can be evaluated.
85. Page 170,Subsection 4.2A: The NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations contained in Part
661 include a density provision for sites with a public or community sewage disposal system; this has
not been evaluated.
86. Page'170,Subsection 4.2.4: Justification should be offered for the encroachment of parking to 26 feet
from a tidal wetlands boundary,where a 75 foot setback is required. The impact of this relief on the
function of tidal wetlands and precedent should be assessed.
87. Page 170,Subsection 4.2,4: The evaluation of the project with respect to the Town Trustees authority
should'addrdss or cross reference the dredging related impacts identified in comments 74 and 82
above,
88. Page 178, Subsection 4.2.4: The permissibility of extensive fill in the AE zone should be addressed
in terms of potential impacts of the project,
89. Page 179, Subsection 4.2.4. Nitrogen load impacts with respect to the Peconic Estuary Program
should be evaluated using information from the mass-balance impact analysis in Section 4.1.2,
90. Page 179, Subsection 4.2.4: In the last paragraph, the following sentence is unclear and should be
reworded,"The proposed dredging would increase tidal flushing of the existing basin and remove of
the existing bulkhead."
91. Page 185, Subsection 4.3.1: The area which includes landscaped native vegetation should not be
included in the total natural area,it should be itemized separately.
92. Page 185, Subsection 4.3.1: Details are needed as to the proposed plants utilized for the Japanese
garden in order to fully evaluate the impact of such a garden on the subject site.
93. Page 191,Subsection 4.3.2: The last paragraph on this page discusses impacts regarding the common
and least tern. It should be noted where on site suitable habitat for these species is located. Impacts
regarding clearing and the availability of foraging habitat should also be analyzed. Correspondence
Shizen(aka Gain Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,209
Page 13 of 19
with the NYSDEC regarding the species populations near the subject site should also be provided in
order to fully analyze the impact to these species.
94. Page 193, Subsection 4.3.2: It should be indicated as to whether or not the Great blue herons
observed on site would lose significant foraging habitat or be adversely impacted.
95. Page 194,Subsection 4.3.2: It is noted earlier in the section that it is expected that the population of
gulls may increase slightly as a result of the proposed project. As this species is a known predator to
piping plovers, the increase of the gull population should be evaluated in terms of the impact on the
existing piping plover population.
96. Page 196, Subsection 4.3.2: The statement "Thus, the proposed project should have a significant
positive impact on all species within this group,"should be removed or further supported as removal
of habitat would not be expected to have a positive impact on these species.
'97. Page 208, Subsection 4.3; The Final Scope provided an outline which included wetland related
conditions and impacts to be addressed under Section 4.3,Ecology. Some discussion of wetlands and
potential impacts is included in the DEIS under Water Resoiirces;however,the level of analysis does
not conform to the required scope. Some comments above(Comments 82-86)'address statements and
information presented in other sections of the DEIS. In order to fully address these issues, it is
recommended that the scope outline be followed so that impacts are addressed in the appropriate
section of the document, thereby causing less confusion to the reader following the DEIS and the
Scope. The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this section-have not
been addressed, are not adequately addressed,or are partially addressed in other sections and should
be incorporated into the document.
• The type, quantity and quality of wetlands present on, adjoining, or in'the vicinity of the site shall be
mapped and described using current site conditions and recognizing that the location of high water has
moved landward; wetland jurisdiction of the Federal government, State and Town shall be established;
existing biological conditions of proposed dredging areas including submerged aquatic vegetation,
• The jurisdiction, regulatory'framework and controls bf the Federal government, State and Town shall be
established.
• Hydrologic systems supporting these wetlands shall be presented.
• Federal and State wetland maps indicate that the proposed action would be under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Arany Corps of Engineers (ACOS) and the NYSDEC as well as the Town Trustees. As such, all
required wetland permit applications,to the ACOS,NYSDEC and Trustees must be made. Copies of all
existing wetland permits would also be provided (e.g., the existing maintenance dredge permit) and a
discussion of each permit will be included.
• Potential impacts to wetlands shall be evaluated in terms of maintaining or enhancing all wetlands,
maintaining adequate setbacks and ensuring that the hydrology of the systems (sanitary, stormwater,
erosion control,etc.)supporting wetlands is not degraded in quality-or quantity.
• Water use impact must be evaluated including: marina impacts associated with installation and operation,
adequacy of navigation channels and boat access to site as well as boat maneuvers within site; include
assessment of available pumpout facilities.
• Historical dredging of the basin and historical depth of the basin shall be documented to establish pre-
existing conditions to support the proposed"maintenance"dredging;impact of dredging on vegetation and
wildlife including osprey nests shall be evaluated.
• Dredging and bulkhead project impacts of construction; installation/spoil removal; dewatering (odor and
vector control); dredge spoil placement/disposal; dredge spoil quality (grain size, organic content,
volatile/semivolatile organic compounds, metals, PCB's and related contaminants) shall be included;
impact of the proposed revetment on surrounding properties shall be determined; analysis shall include -
physical and biological littoral processes and impact on submerged aquatic vegetation.
' C
Sldaen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 14 of 19
• Setbacks required by State and Town wetland-review shall be located and evaluated in terms of compliance
with maintaining setbacks for disturbance/fertilized vegetation,structures and sanitary installation.
• Management of the land within wetland setback areas shall be formulated to ensure conformance with the
code requirements.
98. Page 209,Section 4.4: The landuse consistency and potential impact on sin-rounding land use has not
been adequately addressed and is not consistent with the Final Scope. The following items in the
scope which should have been addressed in this section have not been addressed, are not adequately
addressed, or are partially addressed in other sections and should be collectively addressed in this
section pursuant to the Final Scope. ,
• The DEIS will assess the impacts of the proposed action on land use and zoning. The impact assessment
will concentrate on evaluating the consistency of the proposed action with prevailing land use and zoning.
The compatibility of the proposed action with area land use will be assessed. Information on buffers,
retention of existing.trees and other buffering techniques shall be identified as well as adequacy of
screening of dumpsters,recreational activities and parking;impact of the manager residence access road on
adjacent properties shall be evaluated.
• Impact associated with the marina operation shall be evaluated"in terms of activity, lights, noise and
community land use compatibility impacts.
• Noise of the operation .of the project shall be included as an impact analysis related to land use
compatibility,specifically the parking areas,dumpster locations and pickup and internal site circulation as
related to residential receptors in proximity to the site.
• The existing zoning, requested special permit, zoning requirements, parking requirements, and special
permit criteria shall all be evaluated in detail including required parking,loading docks and other related
.zoning dimensional and use parameters.
• The-conformance of the project with land use plans shall be evaluated and discussed. The DEIS shall
address and demonstrate compliance with all applicable ndes, regulations and policy"guidelines found
within the Town Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Implementation Strategy, 208 Study, Suffolk
County Sanitary Code, Long" Island Groundwater Management Program, USEPA Phase I Rule as
administered by NYSDEC under SPDES GP-02-01 (now GP-0-08-001); NURP Study and Nonpoint
Source Management Handbook,NYSDEC SPDES regulations and local objectives to include Town of
Southold Code requirements. The"intent of these studies and applicability to the project site shall be
determined.
99. Page 215, Subsection 4.4.3: The only land use plan identified and summarized was the Town's
LWRP. Several studies identified in the scope were omitted.
100. Page 217, Subsection 4.4.3, Developed Coast Policy 2: "Correspondence with NYS OPRHP
indicates that additional testing is required in order to contra'with the results of the archeological
survey done for the site. Therefore, it is not known at this time whether the proposed action would
have any impacts on historic resources within the Town. This should be addressed so that the full
impacts of the project can be-evaluated.
101. Page 217, Subsection 4.4.3, Developed Coast Policy 3: The visual quality of the site will be
significantly changed and will include a large modern building that is not consistent with the
character of other structures in the area. Further qualitative evaluation and reference to visual
renderings provided in the DEIS is needed to support the statement that the project is consistent with
Developed Coast Policy 3.
102. Page 220, Section 4.5: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in
this section have not been addressed,or are not adequately addressed, and should be incorporated into
the document.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DI;IS Review
November 17,2008
Page 15 of 19
• The trip generation analysis prepared by Dunn uses the ITE database whereas the scoping document called
for a more detailed analysis based upon the specific usage recognizing the different trip generation
characteristics of the proposed use.
• The alternative site access configurations are discussed in the TIS without supporting qualitative analysis.
The analysis should include the various trip distributions for each of the alternates and capacity analyses if
appropriate.
• The TIS includes a parking summary demonstrating that the parking required by code is met;however, it
does not demonstrate that the demands of the proposed use,as to adequacy and convenience,will be met.
• The following potential impacts shall be included in the traffic study:
Day use of on-site facilities such as the spa.
➢ Public occupancy of restaurant seats;feasibility of restricting public use to 72 of 98 seats.
➢ Accurate trip generation factor more specific to proposed use than hotel due to intense support for
amenities specific to this use and not characteristic of a hotel.
D Justify any credit taken for LEED certification rideshare or public transportation.
➢ Impact of driveway locations slid specifically impact to the Cleaves Point Condominiums shall be
assessed and disclosed.
D Potential adverse environmental impacts related to traffic improvements/mitigation recommended by
the TIS must be evaluated.
103. Page 239,Section 4.6: The following community service providers were excluded from analysis:
• School district
• Ambulance services
• Sanitary
• Solid waste
104. Page 239, Section 4.6: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in
this section have not been addressed,or are not adequately addressed;and should be incorporated into
the document.
• The document shall address job creation and the number of employees,and determine the impact if a large
number of employees from outside of the area may be necessary to operate the facility(housing,schools,
etc.).
• The DEIS will include detailed projections of service demand with supporting documentation.
• The DEIS shall consider future taxes, and if it is expected that the use will not be taxed,a determination
shall be made to determine If payment in lieu of taxes(PILOT) is necessary to offset potential impact to
community service providers.
• The emergency services(ambulance,police and fire)which serve the site shall be identified and contacted
for input with respect to continued ability to serve the site.
• Changes associated with the proposed project shall be evaluated in terms of emergency service access; a
practical approach shall be taken to ensure that safe and efficient emergency service vehicle access to the
site can be provided to the site.
• Hydrant installation/location and other development considerations which assist in addressing emergency
services shall be included.
105. Page 240,Subsection 4.7: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in
this section have not been addressed,or are not adequately addressed,and should be incorporated into
the document.
• Cross sections illustrating visual impacts associated with the proposed project.
• Impact of shadows of large buildings shall be evaluated.
• The impact of use of fill,increase in site elevations,and visual appearance of structures will be evaluated.
The significance of visual impacts will be assessed and mitigation proposed. Lighting impacts will be
discussed from a visual impact perspective; the ",dark sky" compliance shall be evaluated as well as the
potential for a"glow"or"bald' effect from parking areas,the restaurant or.other site improvements shall
be addressed.
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 16 of 19
• The change in character and visual setting shall be determined in terms of landscape vegetation, lighting
and utilities.
106. Page 241, Subsection 4,7.1, last paragraph: The visual quality of the site will be significantly
changed and will include a large modern building that is not consistent with the character of other
structures in the area. 'Further qualitative evaluation and reference to visual renderings provided in
the DEIS is needed to support the statement that,the proposed development would be consistent with
the waterfront character and would not result in significant adverse impacts to the character or visual
quality of the community." The document received by this office appeared to have the Appendices
intended to be included in Appendix M, located in the binder in Appendix B. Impacts related to
reflections from the glass structure should be addressed. A qualitative description of what viewers
will see from the Bay, from neighboring residences and from adjoining roads should be provided in
connection with each of the renderings. This section: should be supplemented with information
contained in the above comment to provide a full evaluation.
107. Page 242, Section 4.7.2, first paragraph: The lighting plan included in Appendix B--shows
illumination off the site and areas that may exceed 1 foot candle beyond the property line.
Insufficient information is contained on the lighting plan to make the statements included in this
section with respect to the northwest property line,adjoining existing residences.
108. Page 244, Section 4.8: Potential noise impacts should also relate to traffic volumes and activity
within the proposed marina, and should address the Noise Ordinance and potential impacts to
residential communities as a result of conditions that may change as a result of the proposed project.
109: Page 245,Section 4.9, second paragraph: This section is identical to the information provided in
Section 3.9, Existing Conditions. No information on the status of the additional work requested by
SHPO was indicated.
110. Page 245, Subsection 4.10.1: The following items in the scope which should have-been
addressed in this section have not been addressed, or are not adequately addressed, and should be
incorporated into the document.
• Describe the impacts related to construction,dredge operations,dredge spoil disposal,noise,dust,erosion
and sedimentation, area receptors, applicable nuisance regulations,' applicable agency oversight and
safeguards,phasing of the project,staging areas,parking areas,operation areas,duration,hours,and related
mitigation measures to reduce construction impacts
Section 5.0 Mitigation Measures
111. Beginning Page 247, Subsection�5.0: Mitigation should be provided for any impacts not
previously disclosed, but included in the revised DEIS as a result of conformance to the Final Scope
and this comment letter.
112. Page 247, Subsection 5.1: Provide mitigation for poor quality subsoils below the water table as
needed based on the analysis of potential impacts,
113, Page 248,Subsection 5.1: How areas which are proposed to be paved will be stabilized should be
disclosed as part of this mitigation measure.
114. Page 249, Subsection 5.2: The value and load reduction of nitrogen reduction due to the
CromaglassTM system should be disclosed in this mitigation measure.
Sbizcn(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DE IS Review
November 17,2008
Page I7 of 19
115. Page 250,Subsection 5.3: The fifth mitigation measure presented cannot be utilized as mitigation
as no details are provided regarding-the proposed Japanese garden, and as such,the quantity of native
vs,ornamental species is currently not known.
i
116. Page 250, Subsection 5.3: Species to which nesting boxes and platforms will be provided and
which will benefit from such structures should be identified.
117. Page 251, Subsection 5.4: This subsection should include mitigation for zoning, land use and
plans.
118. Page 253, Subsection 5.6: This section does not provide mitigation for all community service
providers indicated in the Final Scope.
119. Page 254,Subsection 5.7: It is unclear how the final mitigation measure listed in this section is a
mitigation measure for aesthetic resources and community character. This should be clarified or
removed.
120. Page 255, Subsection 5.9: As NYS OPRHP requested that additional testing be conducted, it is
unknown at this time whether any significant adverse impacts to historic or archaeological resources
would result from the project and if mitigation is necessary.
