Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBayberry Estates Part III 1991 LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM U . . C PART III - EVALUATION OF IMPACTS GROUP BAYBERRY ESTATES SUBDIVISION SCTM #1000-55-6-351, 36 AND 56-1-1 LAUREL AVENUE SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK NEW YORK LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PART III - EVALUATION OF IMPACT BAYBERRY ESTATES SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN PROPOSED ACTION: Residential Cluster Subdivision PROJECT LOCATION: Laurel Avenue SCTM 1000-55-6-35, 36 and 56-1-1 Southold, New York APPLICANT: Dr. Francis O'Malley c/o Mars Sloan & Conlon 1770 Motor Parkway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. Donald Rettaliata, Attorney FILING AGENCY: Planning Board Office Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 PREPARER AND CONTACT: Maguire Group Architects/Engineers/Planners P.C. 3237 Route 112 Suite 7A Medford, NY 11763 (516) 696-6007 Jeffrey L. Seeman, REM, REA ``��t�u�1��illlly����i .✓y/y�G��y4� 4.' JEFFREY L.: =ct: SEEMAN :D 3 tw-': REM •2 • 2565 TABLE OF CONTENTS TOPIC SECTION INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 0 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 0 IMPACT ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .0 * Land Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 1 * Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 2 * Vegetation & Wildlife Resources . . . . . . . . . 3 . 3 * Agriculture Land Resources . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 4 * Open Space & Recreation Resources . . . . . . . . 3 . 5 GENERAL ASSESSMENTS & CONCLUSIONS STATEMENT . . . . . . . 4. 0 PHOTOGRAPHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 0 BAYBERRY ESTATES SKETCH PLAN, OCTOBER 1989 . . . . . . . 6.0 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. 0 1. Environmental Assessment Form Dated May 1987 2. Test Hole Data/Sketch Plan Dated June 13 , 1989 3 . Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Report of February 19, 1991 LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION The proposed action involves Suffolk County Tax Map number (SCTM# ) 1000-55-35-36 and 56-1-1 under application to subdivide ' 50 .0171 acres to provide an 18 lot clustered subdivision along the west side of Laurel Avenue, Town of Southold, New York. The subject site is located approximately 700 linear feet north of ' Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) and 150 linear feet south of Yennecott Drive; for site development a ± 1600 linear foot access roadway is proposed with connection to Laurel Avenue. In accordance with New York State Quality Review part 617 (SEQR) a Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) Part I was filed together with the proposed Bayberry Estates Subdivision Map ' (Young & Young) in May 1987 . Subsequent revisions to the map have resulted in the current layout - "Cluster" Subdivision Sketch Plan prepared for Bayberry Estates at Southold, October 23 , 1989 (Young & Young) . An addendum to the LEAF was filed in August 1990, at the request of the Planning Board, Town of Southold. Southold' s environmental consultants, Cramer, Voorhis t & Associates (CVA) reviewed the application and filed a report with the Town in February 1991. The CVA report recommended the Planning Board request a completed LEAF Part III - Evaluation of Impact Narrative to further assess significance of impact. ' Resources of concern include: 1. Impact on Land * Construction on slopes of 150 or greater. * Construction in an area containing intermittent streams and poor soils. 2. Impact on Water * Action requires use of a municipal water supply that has not approved availability. l * Suitability of soils and subsoils for sanitary disposal. * Impact to wetlands; natural drainage and hydrology. 3. Impact on Plants and Animals * Site supports wildlife habitats for raptors, heron, deer, and herptiles of species of special concern and potential threatened species status as identified by New York State and/or Federal lists . 4. Impact on Agricultural Land Resources * Proposed action would irreversibly convert more than ten acres of agricultural land. 5. Impact on Open Space * Potential reduction of open space. 1 The Maguire Group was engaged by the applicant to prepare the LEAF Part III narrative. The assessments and impact analyses presented in this document are based on current and previously accepted reports and data, Maguire' s field observations and our ' professional interpretation of this scientific and engineering information. where applicable, the narrative proposes mitigation plans to reduce impact significance. The minor revisions to the subdivision sketch resulting from mitigation are not included with this report. This information will be submitted upon request, in response to the Town' s comments and findings to the ' Part III . Additionally, to enhance brevity, reproduction of standard technical documents used in preparation of this report has been ' excluded. A complete list of references is included at the end of this report. (Refer to Section 8 .0 List of References or contact Maguire Group directly) . i I I I 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF, ACTION The Applicant proposes to subdivide a 50.0171 acre parcel into an 18 lot, clustered residential subdivision known as "Bayberry Estates" . The property is an irregular shaped piece, located ±700 feet north of New York State Route 25 with approximately ' 1,760 feet of frontage along the west side of Laurel Avenue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The proposed Subdivision Sketch Plan prepared by Young & Young dated October 23 , 1989 provides for 15 lots ( lot# ' s 3-10, 12-18) designed around two cul ' de sacs placed (as spurs) north and south off the east - west 1,600 LF access road. A third cul de sac provides for access to a single lot ( lot# 11) and dead ends the road at the western boundary. The two additional lots, numbers 1 and 2 are located in the north-east corner of the site with direct access from Laurel Avenue. The Long Island Rail Road tracks border the site 1 to the south. To the north, are residential homes and a park; Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) power lines and towers transect (northeast to southwest) the site in the northerly area, extending to the property edge. To the west is "High Point Meadows" and to the east, "Long Pond Estates" , residential subdivisions currently under construction. Zoning use district for the site is designated 11R-80" , residential low density "A" ; the action conforms with current land use ordinances. The site contains a New York State ' Freshwater Wetland; flagged by the State on June 1, 1989. The wetlands area appears on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Preliminary Freshwater Wetland Map dated May 31, 1991. The wetland area is also shown, together with the State required 100 foot buffer zone, on the October 23 , 1989 Subdivision Sketch for Bayberry Estates. All proposed lots and structures remain outside the wetlands buffer zone. The applicant has proposed a 33 . 