Section 6.0 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
121. Beginning Page 256, Subsection 6.0: Unavoidable Adverse Impacts should be provided for any
impacts not previously disclosed,but included in the revised DEIS as a result of conformance to the
Final Scope and this review document.
Section 7.0 Alternatives and Their Impacts
122. Page 259: Table I 1 should include references as to values utilized in the calculation of water
consumption of each alternative. In addition, a comparison of solid waste generated, tax revenue
i
generated, stormwater generated, and nitrogen inputs created by each alternative should be included. i
The source of information for parking and trip generation for alternatives in the comparison table
should be referenced.
123. Page 262, Subsection 7.2: The Preferred Alternative shares many of the same impacts as the
proposed project. As with the comments in this review document, once revisions are made with
respect to impacts of the proposed project, similar impacts which may result from this alternative
should be disclosed, and/or, the reduction in impacts resulting- from this alternative should be
discussed/quantified. Examples include:
• Soils and Topography -Impacts related to site remediation, soil importation; poor quality subsoils below
groundwater,etc. i
• Water Resources-Impacts related to nitrogen load,etc.
• Ecology—Impacts related to dredging;impact on wetlands,etc.
• Land Uses and Zoning—Land use compatibility and assessment of conformance with land use plans,etc.
• Transportation—Adequacy of parking;use specific trip generation,etc.
• Community Services —Evaluation of impact on other community service providers not Included in the
docuumenL
F
• Aesthetic Resources and Community Character—Visual, noise, light and related impacts which will be
further evaluated per the Final Scope.
• Historic and Archaeological Resources—Impacts to archaeological/historic resources identified by SHPO.
Shizen(aka Gala Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 18 of 19
• Construction Impacts—Impacts related to site preparation for development,and community impacts.
124. Page 262; Subsection 7:2:" The statement "The Preferred Alternative plan would result in less
land disturbance than that of the proposed detion..."should be modified or removed,as the amount of
clearing necessary for the preferred alternative is the same as that of the proposed project.
125. Page 262, Subsection-7.2: Supporting information should be provided stating that there is an
adequate depth below the proposed hotel for a subsurface parking structure.
126. Page 262, Subsection 7.2; The potential construction impacts related to the "preferred
alternative"in connection with de-watering for the subgrade parking should be evaluated.
127. Page 262,Subsection 7.2: The amount of imported fill associated with the"preferred alternative"
should be provided.
128. Page 264, Subsection 7.2: The last sentence in the first paragraph is unclear and should be
reworded for clarity.
129; Page 274,Subsection 7.4: The last sentence in the last paragraph should be reworded for clarity.
130. Page 293, Subsection 7.6: The last paragraph is a duplicate of the second to last paragraph,and
should be,removed.
131. Page 293: The following items in the scope which should have been addressed in this section
have not been addressed. .
• Alternative parking layout to provide convenience to proposed use areas and reduce,impact to neighboring
residential properties(more interspersed parking).
• Alternative to remove separate cottages near east property line.
• Alternative with reduced building mass of the large building to reduce visual impact.
• Alternative dumpster locations to reduce impact on neighboring properties.
• Consideration for the use of the Gillette Drive driveway for emergency access only.
132. The alternative site access configurations are discussed in the TIS without supporting qualitative
analysis. The'analysis should include the various trip distributions for each'of the alternates and
capacity analyses if appropriate.
Section 10.0 Use and Conservation of Energy and Solid Waste Management
133. Page 296: Letters should be provided from both LIPA and National Grid to confirm that both
ample.gas and electricity,will be available for the subject site.
Appendices
134. Appendix B is referred to as containing the Marine Plan; however, Appendix B contains a
reduced rendered site plan and architectural renderings-of the visual appearance of the,project. This
should be clarified in the text references that are provided.
i
f
f
Shizen(aka Gaia Holistic Circle)
DEIS Review
November 17,2008
Page 19 of 19
If the Planning Board is in agreement,the applicant should be directed to incorporate appropriate
changes in the DEIS as outlined herein. The revised document should be submitted to the
Planning Board office for review in conformance with SEQRA procedures to determine
completeness. 1-f acceptable to the Planning Board, it would be helpful and could expedite
review if the applicant submits a "track changes" copy of the main text for review. We are
prepared to assist with further review upon resubmission of the document. Please contact our
office if you have any questions or wish to discuss this review.
' East Marion
Community Association
PO Box 536, East Marion, NY 11939
November 3 2008 € ,,,�n-�,,, ` ;• .
Jerilyn B.Woodhouse, Chair eE�•,'
Planning Board,Town Of Southold OCT _ 9 2014
Southold Town Hall
P.O.Box 1179
Southold—Town �-
Southold Newyork 11971
Dear Ms.Woodhouse:
The old Oyster Farm, one of the few remaining beachfront properties on Orient Harbor,is
of great concern to the residents of East Marion. The East Marion Community Association
(EMCA) represents 535 East Marion residents who are committed to seeing the Oyster Farm
property utilized in away that:has minimal negative impact on the quality of life of the resi-n
dents of East Marion, protects the environment,respects the rural character of the hamlet,
preserves open space and,preserves and protects public access to the bay waters for East
Marion residents.
As soon as the DEIS for the Shizen Hotel Wellness Center and Spa was received by the Town
and made available to the public by the Planning Board,many of our EMCA members be-
came involved in reading the document and commenting on its completeness or incomplete-
ness. I am attaching the result of this community review process.
The document that accompanies this letter represents a significant demonstration of citizen
interest and effort. Since September 13,2008 there have been over 350 downloads of the 900+
page document from www emca.us, the East Marion Community Association website. Forty-
two community members attended an EMCA meeting devoted to reviewing the document
and many signed up to read and closely review various parts of the document for complete-
ness. Comments have been received from 14 community members. The enclosed document
is a compendium of this community review process of the DEIS against the Final Scope and
commenting on the completeness of the Shizen DEIS.
Our enclosed document follows the outline that the developer was directed to follow by the
Organization and Overall Content of the DEIS Document in the Final Scope (page 6). You will
find that our community members have identified significant omissions in the DEIS. We par-
ticularly call your attention to the following sections,which we find glaringly incomplete:
Project Background,Need, Objectives and Benefits
1.4.2 Operation
3.1 Transportation
3.4 Aesthetic Resources and Community Character
4.2 Water Resources
Unfortunately, the organization of the Shizen DEIS does not conform consistently to the basic
outline for the Table of Contents as contained in 6NYCRR Part 6179(b) 93) and directed in the
continued on next page
continued from previous page
Final Scope. This failure to align the DEIS with the prescribed outline makes it unneces-
sarily difficult for a reader to determine the completeness of the DEIS document.When
this DEIS is sent back to the property owner for rewriting to address omissions, as we be-
lieve it should be,the property owner should be directed to resubmit it in a form that fol-
lows the prescribed outline. This project is of extreme interest to a broad base of citizens
in our community. This is a very detailed and complex project proposal. When citizens
have to look in multiple places in the document to determine whether required informa-
tion has beenprovided, it raises citizen suspicions that the preparers of the document
were attempting to obfuscate rather than be open and transparent.This is not helpful to a
productive review process.
The East Marion Community Association is committed to participating in the review and
decision making process regarding the Oyster Farm property. We understand that the
DEIS has not been deemed complete by the Lead Agency and we hope that the Planning
Board will consider our input as it goes about this process. Please call on us if there is any
way our organization can be of assistance to the Planning Board as it goes about its delib-
erations.
Sincerely,
k
Ruth Ann Bramson,President
East Marion Community Association
�.East Marion
Comm unity� Association
IL
PO Box 625, East Marion, NY 11939
November 3, 2008 OCT - 9 2014
COMMENTS REGARDING COMPLETENESS,OF SHIZEN DEIS
Prepared by the East Marion Community Association south;��d�cn
Note: This document follows'the outline in the Final Scope
prepared for the Town of Southold by Nelson, Pope and Voorhis.
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
1.1 Project Background, Need, Objectives and Benefits
1.1.1 Background and History
• What is the status regarding the securing of the property per the December 4, 2007
letter to the property owner from the Town? On December 12, 2007 the Town Trustees
and NYDEC granted approval for the owner to undertake securing the property.Why
has this not been done?The site remains hazardous. (p. 4)
• Have enough widespread soil borings been conducted?
• Has water testing been done near the contaminated buildings? I
Has the soil surrounding the old buildings been contaminated with lead and asbestos?
If so how will it be removed?
• On or about Oct..10, 2008, DEC is reported to have received information necessary to
process the permit that will allow remediation of,hazardous violations issued by the Town
of Southold. DEC is presently analyzing and a decision on a permit will follow.The DEIS
promises safeguards of hazardous material in many places but no concrete safeguards
are mentioned.
1.1.2 Public Need and Municipality Objectives
• It is stated on p.5 of the DEIS that the proposed action would result in an increased tax
levy of$166,563.99 and generate 200 new jobs. What proportion of those jobs would
be administration? Sales? Marketing?Clerical? Property maintenance?,Food services?
Other services? How many of the jobs would go to people currently living in East Marion
or Southold Town?Insufficiently Addressed
• The Feasibility Study(Appendix C page 32) notes "it is fairly apparent that the major-
ity of staff will come from Riverhead and West.' How was this determined?Page 33
fails to mention the employment of a certified plant engineer on site 24/7 to avoid any
malfunction of the-sewage treatment plant, which could be disastrous to groundwater or
Gardiner's Bay.The study notes (page 36) "personnel facilities will be located in an as
yet to be'determined location"Not addressed in the document is the increased water
and square footage necessary for the locker room, bathroom and break area for the 100
'employees proposed on site.
• How does this proposed project address the goals of Southold Town? Consistency
with the LWRP, State Coastal Zone Management Program, Peconic Estuary Program
(PEP), East Marion Stakeholders -not addressed. For example,the PEP's goals for `
toxic areas are "improve the ambient environment"where there is evidence of toxins.
Who will monitor this high density site to achieve this goal?
• Population to be served.(This is only addressed in the Young feasibility study Appendix C.)
EastMarion CommunityAssociation comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page I of 10 pages
• Current market study to assess need and viability of facility (This is only addressed in
the Young feasibility study Appendix C-which is not current and possibly not feasible in
this economy.)
• Public access to the waterfront-not addressed. In fact, Figure 7, Proposed Habitats,
shows a red line representing a structure that would block�public access to the shoreline.
• Potential for conversion of the site to another use based on non-viability of facility or
lack of need - not addressed.
1.1.3 Objectives of the Project sponsor
• Gaia Holistic Circle form of treatment/lifestyle to be described (This is only addressed
in the Young feasibility study Appendix C.)
1.1.4 Benefits of the Project
• Benefits are addressed from the perspective of the developer, not the community,as
directed by the Scoping document. Insufficiently addressed.
• The only community benefits discussed are the espoused economic benefits.What are
the potential_social benefits to the community? In what ways does the proposed project
enhance the historic character of the community?What are the environmental benefits?
How is this project going to enhance the quality of life of the people who live in East
Marion?(p.8) Insufficiently addressed,.
1.2 Location and Site Conditions
• "Using appropriate mapping and/.or tables, describe location of site, in terms of adjacent/
nearby significant properties, zoning and service districts, available services, etc"-not ad-
dressed.The size of other commercial enterprises in East Marion also should be included.
• "The existing conditions of the site in terms of bulkheads, mean high water, mean low water,
site survey, structures,vegetative cover shall be provided as an overall background of existing
site conditions." Not addressed.
• "A summary of subsurface conditions and features, suspected contamination on the site and
in the area proposed for development,as well as remediation initiatives. The Phase II Ex-
panded EAS/UST Closure Report by Long Shore Environmental Report'(Appendix L) shows
leaching structures contaminated with copper and zinc. Still needed (as noted on page 38 of
DEIS) is a UST Closure Report in regard to analysis of STARS target compounds for the DEC.
• The adverse impact of bottom sediments within underground leaching structures would rep-
resent a violation of the USEPA UTC Program. See page 30 of DEIS.
1.3 Project Design and Layout
1.3.1 Overall Site Layout
• "Use/Design Description.Address breakdown of use areas from a structural stand-
point. Indicate if the patio will be covered. Describe any retail activities on site (sale
items, access to the public)"-not addressed. For example,there is no loading dock
shown in the DEIS. ,
• "Architecture.The architecture, height, and appearance of structures shall be identi-
fied' -not addressed.
• "LEED. Details on the LEED green building certification being sought for thisproject,"
Not addressed.
• "Regulations.ADA compliance features and FEMA Flood Plain development compli-
ance as related to structural improvements; indicate requirements,design parameters
,and proposed design, indicate first floor elevations of buildings required and proposed'
—not addressed. For example,the base flood elevation with Zone AE as per the FEMA
Map is 9 feet above mean sea level.This would'.place the height of the first floor at
10-feet or more. How would the 2-story building come under 35-feet in height? If a sub-
grade garage is used, how would it conform'to FEMA regulations?
East Marion CommunityAssociation comments on tile'September2008 Shizen DEIS Page 2 of 10 pages
1.3.2 Grading and Drainage
•There is a diagram of a drainage plan in Appendix B, but there is no discussion of
storm water and erosion control or compliance with,regulations as required. How will
excessive rain, storms and hurricanes affect the site?
• Is an annual inspection (p. 15 of DEIS) of drainage structures sufficient?
• How will pavement for 189 parking spaces and driveways affect grading and drainage?
1.3.3 Access, Road System and Parking
•The DEIS Executive Summary states access driveways have been reduced from three
to two. In this section (p. 8) it says there are to be three access points on Shipyard Lane.
Which is it?
•There are no internal road system or traffic circulation indicators in Appendix B.
• Congestion and conditions on Shipyard Lane,the access road, are not addressed.
1.3.4 Sanitary Disposal and Water supply
• "Utilities. The sizes and locations of all utilities shall be described along with status of
future possible connection"-not addressed except for waste treatment system in Ap-
pendix K.
• Sanitary Disposal and Water Supply
•The applicant proposed to mitigate the effects of the higher than allowed water usage
by installing a Cromaglass wastewater treatment system which would treat sewage on
site. The applicant claims that this system will be noiseless and odorless.We are not told,
however, how often the sludge which collects in these tanks would have to be pumped
out and what the effect of that pumping on the neighbors would be.
• Even more worrisome than the sludge pumping, however, is the fact that while the
Cromaglass system may alleviate some water quality concerns, it does absolutely noth-
ing to allay our fears about the quantity of water this proposed development would pump
in and discharge into a fragile and already nearly saturated area,"
•The Preliminary Draft Scope for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement requires
that the applicant address the"change in hydrology of the site in terms of quantity of
recharge under existing and future conditions" as well as "issues regarding increased
water table elevations" and "potential to increase flooding in the area"None of these
issues have been addressed and are of vital interest,to us.,
• In the last decade many of the vacant lots in Marion Manor have been developed. In-
herent in this residential development of single family homes has been the cutting down
of the second growth stands that were there even just six or seven years ago.These
wooded lots used to absorb a lot of rainwater and the trees prevented runoff. Now,
instead of wooded lots we have houses connected to SCWA water supply, and all of us
have experienced more basement flooding and increased street flooding.
•This has happened with just the addition of about 20 single family homes.What is
going to happen if a behemoth development cuts down almost every tree on the adjoin-
ing 18 acres, and then starts pumping in 15,000 gallons a day of water that the earth is
supposed to absorb?This is a recipe for disaster and there are no answers in this DEIS.
•The applicant proposes to move in great quantities of earth in order to bring the ground
level higher above the water table.Almost all existing vegetation with its deep'root sys- '
tem would be removed."Hay bales"and "temporary plantings"are proposed as mitigating
measures. It would take years for the newly planted landscaping to develop a root system
strong enough to hold the soil in place. In the meantime,the roads,the neighbors and the
bay will be dealing with not only rising water tables but also increased silt runoff.
• One mitigation measure that the applicant proposes is in the preferred alternative plan — a
subsurface parking garage in order to minimize the paved surfaces on the property.How-
East Marion Community Association comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 3 of 10 pages
ever, no where in the DEIS is the feasibility of a parking garage below the water table
discussed, nor the additional adverse impact that such a submerged structure might
have on the water table itself. Parking garages are not generally built below water level,
so obviously if this one is going to be built below the water line, precautions and special'
measures must be necessary to prevent flooding.The applicant presents this.measure
as if it were"an everyday occurrence.
1.3.5 Site Landscaping and Lighting
• Coompliance with dark skies -not addressed.
1.3.6 Open Space
• "Amenities. Describe all amenities on site including outdoor use,tennis courts, arena,
playgrounds, use of beach and limits on off-site use of facilities, etc"-not addressed.
1.4 Construction and Operation
1.4.1 Construction
• "Demolition of existing buildings and steps to protect neighborhood properties"—not
addressed.
• "Remediation based on Phase 1/II ESA'-not addressed. For example,who will su-
pervise demolition and the correct disposal and remediation of contaminants and toxic
wastes on site?
• Construction schedule does not specify days of the week nor are Town code restric-
tions of nuisance activities and compliance addressed.
• Hours of operation -Noted,in several places to be from 7 a.m,to'7 p.m. How will this be
regulated and enforced?
• Evaluation of protection of workers and worker safety during construction-not ad-
dressed,
• Need to modify overhanging trees on Shipyard Lane-not addressed.
• Dredging and bulkhead project details-not addressed.
1.4.2 Operation
•There are 21 bullets,in the Scope and NONE of those issues are addressed in the
DEIS summary.
• In the property description in the Scope document there is a description of"a large
man made pond, containing a landscaped island,several recreational bridges and
wooden decks."There is no mention of"floating stage"for theater, music and other en-
tertainment.This has been added in the DEIS, Shizen Feasibility Study page 4 and again
on page 15 the Shizen Feasibility Study mentions evening activities including music,
• Under the heading "Other Activities"section on page 21 it states, "In the center of the
pond is a floating theater that is the stage for performances in addition to the the-
ater,other entertainment will be brought,in on a periodic basis and may perform in this
location," Further on the same page it states, "There will be entertainment every evening
including live music." Also on page 21 it states, "When not in use it[outdoor theater] is
simply a peaceful place to be."This gives the impression that it will not be a peaceful
place when used for entertainment, They,also mention artists who perform at Shizen
will have'their music CDs sold in the on premises retail store. (p. 22).The DEIS states
that the development is a"destination spa retreat" and, "the nature of this use would not
be expected to be a significant source of noise,The DEIS further states,"according to
the applicant,there would be no outdoor events that would have a noise impact on the
neighborhood:' East Marion residents have had lots of experience with outdoor music,
as is known and documented by many police reports of neighbor's complaints about the
Blue Dolphin where outdoor music and entertainment can be heard for up to one mile
from the source. In addition, live music from Claudio's can be heard all the way across
East Marion Community Association comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 4 of 10 pages
the Bay to Shelter Island. Outdoor entertainment emanating from the location of Shi-
zen Hotel Center will most likely be heard not only across the water to Shelter Island,
but within a one mile radius of the facility. This is most definitely a significant source of
noise.
• In the Executive Summary under Mitigation Measures the Noise section states, "as
no significant noise impacts would result, no mitigation is proposed" _How have they
determined that there would be no significant noise? Has it been measured? Have
they documented an instance where amplified music was played and could not be heard
by the neighbors? There are no grounds and no proof of the statement, "no significant,
noise impacts would result."
•The Scoping document asked the applicant to specify (p.10-11 under heading: Opera-
tion), seasons of use, intensity of use,whether the site would be open to special events
such as weddings, conferences or catering events. This request was not answered. In
addition they were to indicate activities such as, "outdoor parties, placement and use of
loudspeakers, concerts or special events including frequency, location,time periods and
schedule"This request was not answered.
1.5 Permits and Approvals Required
• "Indicate the filing date and status of submissions to the lead and involved agencies"-not
addressed.
-The fact that a Coastal Erosion Hazard permit is required is missing from the document
• The application for a sewage disposal permit to the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services is deficient In section 4, number 2 of the application it states the property is not in a
Coastal Erosion Hazard area,which is incorrect,
• There is no application/request for the required Reduction/Waiver of Minimum Separation
Distances. Exhibit I is missing.
2.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
2.1 Soils and Topography
2.1.1 Existing Conditions
• Constraints in terms of depth of groundwater-not addressed.
2,1.2 Anticipated Impacts
• "Impact on surrounding properties of completely re-sculpting the existing topography
and creating of two large hills"-not addresed.
2.1.3 Proposed Mitigation
- • "Mitigation in terms of soil remediation, erosion control, retention of soils, fugitive dust
and related impacts"-not addressed.
2.2 Water Resources
2.2.1 Existing Conditions
2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts
Consistency of proposed project with Non Point Source Management Handbook is to
be evaluated. The handbook calls for limited removal of natural vegetation and creation
of lawn areas. Currently, 15.3 acres of the overall 18.27 acres are naturally vegetated,
Upon implementation there will be only 2.03 acres with natural vegetation and intertidal
beach. How can this be called limited removal of natural vegetation?
• Non-Point Source Management Handbook calls for minimum grade changes and site
clearing.The proposed project calls for steep incline in northeast corner of the property
-from 9' to 16' creating a waterfall.This is inconsistent with existing grades.
East Marion CommunityAssociation comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 5 of l0 pages
• Marina and boat pollution (DEIS p. 160) Does this mean overnight and live-aboards
will not be permitted?
• "Nitrogen budget for site (considering all potential sources of nitrogen) shall be deter-
mined using mass balance modeling methods— not addressed.
• If existing buildings are to be removed (DEIS p. 168) why is new structure not required
to observe the 75' setback required by Environmental Conservation Law Article 25?
• "Impact of flood on sanitary system function, generator function, and restaurant/hotel/
cottage evacuation"— not addressed.
•Table 5 in Section 4.2.1 lists projected water usage.
• How did the applicant come up with the difference between restaurant seats which
generate 30 gals per seat water usage and cafeteria seats which seem to use only 2.5,
gallons per seat, which is barely enough for a person to wash his/her hands and use a
low-flush toilet once.What are these cafeteria seats?Are they served by food automats
that are stocked with prefabricated wrapped snacks?
• Look at the 46 showers in the bath house.The generally accepted water usage for a
shower is 12.5 gallons per shower.Why are these listed at 5 gallons and is each shower
meant to be used by only one guest per day?
• The figure for the boat slips is actually laughable. If you have ever watched a boat
owner hose off his beloved craft for 20 minutes when he brings it into the marina,you
will realize that allocating only 10 gallons per slip means that it takes less water to wash
off a boat than it does for a person to shower. Indeed, any use of toilets or showers by
marina visitors seems to have been omitted.
•Also questionable is the idea that a facility this large will operate without any laundry
facilities. While indeed the applicant may promise at this point in the permitting process
not to do laundry on site, how would this provision ever be enforced?What is to stop this
owner or a subsequent one from installing washers and dryers?
•We believe that actual water usage would be higher than the roughly 15,000 gallons
per day that the applicant claims.
2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation
• What is the noise level of circulation pumps?
•What would prevent this or future owners from adding laundry facilities?
2.3 Ecology
2.3.1 Existing Conditions
2.3.2 Anticipated Impacts
• Impact of introducing freshwater habitat to area in which it does not exist naturally-
not addressed. i
• Impact of loss of approximately 87%of natural vegetation and 72%increase in struc-
tures and paving and structures on the ecology of the site -incompletely addressed
•See p.14 of Scope.All items from 4th bullet to next to last are not addressed in DEIS.
2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation
• "Mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts shall be identified and method of
implementation determined."This project proposes such wide scale disturbance to the
site that mitigation to reduce impacts don't even seem to apply.
• "Details on erosion control to protect ecology shall be included"-not addressed.
• The proposal does not conform to the Peconic Estuary Program's goals of maintaining
current linear feet of natural shoreline and over the next 15 years reducing hardening
structure by 5 percent, measured by the percent change of natural vs. hardened shore-
line through GPS mapping.
East Marion Community Association comments on the September2008 Shizen DEIS Page 6 of 10 pages
•The planned revetment plus the jetty on the east side of the marina inlet will starve
beaches to the west.
• The inlet to the marina experience constant wave action which will require constant
maintenance to keep it open.
3.0 HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
3.1 Transportation
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
• Traffic Study conducted by Dunn Engineering submitted three weeks late, earlier study
does not include`Sunday data, one of the busiest days of local traffic and additional
Cross Sound Ferry traffic which affect both the Main Road and.Shipyard Lane.
• What is the width of Shipyard Lane (is it full 2 lane widths?) NYS Route 25 shoulders
are 8-10 feet and are not available as turn lanes, currently used as bike lanes with sig-
nage as such.
• Traffic volumes. Does not indicate volume of cars on Shipyard and Gillette. Should
include seasonal data.Turning times -signal at intersections not the number of cars
•The summary of the traffic study says there are "several" homes on Shipyard Lane.
There are over 20 homes on Shipyard Lane and 30 in Summit Estates (which is not yet
fully built-out) Their only access to Route 25 is through Shipyard Lane.
• Golf Lane, directly opposite Shipyard Lane,was excluded from the traffic,study.
3.1.2 Anticipated Impact
• How wide would Shipyard Lane and Gillette Drive need to be,to accommodate two
formal, marked lanes of traffic? How many trips are currently typical on these two side
streets? How many trips would result with Shizen at the terminus? What is the percent-
age of increase?
•Table 7 on page 223 includes no numbers to compare to current volume
• Trip generation - hypothesizes public transportation use of"hotel vans" but no support
provided.
3.1.3 Proposed Mitigation
• The proposed widening of Shipyard Lane may encroach on private property and utility
poles.
•The proposed widening of the Main Road will affect the bicycle lane.
3.2 Land and Water Use,Zoning and Plans
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
•The Town of Southold Zoning Code defines a transient motel "not to be construed to
include a resort motel"How does this qualify?
•The Zoning Code stipulates one guest unit per 4,000_square7feet of land with public wa-
ter and sewer.This plan also,includes a restaurant, marina, manager's residence,swimming
pool and maintenance facility. It is not clear this is permitted under current,zoning.
3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts
• Page 16 of Scope, last bullet on the page to first 5 bullets on page 17—not ad-
dressed.
• Subsurface-parking indicated in,the preferred alternative where the water table is 2.5
feet below the surface is impractical and unprecedented in the area DEIS gives no
examples or specifications.
3.2.3 Proposed Mitigation
•This section (p. 251) includes no discussion of mitigation measures.
EastMarion CommunityAssociation comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 7 of 10 pages
3.3 Community Facilities and Services
3.3.1 Existing Conditions J
3.3.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.3.3 Mitigation Measures
•There is no mention of handicapped facilities or accommodation.
•There is no mention of winter heating,What is the source of energy?Where will fuel be
stored?
3.4 Aesthetic Resources and Community Character
3.4,1 Existing Conditions
• Disorganized in terms of aesthetics and community character.the point of view is of
the developer and not of community.
• Deals only with dilapidated site currently- no discussion of existing neighborhood
character,
• What is zoning, lot size, density per acre of nearby properties?What are aesthetics of
community? Consider Main Road typical homes, also Shipyard Lane homes. How does
proposed project fit into these aesthetics/community character?
•There is no discussion in the report of the 'commercial' uses currently in place in EM.
These are, of course, Seps and Angel's Deli.What are the respective sizes of these busi-
nesses compared to the size of Shizen?
• What is the size of the 'typical' home in EM? How does this compare,with the square-
footage of the built structures at Shizen?
• Discuss the complete lack of barriers to the street(i.e,fences, hedges, etc.) in East
Marion with the closed nature of the Shizen property, typified by the 20-foot-high
planted berm and gated facility,
• Compare the population of East Marion with the projected transient population of Shi-
zen on any weekend, What is the projected population increase by percentage?
• Discuss the ',open door' atmosphere and personal,recognition of neighbors that char-
acterizes East Marion. With the population increase that will be 100% composed of
transients, how will this impact the character of East Marion? Will kids be able to ride
their bikes on their streets?Will neighbors be able to take quiet walks safely?
3.4.2 Anticipated Impacts
•There has been no consideration giver' to the existing, neighboring structures on the
shoreline, or to the general architectural ambiance of existing buildings that characterize
Southold Town in general.The new structure represents a significant deviation from the
Cleaves Point community which occupies the site immediately to the west.The design
approach in no way embraces or acknowledges the existing aesthetic of surrounding
structures.The proposed main building embodies none of the qualities or characteristics
of existing structures and in fact looks like a corporate headquarters.This does not in
anyway reflect or embrace the rural nature of the area and a quality that we believe the
Town is making an effort to protect It flies in the,face of all those characteristic aesthet-
ics,There has been no effort to use or incorporate the traditional building materials(wood,
shingle,etc.) or the design approach which characterizes the Town.The large expanse of
glass is visually jarring compared to the condos it abuts as well as other existing structures
along the coastline.While it would no doubt afford those inside.expansive views of,the
bay, it departs significantly from the existing ambiance of the coast and produces a hard
edge visual that is inconsistent with the existing coastline, It selfishly provides those few
transients inside with a lovely view at the expense of all users of the Bay.The neighbors
will be confronted by this'corporate headquarters"aesthetic when they exit their homes.
They as well as all residents on the street will be subjected to the increased traffic com-
East Marion CommunityAssociation comments on the September2008 Shizen DEIS Page 8 of 10 pages
ing and going,which will contribute negatively to the community character of the area The
shoreline residents of Shelter Island will be subjected to a wall of glass that will, depending
on the weather,either reflect the sun in a blinding strip, or appear a dark black stripe along
the opposite shore. Interestingly,the main building has no aesthetic connection with the
single/individual structures in its proposal. Not only does the main building fly in the face
of local aesthetics, it bears no relationship to the other proposed buildings on the site.
• How can a large hotel and restaurant operation create "no significant adverse noise
impacts"?
3.4.3 Proposed Mitigation
•The proposed public road alterations to accommodate additional traffic will also change
the character of the area.These modifications are for the exclusive convenience of the
proposed spa visitors and strike us as intrusive to the nature of the community in general.
• "Non-business hours"are not specified
3.5 Historical and Archaeological Resources
3.5.1 Existing Conditions
3.5.2 Anticipated Impacts
3.5.3 Proposed Mitigation
• Correspondence from SHPO recommended close interval shovel testing of the area
to provide data on the distribution of prehistoric materials across the site. There is no
followup in the DEIS.
4.0 OTHER REQUIRED SECTIONS
4.1 Construction Related Impacts
• Will construction activity be restricted to week days?
4.2 Cumulative Impacts - not addressed,
4.3 Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided
The applicant cites increased storm water runoff, increased water use and additional vehicle
trips.These will have a permanent adverse effect on the hamlet of East Marion and can be
avoided by not approving this project.
4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources - Not addressed,
4.5 Growth Inducing Aspects-Not addressed.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 No Action Alternative
5.2 Alternative Site Designs
• Why has there been no alternative offered other than those which are totally unacceptable to
the community?Why not an alternative that is aligned with the priorities set forth in the LWRP
(such as public access to the bay?)Why not an alternative that respects the history of the site
and the aesthetics and character of the community?Why not an alternative which is compat-
ible with the population density of East Marion?
• The LWRP recommended use of this site as a public marina.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE:
•The Preferred alternative design does NOT address the following issues:
• The plan's parking —a sub-grade garage- could contaminate groundwater and the bay dur-
ing a storm or flood;the excavation could contaminate groundwater.
-The plan to remove separate cottages near the east property line is not addressed,.
East Marion Community Association comments on the September-2008 Shizen DEIS Page 9 of 10 pages
•Alternative building locations to ensure FEMA compliance with less use of fill is not ad-
dressed.
• Page 297 notes the complex will generate 19 tons of garbage per month,yet the dumpster
locations to reduce impact on neighboring properties are not addressed.
-The traffic generated will combine with hourly Cross Sound Ferry traffic estimated at 400
cars'per hour passing the intersection of Shipyard Lane and Route 25. This creates additional
safety hazards for the community.This issue was not addressed.
•A winter heating source, a water heating source and a restaurant energy source for cooking
have not been addressed '
• In the preferred alternative site plan the square-footage for the 114 motel units exceeds the
30 percent allowance for site development.
• What is the setback from the basin wetlands for the east side cottage buildings?
• In conclusion,there is nothing in the proposed project or the preferred alternative site plans
that is consistent with the waterfront character and-visual quality of the community. Either pro-
posal would result in significant adverse impacts.This is an out-sized, commercial, 24/7 com-
plex that will add nothing but disturbance and irrevocable damage to the quality of life of our
community.The goals of the LWRP include protecting sensitive coastal areas and maximizing
public access to the waterfront These proposals only address public access on a pay-as-you-
go basis. This site is one of the only areas in East Marion that would give residents access to
the bay.
f
i
" I
EastMarion CommunityAssociation comments on the September 2008 Shizen DEIS Page 10 of 10 pages
East Marion
1 ii�E,ti
Community Association OCT - 9 2014
PO Box 625 East Marion,NY 11939 www.emca.us ou#hafd{r Plorim
Email:Board@EMCA.us s
HYR9
September 6,2014 SEP 15 2014
Jodi M.McDonald (YDIS'1'-OMOFEWNERS
Chief Regulatory Branch
US Army Corps of Engineers
New York District
Jacob K.Javits Federal Building
New York, N.Y. 10278-0090
Dear Ms. McDonald,
The East Marion Community Association strongly objects to the granting of a permit to Oki-Do,
Ltd.,file Number: NAN-2013-01475-EYA for dredging with 10 year maintenance, bulkhead
replacement,rock revetment construction and new dock construction for the following reasons:
We believe 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. The applicant's original Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)for this huge
project was sent back to the applicant for revision by the Town of Southold Planning Board back i
in 2008 because it was deemed inadequate. To date,the applicant has never resubmitted a
revised DEIS for review as requested by the lead agency.
Should your agency grant the permit, it will be splitting this larger proposed project into a
smaller project(dredging)which should be subject to,a thorough Draft Environmental Impact
Statement(DEIS). We believe that granting this permit would be considered segmentation
contrary to the intent of SEQR.
We are committed to monitoring any actions involving this project and its impact on our
community. We trust that you will keep us advised of any actions or decisions made by your [
agency regarding Oki-Do, Ltd.,file Number: NAN-2013-01475-EYA and its waterfront property
on Shipyard Lane.
Sincerely, )
Member,
East Marion Community Association
jl �
j� � 5-, - s
7, ��►� �
Com' iY`GUL 4�1. �
John M. Bredemeyer III,President 0�S0(/TyO Town Hall Annex
Michael J.Domino,Vice-President ,`O l0 54375 Main Road -
P.O.Box 1179
James F.King,Trustee Southold,New York 11971-0959
Dave Bergen,Trustee G
Charles J.Sanders,-Trustee _ 'Q � Telephone(631) 765-1892
ly ,� Fax(631) 765-6641
0,0UNTY
130ARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES AECENED BY REGULATORY
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SEP 15 2014
September 9, 2014
NY DIST.(TRPS OF ENGINEERS
Oki-Do Ltd.
Attq: Dr. Kazuko Tatsumura Hillyer, President
20 W. 64 Street, Unit 24E OCT - 9 2014
New York, NY 10023
Souif�rfd Tam
RE: 2835 SHIPYARD LANE, EAST MARION
SCTM# 1000-38-7-7.1
Dear Mr. Tatsumara Hillyer:
This office is in receipt of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice Number: NAN-
2013-01475-EYA for Oki-Do Ltd. for proposed activity of dredging with 10 year
maintenance, bulkhead replacement, rock revetment construction, and new dock
construction. E
I
Please be advised that in addition to the regulatory requirements of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, this office has jurisdiction over aspects of this project under
Chapter 275 and Chapter 111 of the Southold Town Code.
Please complete an application for this project which is enclosed along with a copy of
the Town Codes for your convenience.
r
Sincerely,
ohn M. Bredemeyer Ili, President
Board of Trustees
Cc: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
Town of Southold Planning Dept.
Enclosures
To: US Army Corps of Engineers September 9, 2014
New York District
Jacob KJavits Federal Building RECEWEDBYREGULATORY
New York, NY 10278-0090 SEP 15 201_4
{=
Attn: Regulatory BranchSr:CORPSOFENG(NEE'
Re: NAN-2013-01475-EYA E�`
OCT - 9 2014
souinald 10TM,
To Whom It May Concern: tTr:��tVp
The Marion Manor Property Owners Association represents all the homeowners on Gillette
Drive, East Gillette Drive, and Cleaves Point Road, which constitute the Marion Manor
subdivision immediately adjacent to the proposed Oki-Do project. All our members want to
join with the Town of Southold and the East Marion Community Association in registering our
deeply felt opposition to the proposed Oki-Do development. We strongly urge you to reject
Oki-Do's application for a permit to dredge the old marina and rebuild the bulkhead.
We believe that no permit should be granted by your agency until and unless Southold Town
approves the development plan for the site. Segmenting approval by allowing the dredging and
bulkhead rebuilding prior to overall determination of the project's future makes no sense
whatsoever. The surrounding community is united in our opposition to the size and type of
development that has been suggested. We will continue to do everything in our power to stop
the current proposal. We fear that if you approve the dredging before the town determines the
fate of the Oki-Do proposal, your agency might strengthen Oki-Do's prospects.
Resp tfully submitted,
Candida Harper, Executive Committee Chairperson
Marion Manor Property Owners Association
290 Cleaves Point Road
East Marion, NY 11939
Cleaves Point Condominiums
CPC Cleaves Point Club and Marina, Inc:
2820 Shipyard Lane
East Marion, N.Y. 11939
Tel/Fax 631477-8657 cleavespoint(a,optonline.net
RECEWLI)BY REGULATORY
September 8th 2014 SEP 0'9 2014
NY District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WDIST.OORPSOFENGINEERS
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1937
New York, NY 10278
•J -F 1 I�
Attention: Jun Yan, P.E. I OCT - 9 2014 I
Project Manager, Eastern Section
Regulatory Branch ' - -T--
!J o n
RE: Public Notice Number NAN- 2013-01475-EYA
Applicant: Oki Do Ltd -
I am writing on behalf of the owners of the 62 condominium units known as Cleaves Point
Condominiums on Gardiners Bay located at 2820 Shipyard Lane, East Marion,New York
11939. Our property is immediately adjacent (to the west)to the Oki Do planned project.
Cleaves Point Condominiums opposes the application of Oki Do Ltd for dredging,
bulkhead replacement, rock revetment construction and new dock construction.
Our unit owners respectfully suggest that the Corps consider this application in the context
of the entire scope of the proposed Oki Do project and not just the scope of work as stated
in your Notice.
The.applicant's proposal for the project, which dates back to 2003, is for the development
of an 18.3 acre site on Gardiners Bay, at the south end of Shipyard Lane in East Marion
NY 11939, with a "transient motel-. The motel units would be housed in 24 different
buildings on the site, including,one 51,422 square foot, two-story building, a 3,834 square
foot restaurant, a 1,987 square foot "managers residence", a 7,205 square foot
maintenance/utility building, and a 1,373 square foot pool house with an indoor pool.,The
applicant also has proposed to construct a Marina with 16 private boat slips within the
existing 1.3 8 acre dredged basin, a wooden bulkhead boardwalk, and three timber floating
dock systems. This description was contained in a DEIS submitted by,the applicant to the
' f
Town of Southold. In 2008, the Town of Southold requested revisions to the DEIS that
were never submitted by the applicant.
Five years later, in 2013, the applicant informed the Town of Southold that they would like
to proceed with their various applications. The Town informed the applicant that it could
not proceed with its original application nor submit a revised DEIS because such a long
time had elapsed from the time of the original submission. Among other things pointed
out by the Town, the Town Code had changed and the condition of the property had
changed since the originally DEIS was submitted, all of which were factors that led to the
Town's determination to require the applicant to start the process anew.
Instead of renewing its application with the Town, the.applicant has applied to the DEC
and Army Corp. of Engineers, however, those agencies have not been informed of the
scope and magnitude of the applicant's project.
It seems clear that the application currently before the Corps concerns just a small part of I
their entire project. As such, the applicant is clearly trying to "segment" this project into
small parts, and this type of"segmentation" is clearly in violation of the SEQRA process
and has been struck down by the New York Courts.
Should the Corps require any additional information, please feel free to contact the
undersigned or our counsel, David M. Dubin, Esq., at Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley,
Dubin & Quartararo,LLP, (631) 727-2180.
Sincerely,
Howard Weisler, President
cc: Town of Southold Planning Department
David M. Dubin, Esq.
Ft
From: McKee Jackie[mcdesigner@optonline.net] OCT 9 2014
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:25 PM
Cc: EMCA Board
[
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oki-Do, Ltd., file Number: NAN-2013-01475-Ey
gtF
Attachments: Oki-Do, Ltd, file Number-N&N'2D13'O1475-EYA.pUf -------� |
Re: Oki-0m, Ltd,, fila Number: NAN-3013-01475-EYA '
I strongly object to the granting of the above permit for dredging [with 18 year maintenance, '
bulkhead replacement, rock revetment construction and new dock construction] for the reasons
stated by the East Marion Community Assn. in their letter of Sept. 6, 3814 (attached) to Jodi
M. McDonald, U Corps of Engineers. As a member of BMCA I support th*e organization's
efforts to mon or this project with regard to its impact on our community.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline A. McKee
715 Old Orchard Lane '
East Marion, NY 11939
'
�
' East Marion
Community Association
PO Box 625 East Marion, NY 11939 - www.emca.us
Email: Board@EMCA.us
^� of
September 6,2014 F' OCT - 9 2014
1 t
Jodi M. McDonald -p,
Chief Regulatory Branch R.-••-rsa�rf of rr,c�,,
US Army Corps of Engineers -' ~ , _w__
New York District
Jacob K.Javits Federal Building
New York, N.Y. 10278-0090
Dear Ms.'McDonald,
The East Marion Community Association strongly objects to the granting of a permit to Oki-Do,
Ltd.,file Number: NAN-2013-01475-EYA for dredging with 10 year maintenance, bulkhead
replacement, rock revetment construction and new dock construction forthe following reasons:
We believe 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. The applicant's original Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)for this huge
project was sent back to the applicant for revision by the Town of Southold Planning Board back
in 2008 because it was deemed inadequate. To date,the applicant has never resubmitted a
revised DEIS for review as requested by the lead agency.
Should your agency grant the permit, it will be splitting this larger proposed project into a
smaller project(dredging)which should be subject to a thorough Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS). We believe that granting this permit would be considered segmentation
contrary to the intent of SEQR.
We are committed to monitoring any actions involving this project and its impact on our
community. We trust that you will keep us advised of any actions or decisions made by your `
agency regarding Oki-Do, Ltd.,file Number: NAN-2013-014757EYA and its waterfront property
on Shipyard Lane.
Sincerely,
Member,
East Marion,Community Association
Yan, Jun NAM
t
From: Louis Wirtz[loucar987@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:04 AM
To: Yan, Jun NAN1
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Dredging of Peconic Bay New York in the town of East Mariom.
Please stop the dredging permit being applied for in the above.
Peconic bay, its estuarys and the intrusion of bay water into the only source of water the
east end of Long Island A amd is in trouble must be stoped.
Sincerely,
Carol & Louis Wirtz
OCT - 9 2014
I
k
i
r
Yan, Jun NAN1
From: Karen Sauvigne[karenlee7a@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 9:55 AM
To: Yan, Jun NAN1
Subject: [EXTERNAL]opposed to dredging in East Marion NY by Oki-Do
Hello,
It would be wrong, to give Oki-Do ,a permit to dredge when what they really are doing is
weaseling their way incrementally toward an immense spa.on that property. Doesn't the EPA
have to review this kind of dredging and land use? Dredging destroys shellfish and their
habitat. Without the spa there is no reason for Oki-Do (or anyone) to dredge the harbor so
their request should be denied.
Sincerely, Karen Sauvigne, 350 Marion Lane, East Marion, NY _
���
Karen Sauvigne
646-229-9808
OCT - 9 2014 '
J ,
I _ ,
1
Yan, Jun NAN1
From: Martin Audrey Green [mandaplussix@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 11:58 AM
To: Yan, Jun NAN1
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Dredging of Property on Shipyard Lane, East Marion, NY
As residents of East Marion, we hereby request that you deny the application for a dredging
permit to Oki-Do, Ltd.
The owners of the property in question have yet to comply in any way with the town's
requirements to clean up the property under their ownership in compliance with environmental
requirements prior to beginning any work. The dredging would constitute a conflict of the
stated requirements by the Town of Southold.
The area in question is abutted by residential homes and condominiums on both sides and the
impact of this dredging without the required clean up would be detrimental to the properties
adjacent to the property in question. The current owners have in no way provided the basic
maintenance to this property and the buildings and grounds are a hazard which must be dealt
with prior to any consideration of dredging.
We thank you for your review and- consideration of our concerns.
m
L_
Sincerely,
• L� -
Martin and Audrey Green OCT 9 2014 1�
E
2820 Shipyard Lane, 2E2 a_,M
East Marion, NY 11939
` f
I
1
■
Attachment B
OCT - f:_J
9 2014
Pzawffilam
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Building-40—S11NY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356
Telephone (516) 444-0365
Facsimile (516) 444-0373
NNW
Langdon Marsh
Commissioner
March 3, 1995
Aquafood Properties Ltd. Partnership OCT _
330 South Street a' 9 2014
Morristown, NJ 07962
,S
RE: 1-4738-00728/00004-0
Dear Permittee:
In conformance with the requirements of the State Uniform
Procedures Act (Article 70, ECL) and its implementing regulations
(6NYCRR, Part 621) we are enclosing your permit. Please read all
conditions carefully. If you are unable to comply with any
conditions, please contact us at the above address.
Also enclosed is a permit sign CAnalyst
picuously
posted at the project site an{ protecer.
Vey trJohn A.Environ
JAW:cg
enclosure
l
i� printed on recycled paper
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
DEC PERMIT NUMBER EFFECTIVE DATE
1-4738-00728/00004-0 March 3, 1995
FACILITY/PROGRAM MUMBER(S) P E ' 1 EXPIRATION DATES)
Under the Envirnrimentat March 31, 2000
Conservation Law
TYPE OF PERMIT ■ New ❑ Renewal 0 Modification 0 Permit to Construct 0 Permit to Operate
■ 6NYCRR 608: Water Quality ❑ Article 27, Title 7; 6NYCRR 360: '
1 Article 15, Title 5: Protection Certification Solid Waste Management
of Waters
0 Article 17, Titles 7, 8: SPDES 0 Article 27, Title 9; 6NYCRR 373:
❑ Article 15, Title 15: Water Hazardous Waste Management
SUPPLY 0 Article 19: Air Pollution
Control 0 Article 34: Coastal Erosion
0 Article 15, Title 15: Water Management
Transport 0 Article 23, Title 27: Mined Land
0 Article 15, Title 15: Long
Reclamation 0 Article 36: Floodplain
Management
Island Wells 0 Article 24: Freshwater Wetlands
0 Articles 1, 3, 17, 19, 27, 37;
0 Article 15, Title 27: Wild, ■ Article 25: Tidal Wetlands 6NYCRR 380: Radiation Control
Scenic and Recreational Rivers
0 Other:
7-;-
PERMIT ISSUED TO T EPHONE NUMBER
A food Properties, Ltd. Partnership �� ~.;i 16) 728-1450
ADDRESS OF PERMITTEE y «14
330 South Street
Morristown, NJ 07962
CONTACT PERSON FOR PERMITTED WORK ELEPHONE NUMBER
En-Consultants Inc. 1329 North Sea Rd. Southampton NY 11968 (516) 283-6360
NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT/FACILITY
Aquafood Properties Ltd. Partnership Property
2835 Shipyard Lane, East Marion NY 11939
LOCATION OF PROJECT/FACILITY
SCTM #01000-038-07-07.1 (Cleves Point)
COUNTY TOWN WATERCOURSE NYTM COORDINATES
Suffolk Southold Greenport Harbor E: 723.2 N: 4554.3
r FED iIPrICN CF AJTHRIZ® ACTIVITY
Replace within 1811, 1,438t, of existing timber bulkhead. Maintenance dredge a 2201 x 2041 basin and a 501 x 2701
channel to 101 below mean low water. The resultant 3,800± cubic yards of dredge spoil will both be used as backfill for
the 1,438±1 of replacement bulkhead or temporarily dewatered in a 1501 x 2701 diked spoil area to the east of the
channel. Ultimately, the dewatered spoil will be removed further upland to an approved site for final disposal. The
project shall be in accordance with plans stamped NYSDEC approved on 03-02-95.
By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict compliance with the
ECL, all applicable regulations, the General Conditions specified (see page 2) and any Special Conditions included as part of
this permit.
DEPUTY REGIONAL PERMIT ADMINISTRA- • ADDRESS
TOR:
George W. Hammarth Bldg. 40, SUNY, Roam 219, Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356
AUTHORIZED SIGNNA�TURE DATE
'. �� March 3, 1995 Page 1 of 5
C$NEPAL =ITICPZ
Inspections
1 . The permitted site or facility, including relevant records, is subject to in-
spection at reasonable hours and intervals by an authorized representative of
the Department of Envirorrrental Conservation (the Department) to determine
Whether the permittee is crn-plying with this permit and the ECL. Such represen-
tative may order the v%ork suspended pursuant to ECL 71-0301 and SADA 401 (3) .
copy of this permit, including all referenced maps, drawings 'and special
conditions, must be available for inspection by the Department at all tirres at
the project site. Failure to produce a copy of the permit upon request by a
Department representative is a violation of this permit.
Permit Changes and Fennels
2. The Departrrent reserves the right to modify, suspend or revoke this permit Men:
a) the scope of the permitted activity is exceeded or a violation of any
condition of the permit or provisions of the ECL and pertinent regula-
tions is found;
b) the permif, ms obtained by misrepresentation or failure to disclose
relevant facts;
c) neN rraterial information is discovered; or
d) envirorrrental conditions, relevant technology, or applicable lane or
regulation have materially changed since the permit vies issued.
3. The permittee must sutmit a separate written application to the Departrrent for
renenel , modification or transfer of this permit. Such application must include
any forms, fees or supp'lemntal information the DepartTent requires. Any
renenel , modification or transfer granted by the Department must be in writing:
4. The permittee must submit a reneneI application at least:
a) 180 days before expiration of permits for State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (SFDES) , Hazardous V1bste Nbnagemnt Facilities
(F'V'41/F) , major Air Po I I ut i on Cont ro I (APC) and So I i d V1bste Nbnagffmnt
Facilities (S%F) ; and
b) 30 days before expiration of all other permit types.
5. lhless expressly provided for by the Department, issuance of this permit does
not modify, supersede or rescind any order or determination perviously issued by
the Department or any of the terms, conditions or requirements contained in such
order or determination.
Other Lega I Cb I i gat 1 ons of Pemi tte e
6. The permittee has accepted expressly, by the execution of the application, the
full legal ' responsibility for all damges, direct or indirect, of W-otever
nature and by v4xmver suffered, arising out of the project described in this
permit and has agreed to inde-mify and save harmless the State from suits,
actions, darages and costs of every nare and description resulting fron this
project.
7. This permit does not convey to the permittee any right to trespass upon the
lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others in order to perform the
permitted v%ork nor does it authorize the impairment of any rights, title, or
interest in real or personal property held or vested in. a person not a party to
the permit .
8. The permittee is responsible for obtaining any other permits, approvals, lands,
easmmnts and rights-of-my that rray be required for this project.
Page 2of 5
(7ez) Tidal Wetland
ADDITIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR ARTICLES 15 (Title 5), 24, 25, 34 and 6 NYCRR Part 608 ( )
9 That if future operations b% the State of New York require an-al- other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the
teration in the position of the structure or work herein authorized, or protect.
if, in the opinion of the Department of Em ironmental Conservation ;; Any material dredged in the prosecution of the work herein permitted
it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation or said shall be removed evenly,without leaving large refuse piles,ridges across
+eaters or flood floe. or endanger the health, safet% or %%eltare of the bed of a waterway or floodplain or deep holes that may have a
the people or the State, or cause los. or destruction of the natural tendency to carne damage to navigable channels or to the banks of
resources of the State,the owner mai be ordered by the Department to a waterway
remove or alter the structural work, obstructions, or hazard; caused
thereby without expense to the State and if, upon the expiration or 14 There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the work
revocation of this permit, the structure, fill, excavation, or other herein authorized
modification of the watercourse hereb,. authorized shalt riot be com- 15 If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit,the protect hereby
pleted, the owners, shall, without expense to the State, and to such authorized has not been completed,the applicant shall,without expense
extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental to the State, and to such extent and to such time and manner as the
Conservation may require,remove all or any portion of the uncompleted Department of Environmental Conservation may require,remove all ctr
structure or fill and restore to its rormer condition the navigable any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site
and flood capacity of the watercourse.No claim shall be made against to its former condition. No claim shall be made against the°State of
the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. New York on account of any such removal or alteration.
10 That the State of New York--,hall in no case be liable for any damage 16 It granted under 6 NYCRR Part 608, the NYS Department'of Environ-
or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which may be caused mental Conservation hereby certifies that the subject protect will not
by or result from future operatrom undertaken by the State for the contravene effluent limitations or other limitations or standards under
conservation or improvement of nae igation,or for other purposes,and Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act of 1977
no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from any such damage (PL 95-217)provided that all of the conditions listed herein are met.
11 Granting of this permit does not rehe�e the applicant or the responsi- 17 All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance
bility of obtaining any other permission, consent or approval from with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or his agent as part
the US Army Corps of Engineers` U S Coast Guard, New York State of the permit application.
Office of General Services or local government which may be required Such approved lam were Stamped ed NY'SDEC
12 All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination
pp p prepared by P
of any wetland or waterway b� suspended solids, sediments, fuels, Approved on I/9/95
solvents,lubricants,epoxy coatings-paints,concrete,leachate or any,
t
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. During construction, concrete or leachate shall not escape
or be discharged, nor shall washings from transit mix
trucks, mixers, or other devices enter tidal wetlands and or
protected buffer areas.
2. - Any debris or excess material from construction of this
project -shall be completely removed from the adjacent area
(upland) and removed to an approved upland' area for
disposal. No debris is permitted in tidal wetlands and or
protected buffer areas.
3 . There shall be no disturbance to vegetated tidal wetlands or
protected buffer areas as a result of the permitted
activity.
4. All peripheral berms, cofferdams, rock revetments, seawalls,
gabions, bulkheads etc. shall be completed prior to-__
placementiof any fill material behind such structures.
' I
5. Equipment operation below apparent high water is strictly
prohibited.
i -
6. The new bulkhead shall be constructed within a maximum of
1811 seaward of the structure, measured from face of old
-sheathing to face of new sheathing (as shown on the approved
x-section) .
DIC PERMIT NI—MBER
i 1-4738-00728/00004-0
PROCRANt FACILITY N'UX113FR
i r
f
Page --3— of
95-206f(7/87)-25c NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
For Article 25 ( Tidal Wetland
7 . There shall be. no discharge of runoff or other effluent over
or through any bulkhead or shoreline stabilization structure
or into any tidal wetland or adjacent area.
8. All dredged material shall be disposed on an approved upland
site and' be retained so as to not re-enter any water body,
tidal wetland, or protected buffer area.
9. Excavated sediments shall be placed directly into the
approved disposal site or conveyance vehicle. No
sidecasting (double dipping) or temporary storage of dredge
material is authorized.
10. The use of a dragline for dredging is strictly prohibited.
11. For maintenance dredging projects, permittee shall submit a
Notice of Commencement prior to each dredging occurrence,
specifying the disposal site (including an- updated site
plan) . Upon completion a Notice of Completion specifying
the amount of dredged material deposited at the approved
disposal site must be submitted.
12. The permittee shall remove all derelict vessels from the
boat basin prior to the dredging operation. The debris
shall be removed to an approved upland disposal facility.
13 . The 12" diameter pipe through the bulkhead shall be
eliminated. The discharge shall be redirected to upland
drywells.
Supplementary Special Conditions (A) through (F) attached
DFC PERMIT NUMBER
1-4738-00728/00004-0
FACILITY ID NUMBER EPROCRAM NUMBER
Page 4 of 5
SUFFOLK CO.HAC-T=m MAP 3 I n
I„_ „• EAST MARION
25
Ps.:
y p
`
Al
CEM.
—.YLus P
I DAY(AA9ALWji
2•PURNIZ--eA0S/0NCOA17R0.4 WX7FR
DEP774 W//n/ 64Vq I- 01AVATr AM k1A 7;c-9ceAr T 1 � �, �•► �',
3.ALL,5W&-T,BUI KNcAD SEQ1oN5 (E&W JWD,,--,47ZD
BY LEVG77•l)7-6 LE (W/111/26
• 9.ADJAcFgr ow/JERs
1)N.VAWycK 1) BCU,07- R `\ GRE EA RIP r
\ ' R
3),R,CLARK A)J. CADWA Pan W 1 ..w PBoR
s)J•CADl>'RttEre 6)G' 6'REGD
'Malm
7)J•HA/JoGL.0 S)D WA7r- ° M�4- SRE
a� � -v \ Cleves Pt
e •, O
9) a WATT lok 75ATSGLS
13)H•WAHRE�IBUR� I j R.MUIK /X�-M•OFsot nfo� -x
•s PRQJEcT,4T '835 SNrPy�v2l�l�v.,E�`'{�,e�onl _w_ W 1 �
ScTm qo• /060-36-7-7. 1 3 q t
( OCT — 9 2014
1.4 i w t -
07
z > H Q
zA
Y�
F ca
P.
n {
po,�q ur.,nri•.rya,,,i,v A t r ►i � n�j ` Q- �,'li-t..'.i i• .^CJ� f'•�,l T'J
•' Y' 4.11. `1w 3 1_�� !iv:(�:{ SZA RD.
�r• L� � � � - � �.,;;:-'.'??�J?[ �1.Y. 1196
u
a I PROPOSED BV4 k1 ,EAD
- R,6P44CEME/&17' (WIAiB
! / A4 D NJA/N7Z- G
• %N-OS.OE.F-Z"N ! /'-OR AQUAFOOD PROPERTIES 47L
Oc7l�.ldiHS f
007W rRSNIP 0,4 G!?EEnIPORT
— ---- ,t HARBOR Ai 69,ECcIPORF SUFFOIK,I�
r
LANE
Hsz-r o .Q u
3 " n
It
' p
It
N.
a
•r - o
E
'y o_
N Y S D E C "
APPROVED AS PER
AND :iDMO tiIS OF I�1
OC
PE T 1ti0.I-y�3� oo T 9 2014 !I a J
D 3
L!/ I _ --RIM f Tr Stn
_ TANTS
~A RE),
A �,_`=-�.••'1;•i0N ,�I.Y. 1190"+;
�, • - •- � t?3'S360
IL
PROPOSED 6 v.4 kN)EAD
- � REPl�4CEMEN?" (�✓IN/g"�
AJ4 D MQ1A17ZWANCE D9F'D6l1V 6
o ! 90k' AQ vAFooD PROPERriES 1-7%
0l`l GREE�IPORT
GI�C_�T7 az�e 14980R A/ 6AFE lPORT,SUFF0lK,r
�• EX•Bv�LD�iJG .
SEG-TTOM THRV SASW
aim +6UL+ChIEAD REPLAcEMENr(w/�i✓/d"�� D '1NcS
`aE:E FIA,L lz)c.�,�..wAGrJ �"��� -- - _'•=� �f �;�✓ �f.:;
S �EkDT� ic
i OCT — 9 2014 �ti
Ai-w - I ur �� u?�f+i lT
L
es . _rA 7D 8E D,QEDLED (,4PP90X 300(f.Y. SAA(D,(0$6LE)
,fly x,l5' ID'DEP1F1 DF
PMACTMDAl
lo'x3o'P�cr- '
ExBviLviiJG SF�ON TNRU NAWq S1G>� (3�J14 REPL 'ENJF�Ir(w�in�IS')
CDRL�ED apblL) (s)G'�l"WAI-V
3 "� �� sQ)4 W
Jaz .
filo"�l�'TfG --
Ex.tvxrm l /o.V-,/6 �
P I
GF
(" 1D' N Y S D E TFItbiS
p_F L Itr?V•EDTER
I?:-:Ip
: tg5 OF
10.
Lj:L 1I'
""D
/Ropes SG�
P/gePn s�C,p
DIKE -��'"- SPD 1 L S r7—E €� I PIKE
x _
CCT/ON THRU bVi-riA< Sho/L OCPcS ��� :" ►�� N.Y. 11968
PROPOSED S vl-k' EAC),
R,6P4ACEMe1V9- (A111,V/$�)
1 ,4tlD 11-f41N7.61V41VcF DRFDGIn/G
FOR AQ UAFooD PRoPERriES L7n
PARrN�RSNIP pry/GRFEnlPORT
8491i0R Ai GREE1JPo9F SUFFOLK/N
SHEET 3 OF 3
9- 7-94
■
Attachment C
-• as tl
OCT - 9 2014 ;���'
New York State Department of,Environmental Conservation
Division of_Environmental-P6rmits,.Region One
$UNY&Stony Bri6mk, 50 Circle Road,.Stony Brook, NY 11190-3409
'h r e.(631)444 55 Fax: (631)44 =
•wfbsite:unav+t,+.dea.nyg0'V
B
Joe Martdn.�
May 7, 2014
Oki-06 Ltd, ?'
C/O lar. kzuko Tatsumura �f OCT - g 2
2Q West 4�_5te..24•E s 014
New'vOrk.' NY 10023
Fie: Permit#14738-00728100012
Dear PerP'nittee: ;
In conformance Wdh the requirements of the State Uniform Procedures Act g
(Article 70, ECL)and its implementing regulations (6NYCRR, Part 621) we are
enclosing your perrpit. Please carefully read all permit conditions and special permit i
can itions dontained in the permit to ensure cornpiiance during the term cif the p�rrnit.
!f you are unable fo comply with any conditions, please contact us at the.above
address:
This permit must bekept available on the.premiSes of the facility at all tures rind
,presented upon request, Also enclosed is a permit sign Wvhioh is to be conspicuously
posted at the project site and protectedfromthe weather.
Sincerely
Kendall P. Klett
Environmental Analyst,
cc: file; BOH-TW
TW
VH13.iEngineeri09 i
f
{
,
i
se
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00728
PERMIT
Under the Environmental Conservation Law ECL
Permittee and Facility Information
Permit Issued To: Facility:
OKI-DO LTD OKI-DO LTDTROPERTY
C/O DR KAZUKO TATSUMURA 2835 SHIPYARD LNISCTM 1000-38-7-7.1
20 WE 64TH STE 24E EAST MARION, NY 11939
NEW YORK,NY 10023
(212) 799-9711
7
� S
Facility Application Contact: '
G
VHB ENGINEERING SURVEYING AND CCT - 9 2014 .
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUR
2150 JOSHUA'S PATH STE 300 u.5'u`',;f;:;i,
HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788 4
(631) 234-3444 _
Facility Location: in SOUTHOLD in SUFFOLK COUNTY Village: East Marion
Facility Principal Reference Point: NYTM-E: 723.2 NYTM-N:' 4554.5
Latitude: 41°06'40.1" Longitude: 72°20'30.2"
Project Location: 2835 Shipyard Lane
Authorized Activity: Remove and replace 1323 linear feet of existing functional and non-functional
bulkhead. 305 linear feet of the bulkhead along Gardiner's Bay is to be constructed in place and
landward of the existing bulkhead, and 85 linear feet near the channel will be constructed seaward of the
existing bulkhead, above mean high water. Place 600 cubic yards of material excavated during the
bulkhead construction behind bulkhead as backfill. The remainder of the bulkhead in the boat basin and
along the channel is to be replaced in place. 300 cubic'yards of dredged material will be placed behind
this portion as backfill. Install 505 linear feet of rock revetment along the Gardiners Bay portion of the
bulkhead. Dredge boat channel to -5'mean low water placing resultant 4,022 cubic yards of dredged
material in(2) dredge spoil drying areas to dewater. 300 cubic yards of this dredge spoil will be used as
bulkhead backfill as noted previously, the remainder will be disposed of on site within several inactive
settling lagoons. Replace 6P, 106', and 19'of the(3) existing jetties, abandoning the portions of the
existing jetties below mean low water. Remove existing dock within boat basin and construct new 8' x
132' dock. All work must be completed as shown on plans stamped "NYSDEC Approved" on 5/7/14.
l
� y
}
Page 1 of 9
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00728
Permit Authorizations
Tidal Wetlands -Under Article 25
Permit ID 1-4738-00728/00012
New Permit Effective Date: 5/6/2014 Expiration Date: 5/5/2019
Excavation&Fill in.Navigable Waters-Under Article 15,Title 5
Permit ID 1-4738-00728/00013
New Permit - Effective Date: 5/6/2014 Expiration Date: 5/5/2019
Water Quality Certification-Under Section 401 - Clean Water,Act `
Permit ID 1-4738-00728/00014
New Permit Effective Date: 5/6/2014 Expiration Date: 5/5/2019
NYSDEC Approval `
By acceptance of this permit,the permittee agrees that t rmit is tingent upon strict
compliance with the ECL, all applicable regulations nd all conditions ' cluded as part of this
permit.
Permit Administrator:JOHN A W EL A D, putt'Regional Permit Admini trator
Address: NYSDEC EGIO EADQUARTERS
UNY STOROOK150 CIRCLE RD
TONY BROO 1 90-3409
Authorized Signature Date4!:�)6 7/ 2-011
Dis ri ution List
VH13 ENGINEERING SURVEYING AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUR
Permit Components
NATURAL RESOURCE PERMIT CONDITIONS
WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION SPECIFIC CONDITION
GENERAL CONDITIONS, APPLY TO ALL AUTHORIZED PERMITS
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER PERMITTEE OBLIGATIONS
NATURAL RESOURCE PERMIT CONDITIONS - Apply.to the Following
Permits: TIDAL WETLANDS; EXCAVATION & FILL IN NAVIGABLE
Page 2 of 9
oboe
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00728
WATERS; WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
1. Notice of Commencement At least 48 hours prior to commencement of the project, the permittee
and contractor shall sign and return the top portion of the enclosed notification form certifying that they
are fully aware of and understand all terms and conditions of this permit. Within 30 days of completion
of project, the bottom portion of the form must also be signed and returned, along with photographs of
the completed work.
2. Post Permit Sign The permit sign enclosed with this permit shall be posted in a conspicuous
location on the worksite and adequately protected from the weather.
3. Conformance With Plans All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance
with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or applicant's agent,as part of the permit application.
Such approved plans were prepared by Douglas Edward Adams, last revised 2/12/14.
4. Notice of Maintenance Dredging For maintenance dredging projects,the permittee shall submit a
Notice of Commencement prior to each dredging occurrence, specifying the disposal site(including an
updated site plan). Upon completion, a Notice of Completion shall be submitted to the address indicated
on that notice form, including the amount of material dredged and deposited at the approved disposal 4
site.
5. Filter Fabric Curtain Around Dredging Area A filter fabric(turbidity) curtain weighted across C
the bottom and suspended at the top by floats shall be positioned to enclose the work site before
commencing dredging. The curtain shall remain in place and in functional condition during all phases of k
the dredging operations and remain in place for two hours after dredging termination and turbidity inside
the curtain no longer exceeds ambient levels.
6. No Interference With Navigation There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by
'the work herein authorized.
7. Dredged Depth Survey Within 30 days of completion of the dredging operation, an as-dredged
depth survey of the dredged area shall be submitted to
Regional Habitat-TW
NYSDEC REGION 1 HEADQUARTERS
SUNY @,STONY BROOK150 CIRCLE RD
STONY BROOK,NY11790-3409
Attn: Compliance
8. Dredged Materials above AHW All material shall be placed landward of apparent high water.
9. Dragline Prohibited The use of a dragline for dredging is strictly prohibited.
10. Grade Channel Side Slopes All side slopes of the dredge channel will have a maximum of 1:3
slope.
11. Prohibition Period for Fish, Shellfish,Birds To protect spawning finfish, shellfish and nesting
shorebirds, including threatened and/or endangered species,no regulated activities may occur between
April 1 and September 30, inclusive, of any calendar year.
Page 3 of 9
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00728
12. Dredge Bucket Operation The bucket shall be lowered to the level of the barge gunwales prior to
release of the load.
13. No Barge Overflow There shall be no barge overflow.
14. Dredge Bucket Operations The bucket shall be lifted in a continuous motion through the water
column and into the barge, disposal site or conveyance vehicle.
15. Leave a Uniform Bottom Elevation All dredging shall be conducted so as to leave a uniform
bottom elevation free of mounds or holes.
16. No Side-casting or Temporary Storage Excavated sediment shall be placed directly into the
approved disposal/dewatering site or conveyance vehicle. No side-casting(double dipping) or
temporary storage of dredged material is authorized.
17. Restrict Spillage, Use'Closed Bucket During the dredging operation,the permittee and his
contractor shall prevent spillage of sediment during excavation and haulage. Dredging shall be
accomplished,with a clam shell or other closed bucket equipment.
18. Dredgings to Remain On-Site/Within Wetland Dredge material approved to remain on-site
and/or within the NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands jurisdiction shall be retained so as not to enter any water
body, tidal wetlands, or protected buffer areas. Off-site,upland disposal of dredged material beyond
NYSDEC Tidal Wetland jurisdiction requires the additional guidance of the Division of Materials
Management(631) 444-0375 and is not covered by this permit. _ f
f
19. No Structures on Pilings No structures, other than structures specifically authorized by this
permit, shall be constructed on pilings without further authorization from the department(permit,
modification or amendment).
20. No Permanent Structures on Dock Nop ermanent structures shall be installed on
dock/catwalk/float without first obtaining written Department approval(permit,modification, or
amendment).
21. No Prop Dredging Prop dredging, or the act of utilizing and/or directing the°propeller or
propulsion system of a motorized vessel and/or the water-borne forces created by said propeller or
propulsion system,to excavate or displace existing bottom sediment and benthic habitat for the direct or
indirect purpose of establishing or increasing water depth, is a regulated activity and is not authorized by
this permit. Prop dredging is strictly prohibited without further written authorization(permit,
modification or amendment) from the department.
22. No Floats, Ramps in Vegetated Tidal Wetlands Floats and ramps may not rest on or be stored in
any vegetated tidal wetland.
23. Wood Preservatives
a. Pressure treated wood used for construction of in-water structures must have undergone a
treatment process approved (stamped or otherwise marked as certified)by the American Wood
Preservative Association.
b. Wood treated with Pentachlorophenol (PCP)must not be used'in wetlands or surface'waters.
Page 4 of 9
5
Adh
dahow
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION UP
Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00728
c. The use of creosote treated wood is prohibited both in the water and upland areas.
I
d. Chromated Copper Arsenate(CCA) pressure treated wood must be clean and free of CCA surface t
deposits. Wood with surface deposits must be washed for at least 5 minutes under running water
prior to use. The washing must occur greater than 100 feet landward of any regulated wetland
and/or water body. (Note"E."below for handling wash water.)
e. Any wood debris such as sawdust or wash water must not enter any water body, including wetlands
or protected buffer areas.
24. No Runoff Over or Through Bulkhead or into Wetland There shall be no discharge of runoff or
other effluent over or through any bulkhead or shoreline stabilization structure or into any tidal wetland
or protected buffer area.
25. Excavation for Bulkhead/Structure Prior to any construction or removal of bulkheads and other
shoreline stabilization structures all backfill shall be excavated landward of the structure and retained so
as not to enter the waterway, tidal wetland or protected buffer area.
26:No Structures on Bulkhead No permanent structures shall be installed on the authorized bulkhead
without first obtaining written department approval (permit,modification, amendment).
27. No Structures on Groin No permanent structures shall be installed on the authorized groin
without first obtaining written department approval(permit,modification, amendment). .
28. Extent of Groin The authorized groin shall not extend beyond property lines,interfere with
navigation, and/or interfere with other landowners riparian rights.
29. Groin Construction The authorized groin shall not exceed 18" in height over the existing grade of
the downdrift beach and shall not extend seaward of apparent low water.
30. Revetment Rock revetment shall consist of natural capstone a minimum of 3-8 tons in size,
corestone a minimum of 4-8 tons, underlain with 5-151b.blanket stone in size and the toe shall be
installed a minimum of 2 feet below apparent low water or 3 feet below mean sea level and all shall be
underlain with filter cloth.
31. New Bulkhead Landward of Existing Structure The new bulkhead shall be constructed
landward of the existing structure. The existing sheathing shall not be removed until the landward
sheathing is securely in place. Once the new sheathing has been appropriately installed, the old
sheathing shall be cut to grade or removed in its entirety.
32. No Equipment below Apparent High Water Equipment operation below(seaward) apparent high
water is strictly prohibited.
33. Bulkhead Height The new bulkhead height shall not exceed the height of the adjacent bulkheads.
34. Backfilling All peripheral berms, cofferdams, rock revetments, seawalls, gabions,bulkheads or
other approved shoreline stabilization structures shall be completed prior to placement of any fill
material behind such structures.
Page 5 of 9
Aft
MEN
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION NOW
Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00728
35. Grade to Match That Adjacent to Bulkhead All fill must be graded to match the elevation of the
land immediately adjacent to the bulkhead.
36. No Beach Excavation For Fill'No excavation of the beach is authorized for the purpose of
obtaining fill or stone materials. `
37. Clean Fill Only All fill shall consist of clean sand, gravel, or soil (not asphalt, slag, flyash,broken
concrete or demolition debris). '
38. Seeding Disturbed Areas All areas of soil disturbance resulting from the approved project shall be
stabilized with appropriate vegetation(grasses, etc.) immediately following project completion or prior
to permit expiration,whichever comes first. If the project site remains inactive for more than 48 hours
or planting is impractical due to the season, then the area shall be stabilized with straw or hay mulch or
jute matting until weather conditions favor germination.
39. Storage of Equipment,Materials The storage of construction equipment and materials shall be
confined to the upland area landward of the bulkhead or on a barge.
40. No Disturbance to Vegetated Tidal Wetlands There shall be no disturbance to vegetated tidal
wetlands or protected buffer areas as a result of the permitted activities.
41. No Construction Debris in Wetland or Adjacent Area Any debris or excess material from
construction of this project shall be completely removed from the adjacent area(upland) and removed to
an approved upland area for disposal. No debris is permitted in wetlands and/or protected buffer areas.
42. Concrete Leachate During construction,no wet or fresh concrete or leachate shall be allowed to
escape into any wetlands or waters of New York State, nor shall washings from ready-mixed concrete
trucks,mixers, or other devices be allowed to enter any wetland or waters. Only watertight or
waterproof forms shall be used. Wet concrete shall not be poured to displace water within the forms.
43. State Not Liable for Damage The State of New York shall in no case be liable,for any damage or
injury to the structure or work herein authorized which maybe caused by or result from future operations
undertaken by the State for the conservation or improvement of navigation, or for other purposes, and no _
claim or right to compensation,shall accrue from any such damage.
}
44. State May Order Removal or Alteration of Work If future operations by the State of New York
require an alteration in the position of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the
Department of Environmental Conservation it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation
of said waters or flood flows or endanger the health, safety or welfare of the people of the State, or cause
loss or destruction of the natural resources-of the State, the owner may be ordered by the Department to
remove or alter the structural work, obstructions, or hazards caused thereby without expense to the State,
and if, upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the structure, fill, excavation, or other
modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shall not be completed, the owners, shall, without
expense to'the State, and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of
Environmental Conservation may require,remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill
and restore to its former condition the navigable and flood capacity of the watercourse. No claim shall
be made against the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration.
Page 6 of 9
r
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Now
Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00728
45. State May Require Site Restoration If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit,the
project hereby authorized has not been completed, the applicant shall,without expense to the State, and
to such extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental Conservation may
lawfully require,remove all or any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site to its
former condition. No claim shall be made against the State of New York on account ofany such
removal or alteration.
46. Precautions Against Contamination of Waters All necessary precautions shall be taken to
preclude contamination of any wetland or waterway by suspended solids, sediments, fuels, solvents,
lubricants, epoxy coatings,paints, concrete, leachate or any other environmentally deleterious materials
associated with the project.
WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
1. Water Quality Certification The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation hereby certifies.
that the subject project will not contravene effluent limitations or other limitations or standards under
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217)provided that all of the
conditions listed herein are met.
GENERAL CONDITIONS - Apply to ALL Authorized Permits:
1. Facility Inspection by The Department The permitted site or facility, including relevant records, is
subject to inspection at reasonable hours and intervals by an authorized representative of the Department
of Environmental Conservation(the Department)to determine whether the permittee is complying with
this permit and the ECL. Such representative may order the work suspended pursuant to ECL 71- 0301
and SAPA 401(3).
The permittee shall provide a person to accompany the Department's representative during an inspection
to the permit area when requested by the Department.
A copy of this permit, including all referenced maps, drawings and special conditions,must be available
for inspection by the Department at all times at the project site or facility. Failure to produce a copy of
the permit upon request by a Department representative is a violation of this permit.
2. Relationship of this Permit to Other Department Orders and Determinations Unless expressly
provided for by the Department, issuance of this permit does not modify, supersede or rescind any order
or determination previously issued by the Department or any of the terms, conditions or requirements
contained in such order or determination.
3. Applications For Permit Renewals,Modifications or Transfers The permittee must submit a
separate written application to the Department for permit renewal,modification or transfer of this
permit. Such application must include any forms or supplemental information the Department requires.
Any renewal, modification or transfer granted by the Department must be in writing. Submission of
Page 7 of 9
MON
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00728
applications for permit renewal,modification or transfer are to be submitted to:
Regional Permit Administrator
NYSDEC REGION 1 HEADQUARTERS
SUNY @ STONY BROOK150 CIRCLE RD
STONY BROOK,NY11790 -3409-
4. Submission of Renewal Application The permittee must submit a renewal application at least 30
days before permit expiration for the following permit authorizations:Tidal Wetlands, Excavation&,
Fill in Navigable Waters, Water Quality Certification.
5. Permit Modifications, Suspensions and Revocations by the Department The Department
reserves the right to exercise all available authority to modify, suspend or revoke this permit. The
grounds for modification, suspension or revocation include:
4 -
a. materially false or inaccurate statements in the permit application or supporting papers;
b. failure by the permittee to comply with any terms or conditions of the permit;
c. exceeding the scope of the project as described in the permit application;
d. newly discovered material information or a material change in environmental conditions,relevant
technology or applicable law or regulations since the issuance of the existing permit;
e. noncompliance with previously issued permit conditions, orders of the commissioner, any
provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law or regulations of the Department related to
the permitted activity.
6. Permit Transfer 'Permits are transferrable unless specifically prohibited by statute,regulation or
another permit condition. Applications for permit transfer should be submitted prior to actual transfer of
ownership.
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER PERMITTEE OBLIGATIONS
Item A: Permittee Accepts Legal Responsibility and Agrees to Indemnification
The permittee, excepting state or federal agencies, expressly agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, its representatives, employees,
and agents("DEC") for all claims, suits, actions, and damages, to the extent attributable to the
permittee's acts or omissions in connection with the permittee's undertaking of activities in connection
with, or operation and maintenance of, the facility or facilities authorized by the permit whether in
compliance or not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. This indemnification does
not extend to any claims, suits, actions, or damages to the extent attributable to DEC's own negligent or
intentional acts or omissions, or to any claims, suits, or actions naming the DEC and arising under
Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules or any citizen suit or civil rights provision
under federal or state laws.
Page 8 of 9
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Maw
Facility DEC ID 1-4738-00728
Item B: Permittee's Contractors to Comply with Permit
The permittee is responsible for informing its independent contractors, employees, agents and assigns of
their responsibility to comply with this permit, including all special conditions while acting as the
permittee's agent with respect to the permitted activities, and such persons shall be subject to the same \
sanctions for violations of the Environmental Conservation Law as those prescribed for the permittee.
Item C: Permittee Responsible for Obtaining Other Required Permits
The permittee is responsible for obtaining any other permits, approvals, lands, easements and rights-of-
way that may be required to carry out the activities that are authorized by this permit.
Item D: No Right to Trespass or Interfere with Riparian Rights
This permit does not convey to the permittee any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the
,riparian rights of others in order to perform the permitted work nor does it authorize the impairment of
any rights,title, or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a person not a party to the
permit.
l
Page 9 of 9
95.20-1 (818-n-9d
New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation
ob / NOTICE
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has issued
permit-(s). pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law -
for work - being conducted at this site.. For further information• •
regarding the nature and extent of work approved .and any
Departmental conditions on it, contact the Regional Permit
Administrator listed below. Please refer to • the permit number •
shown when •contacting the DEC.
Regional Permit Administrator
7CRpooPermit Number h
_ ROGER EVAN$ 5 _
Expiration Date
NOTE: This notice is NOT a permit• `�
NOTICE OF C0 MMENCEtMENT:QF CONSTRUCTION ;
RETUk TH15 FORM TO:COMPLIANCE,' Or Fax to: 631-444-0297
Bureau'of.H bitat�TW
50 Circle Road
Stony-Brooki W11790=3409
PERMIT NUMBER: _ EXPIRATION DATE:
PERMITTEE NAME&PROJECT ADDRESS: -
CCONTRACTOA NAME ADDRESS;
TELEPHONE.
Lear"Sir;
Pursuant to`tlie special c6nditions of the referenced permit,,you aye I-ereby notified thaCthe authorized ac$fity shM.commence ori` .
'we cer*that wo have read the referenced permit and approved plans and fully understand"the'authorizec project and all
permit c6nditlons.We have•inspected-the project site acid aan complete the project 6s described in the permit and as depicted oh the
apprvved'plans. We can do,so In foil compliance with'ail-plan notes and pdrmlt conditions:The permit,permit sign,and approVed`pfans eMll
be available at the site for inspection,in accordance with-General Condition,No,,1: (Beth signatures required)
PERMITEE O ATE
CONTRACToR: ..- DATE,
THIS NOT,l CE MUS-'T BiE.SENT TQ THE ABOVE ADDRESS AT LEAST TWO DA YS-PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROJECT, t
AND 10R,ANYASSOCIATE0 ACTIVITIES, FAILURE TO RETURN THIS NOTiq�, POST THE PERMIT SIGN, OR HAVE TN.EPi"RMITARD
APPROVED kANS AVAIL.A6LE A T,1 HE WORK,SITE FOR THE DVR/ATdGN OF THE PROJECT MAY SUBJECT THE PER?4TTE'E
ANDIOR CONTRA CTOR-TO APPLICABLE SAXCTIONS AND`PEtAL.TRES FOR NON-C6&0bANCE WiTH PERMIT CONDITIONS.
Gut along this-lir_ie_, << .
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION
,RETURN THIS FORM T0:60NIPLIANCE Or"Fax to'. 331-444=0297
Bureau of Naiitat-T4V"
50'Circle Road
Stony Brook,NY 11790-3409
f:EFtMIT NUMBER: EXPIRATION DATE:
PERMITTEE NAME&PRQJECT ADDRt SS: f
CONTRACtOR NAME&ADD,RESS:`- i
TELEPHONE:
Pursuant,46 special conditions u(the- refefrericed pgrmit,ydu are hdreby notified,that the authorized activity was,completed on .
A1re haae fatly complied with"#ho teras and conditions of the"perrnit.and approved plaris._tBoth.signatures rbc0red)
F'ERIuttTE: QATE
- {
CONTRACTOR: DATE
THIS NOTICE, WITH PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE COMPLETED WORE:ANDIOR A COMPLETED SURVEY,AS APPROPRIATE,MUSTBE '
SENT TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS WITHIN 30 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.
!� QUANTITIES -.• _ \\ \\ \\ T(
�! �-mm�u/a9 es.•B. - _ / / \ / 4.y i '\ \ w /} E
N\ -
B' - a.,t,. fir{ �9Qw� 'µ"mem..m::e.°Re - '_' _ ' _ ;moi•/ // � \ J� .•�\ ', � i��,�\, 1�,�� >
t ram .__. 'a,J;� �:•\ ••�'••^' \'" � �' J �,•' /{•
i - \ -�,�i': _;5�:h 1`,'i-__� .,,lid•!. JJ. i';�' _- i _'1t'' \
' LOCATION MAP
II �. r.,wM Y�x..em cw-..�.,+.ma w],u v r^,ti; �• „'\;`��,,\ .' "" /, \\ �
Re
xaler P.noo' e� e, _ i -- _:�' -�\.\' �{ ,,I /i• :\.. �' `/: '1 .,, - _ r.,,.,C,.°t!%d' �;,e�'y: \ !�I
_ ro. �.J�,t's+-.'n}i,'=4a�'�-�•"r't-ix"'✓`��v�,.\{�` � /� �\f`• '{�. 1 i /
- _ ]kJ•rc. `:'.`i4T'?'� ,y:=`�•ft�,'"S:':�s�s.•;;'w-s.^t''�\ - // C<'�`,"1 yk�'•".�'' "':,ra",�m"`a. ,f+r �//
.CVRB DROP INLET;,PROTECTIONe-Y�"t':�:�^'�Yu^'i,J�-•` �5,�\"x \\ H�';
' ya.qcs`xi'srnw,.a`es,'v'a3'seeaniunosli t:,:.,'��.`SIy��:F>�,r'n;• \ 1 � �*, ;' .a•= u..:.,.� aim," !i e�.e,� p ~'- /I
, - _` p•cv,fn.a_ - .» ,.,":,�e�,'r ti�.��(, d:'..Nti�`..;;,�n,..i e`,�...tY�,, f %'. ".
. ' ,�;,at;,� _ ,; ' i�:may.,�'I•,=a���„,�,r�x s"siirr'"' �,ru+i\\ -�',, _4.,�.:..m.: ;/
j �i-°� wuee x'age.w+m.t"i+.;rlee,`�raarun"` i r'�.-••t:6em:.",;._._ - V, ,( J.�� ,
„e�,�sF�..,� ,tT.,.�s'.�?§`�i:;N',;.•.,- I \ \ _'% %� /.��','/'.,''�� "�'"�.,.mr.°„,",xrey"�"�//„ tl /r�� ,��
w.,.s ;ra:---,`�c;.>. �'.:.,Ky r tr�z",:'-"'.`'. ♦ ,"x''.-^'. ,�„"en."„_.Y� d.,wi���
•;.�a•4:w-^;^... .!><'•f% �•":^�' #,-`r;-.;. _ - �'/ _ - v,• I a�/
4 --�<;t_,�rz�,s'•r->7;,:•`ti `"a,,,y'��F�=-.,- - .` ' � ~~fir' _ _ �� �� '�' �i �
n�.n c�om �� 9 fanauU - :�:{�_� �-.�c-r.- _ r�,'"'- � � rY'+ �� .✓_" \ / "� - rr�/�tleJI� {
O ,,• `•'' 'nokN NPG Rw;e M,N.N eWMry ,�' f'a'.' '`♦• ♦ - C d
-
enauo�`�•• rm=„.,..,.SM9rteertP'. ^1, stik,.,+,'r�••rY�.-r y.�' �.
. �yyS� .Y',ar`I^Y`�;.. ,radar. row,iwke Rrce ' � r'`Ar”, ✓ t Fes' ®®
..e,,. ,e.,..,..w r _ .irY N:r:,""� »^:;�'., ,� n::; y,r. ru>En aom Fad` a r�..�• ""°`"
NEW
' 1 r' .Sy'�-".`-c.. �if`r±/,• •`` ,..r • _� � .i,e.+.a.r, - - NYSUEC
a,....®,,..,,� ...w�..a....n,ry p w f::.".`-:--...f 's, .�'ra�'•;-�. fi�cc±.na+',` _ -p�/ �•btF.ey°� - �Po�°q=a:ana'"+a�'7JF�o a
d ia�•.c,,-.•,�• s, 'R='.`=i'.•,.^,.91CTFENGEO ,�`1 !{ r
.-..m STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE - - I : :!3�+ w', .krgJ - SITE DATA
n wrB p •_tai f;.IYF _<.�:.:_,. ,Bow'e:.t+Y STµnJsve nw: PLAN
j A n„nui�+ee reor+e.>f
'i�`�"�i+•+}�.4r'':•:`t-'s f' �r^ '''` 33 9cabr I'.Bo' ,uY!]on rnan�eV raxs.roam aN
�lJV
E _sti
2835 Shipyard Lane
p� �/_` r,i �Y ca C� =2.i. ,.�.'==r`',,r,•'.__x�:.s,: ,.,.�,...v-�.ar,,,,..,.a,u.
I � f� ,"i (n O Y �"+'� f r•,'1 P-'~�:'yy'' r"..,.''- Faet Morlon.Toren of 5ogtholQ
S,Fbik LoimGy tbn York �
B �-1 (
-Ab,..........,,m.-�,,,.,,., "✓ `� i O rte"-�+•:_ �,'' _ ,
Bulkhead,Re
vetment and Dredging Plan
If A55UMED INTERTIDAL ZONE
5
PBB P)FOLLOWING BQAT '�XI`�S�TAIN16�bM H
DREDGING ( )
DEWATERED DREDGE SPOILS TO
...i..• ---- �uvL.vvvv•••,•°+••e / BB DEP051TED WITHIN THE
�' gym tl1e� - ���•:•ACCESS u. 1•..n vvpivv , IAF.:•vv ACpES °°.,° / ON-SITE SETTLING LAGOONS OR
y .I... .................
....... 1'€` /./ .i••p•• `S OT1ER
_ .... APPROVED UPLAND N!.• i I ' a °M1•��• O LOCATIONS
', eoin vrlwa l��_ ��- wh.¢.iro r i/ /� ///' i/! °1,��' '/./�T _.� r���.� • •1. r o _ "______�_,, '��
/
TO FENfyIN6 AND/Oft STRANI'BALE9 '�J +lA ` Q�l4.'' 'p % �, /
TO BBE,,dNSTALLED AND MAI)ITAINED ,.a,.•� _ `q 1°•♦' �1 / '
�' 1 I - ler•Ix ALON.THE DOWN-SLOPE/OF THE I � ,.°, 't` `by I
PPtO,BCT AREA LIMITS,AS I aAcSWEpLOW
NECE59ARY/ WATER GIr¢ NG
°°
.r rv.¢ % n AT CHANNE( IN& n _ \ •% ' 1
h - rur.aro °°•�°• INTERTIDAL ZONE 80 MARINA TO
) "
Ii
•,� E VEGETA'fEP WITH LOW MARSH
E v nne•co Nrt.N oa +e• VOLUME TO BE •.�..W••• CORDGFiA55(Sj arhna i()C MOM Y�C T �•'.. Y'
DREDGED FROM (SETLAND FLAMING �/I /
St BOAT CHANNEL .M •° n �� nu // - TIDAL 30UNDARY
t VOLUME TO BE (APPROX 4PZZ CYJ .,° ,{�°.♦ �e� - DESBY DAVIL7
1, a r>k a?rewrer EXCAVATED AND rwewc °°.•b•° w° -
11 BAC,J ILLED VHB TOLS
(APPROX.9OO CYJ .°�•qy jd '1 LOCR D BY YOUR"TOL py�r
Iii `V/4 O ^•° :...,e•.'°"ar� • :y/�ON
tl SEOTION A-A-TYPICAL TIMBER BULKHEAD
o
y\V'y�y-r"o J / `
HEN
.,e
TIMBER
nNa e•/0° - _ ,../ F':»Tt:";B v,"' _7,' NEW
e°e = V�LJM�•- \:•'S /' } JETTY
+F• .T T11111
ScTTY
w. aro / '-s'
��(Af?pISdX-600O G.Y.1,t.. 1 � :'_ :•d �' ``� .0m'ep p° apd/.or" ^I � �
1l` VOLUME To BE q �•e'. :1 ,�g[, �P
EXCAVATED B'-0' 'n ��1te 'I • ��• P' •//j ,,,'\ n
(APPROX 400 GYJ \.� ; ° i .P • dj�C w
i NEW BULKHEAD AND •\
ARMORMENT
g 5ECTION-BULKHEAD AND ROCK REVETMENT °a T. /•
3 \ ` ,'d�' �ir-,p. `p'p,P�'\O (A•71$09 5F,V•4P�2 CFJ � ��
PROTECTIVE ARMORMENT
S p�•a nor T � Z\(4Qp 0t (AREAe3040 SFJ a
voleo IA eC lnal _ °�• (j'e�P-Ir-
Jr eo• .ex C r-.,.., ...�._"r dd dd..aed"° �?P��{dr' nu rou r
---- 1 !- NY" I
r.ert acre oe 6 (!4 rl r - "'nN""o'_Ero�mm�a�is Ori
�w.ma •m,d o DETAILED PLAN
SECTION B-B OHANNELQ y c 77� -C--)�
j � �'1 I - �fr• .`' ) f� Scale.I'.40' me,l°er a2 oD•e�e rww.lance
z �!'�'_" H+re aae rmrmm errwavTaw oN
2 i C
^fn.J IV , Ra+n n.pm-.a-'•acv a.we
2py n855 5hl and Lae
,t {J /t;,'' -"��, f , 99 •:.,,. 1 ..«a..w v.N,eaea.....�+. J � ara,.n _enwsr
E,t Morlon,Tarin al Sw Id
G H.lk—tg Nen Ywk
Revetment and Dredging Plan C 2
�....re....._..ee._,..�..s__..Y._._m.., _..� �� e. „_, ...m.�_..,.,� .m�_...._.v....._....r.r._..,..,....^_)°•-�. .,_.�.•..._ �,,..m_.....,a._.,,m....__��._w.....__,...,.�..,__.e.e_..r..........................s�..._._.........a.._,.._...._..
- r b,b•
IS e.u„oeJ N,i ,SECTION--DREDGENSPOIL DRYING AREA
r ''j'..' at%•errweve
II xr vice er nfe �"• END VIEW
p y -
3f DETAIL-TYPICAL BULKHEAD PLAN VIEW
''4 b%e-Ti-vweLLL 11
r i�Ngn.%n�ox - 'i :;,w-.::s%; "�i x D,x D�eu'cc • a•.a eu.%ms I I �� ,
PLAN
[""
- - - a�`"SG,4RPH�UOIN1'•"w,.,"'r�"�`=., = t�_ _, � -
- - ..: ..t:'- -'t.4:.q:.;,��t.:t'�yt;�Yri�;;ys'„o:'i,"%- ,�c'•a-.:7�r`�-
I �� - 'Ys l - ;�ry..if„*I,?.`�",,y .'X`y�y;Ft'2•i`.,eY:l; ..', .2 iw '
'�'� - - .Y,.✓f%b•.+Wri B�OL�c`s _k�u:�,`.'�vr�.. nye
]+e.b rw«e siieteran ie ee�n..:c eb %wTM eii - .• _- - -v-�f:;YI,'i.yi,,FY;t�`l'+, ""'��-t�5.";,r:..� T^~ ea M rosi
—Na a,.ow a,�,� -__ �f�a,.:,.�'. ?`s•`�S✓ci vui f:..+.na_.m�.' vm ew.ne �.b�
VI-
"A
..rob
O O
evne ROOD -- " °. -,MN'1 tt•Im` FlLe erMv Ay a.% aMatn 9/%'e,Ato 9mM
T
DM
,4,'' ELEVATION
- ,`o
' ? DETAIL-TIMBER JETTY ELEVATION;,TYPIGA)_"xTlk}BCtBULKH_EAD„�`�T - DETAIL-TIMBER FLOAT AND GANGWAY
NYSD f,
".�',
, ; � ., zv.., r�,'1�"i'V/�"�"�:• ..v .`«,� VEflMfI NO/.J 3�7dF/D�d
1 -.1. t•.- „1�';s'j-�'"fF'"".'.�„'r: ,(rte• =a�i�gryj' _:
2835 5hlpprd Lane
� 1 eoet rnorloD,ro�.D or swu,oid p� "
B; �R� a�f����„���-�n���-�� y �� T ^z _ '}•,; __ � R Bulkhead,Revetment and Dredging vetalU E
§ .-._..�.�..a._.,�__-,�..,a__s..,7t• ll .___ - - `# _ ,Q,__.�.®...e�.J'3 .-F �.....___._._._.����._-___•/l._...o-.--._...-_,®-- - .....o_.a_._..°�i.._..-_..._..__....y.-.>__..
■
Attachment D
"k 'l--ElrN
FE
�r i OCT - 9 2014 1�-)
9
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ONE COMMERCE PLAZA
ANDREW M. CUOMO 99 WASHINGTON AVENUE CESAR A. PERALES
GOVERNOR ALBANY, NY 12231-0001 SECRETARY OF STATE
March 25,2014
Mr.David Kennedy
VHB Engineering
2150 Joshua's Path, Suite 300
Hauppauge,NY 11788
RE: F-2013-0873
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers/New York District Permit
Application- Oki-Do Ltd. c/o Dr.Kazuko Tatsumura
Hillyer,President-In-kind replacement of 1,323±linear
feet of bulkheading located along the Gardiners Bay
shoreline and an existing marina basin.Recovery dredging
of—900 cy for backfill at this location. Installation of a
455±-linear foot rock revetment seaward of the bulkhead.
i
IJ�
Recovery dredging of-600 cy for backfill at this location.
In-kind replacement of 186 linear feet of timber jetties.
Removal of an existing fixed boat dock and installation of a
OCT - 9 2014 132^linear foot floating dock within the marina basin.
Dredging of 4,022±cubic yards of sediment from the
. ,,,_ _ _ ._..,__ existing marina basin boat channel,with—300 cy used as
olaint�ltl l�;;n backfill and the remainder dewatered and placed upland.
Tr�tsig_ .__�_-
Planting of Spartina alternaflora along the eastern shoreline
within the boat basin. Gardiners Bay, Town of Southold,
Suffolk County.
General Concurrence-Proposal Modified To Be
Consistent
Dear Mr. David Kennedy:
The Department of State received your modified proposal'on March 21, 2014 for the above referenced
project.
The modified proposal involves the following: the size of the proposed revetment has been reduced to 3,640
sf and now consists of a row of two toe-armor stones to be installed along the base of the bulkhead. The
proposed base layer of blanket stones and upper layer of capping stones have been reduced proportionately
as shown on the project plans dated last revised 02/12/2014.
The Department of State has determined that this proposed activity,which has been modified to be consistent
with the New York Coastal Management Program,meets the Department's general consistency concurrence
criteria. Therefore, further review of the proposed activity by the Department of State, and Department's
concurrence with an individual consistency certification, are not required.
This General Concurrence is without prejudice to and does not obviate the need to obtain all other applicable
WWW.DOS.NY.GOV E-MAIL.INFO@DOS.NY GOV
F-2013-0873 GCM
OKI-Do, LLC
p.2
licenses,permits, other forms of authorization or approval that may be required pursuant to existing State
statutes. Specifically, it appears that you may require authorization from the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation(DEC). Please contact the DEC Region 1 office to determine if their
authorization is required.
When communicating with us regarding this matter,please contact Jennifer Street at(518)474-6000 (e-mail:
Jennifer.Street@dos.ny.gov) and refer to our file 4F-2013-0873.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Zappieri
Supervisor, Consistency Review Unit
Division of Coastal Resources
JZ/jls
cc: COE/New York District—Jun Yan(NAN-2013-01475-EYA)
DEC/Region 1 —Kendall P. Klett(1-4738-00728/00012)