9 ± acre open space area, the majority of which includes the wetlands and a contiguous upland zone. This area also provides a deep buffer to the existing residential lots along the north boundary, and along the west boundary. Actual development is clustered within a zone approximately 300 feet north of the existing railroad tracks and 600 feet west from Laurel Avenue. i I 3 i i i i i i i i i i ' 3.0 IMPACT ANALYSES 3.1 Land Resources Construction on Slope of 15% or Greater This action requires minor areas of construction on slopes greater than 15%. The impact results from the combined affects of the natural topography ( >15% slope) and the proposed use of the area for a stormwater recharge basin, roadway and cul de sac. The cul de sac provides access to lot #11. It is suggested, by the CVA analysis, that lot #11 be accessed by a private drive to avoid a need for the cul de sac and reduce fill required for its construction. The total area of construction on slopes greater than 15% is relatively small when compared to the entire parcel ( less than 2% of the total area) . To reduce slope impacts by allowing access to lot #11 via a private drive is reasonable, providing the tap road alignment with the parcel to the west can be achieved. One alternative examined included relocating the recharge basin to an area south of lot #11 (and provide the private drive access) . This would further mitigate impacts to slopes greater than 15% and avoid disturbing the natural topography. While impact to slopes would be reduced, the redirection of the site' s collected stormwater would reduce the quantity of run-off now entering the natural swale area north of lot #11. Subsequently disturbance to the overall natural drainage pattern and hydrology is expected by this alternative. The area of impact is specific to the impervious road surface area where run-off is controlled by the proposed stormwater collection and storage system. This alternative is expected to adversely impact natural hydrology and could contribute to wetland deterioration. Therefore, it is more desirable to retain location of the recharge basin as shown on the subdivision map dated October 1989 and utilize the existing topography and natural drainage basin. Only minor impacts are expected. It is also reasonable to predict that construction on slopes greater than 15% can be mitigated by minor design changes. The area of construction along the 15% slope is not very significant. When compared to the site' s area, the impact occurs to less than 2% of the parcel. Therefore, the importance of the impact on land caused by construction on slopes of greater than 15% is of minor to moderate significance. 1 Intermittent Streams/Poor Soils The proposed action was assessed by CVA to require construction i in an area containing intermittent streams and poor soils. 1 4 ' The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York, existing topographic maps and test hole data recorded in June 1989 indicate conditions exist that may support intermittent, perched stream activity; particularly in the area ' where the recharge basin is proposed. Field visits and observations did not confirm presence or absence of intermittent stream activity. The site' s soil types are classified as: ' Haven loam of 2%-6% slopes Haven loam of 0%-2% slopes ' Plymouth gravelly loamy sand of 3%-8% slopes, eroded Plymouth gravelly loamy sand of 8%-15% slopes, eroded Canadice silt loam 1 These soil types have generally acceptable engineering limitations for building except for the Canadice silt loam. According to the Soil Survey, the Canadice silt loam soils are seasonally wet and their slow permeability in the upper horizons provide a less desirable use for drainage structures. However, 5 to 6 feet below the upper soil level the Canadice silt loam has ' very rapid permeability characteristics. This would provide a suitable soil for stormwater recharge; providing the upper soil level is excavated/or excavated and back filled with clean fill material, suitable for recharge basin design and construction. IIt is feasible to locate the recharge basin as proposed on the Bayberry Estates sketch plan, providing these soil characteristics and construction considerations are addressed. To reduce disruption to area hydrology, it is suggested that an outlet such as a positive overflow pipe or spillway be provided at the recharge basin. The outlet would outfall to the natural swale area (remaining after basin construction) immediately north of the proposed recharge basin, and supplement the natural hydrology which may currently support the wetland area. This may I be particularly important during low rainfall events. The elevation of the outlet should be considered in the final design of the stormwater control plan. An alternative design scheme would provide relocation of the recharge basin to the south of lot #11. Providing the soils are suitable for recharge, an overflow structure would not be suggested. Under this alternative design, the natural swale area which exists north of lot #11 would remain undisturbed. Hydrology may be impacted particularly during periods of low precipitation. However, the impact to hydrology would likely be moderate to minor because the run-off that now enters the natural swale would continue to flow to the swale after development, with exception for the quantity of run-off altered by the proposed roadway and drainage collection system. This would be directed to the new recharge basin south of lot #11. It is our opinion the recharge basin is more suitably located as shown on the Bayberry Estates Sketch Plan dated October 1989 (north of lot #11 ) . As a mitigation for potential impact to hydrology an overflow outlet to the natural swale area should be provided. 5 ' Dependent on future test hole results, the existing soil in the recharge basin area may need to be excavated to a depth of 5 to 6 feet and suitable fill placed in the effective area of recharge within the basin bottom and walls. This mitigation may be ' required whether the recharge basin is placed north or south of lot #11. It is more the result of engineering limitations of the soil conditions and not purely the result of significant impact ' or proposed mitigation. Therefore if the existing soils are determined not to be Canadice silt loam in either area proposed for the recharge basin, there may be no need for additional I excavation and fill; and disturbance to hydrology is expected to result in only moderate or minor impacts. I I 1 6 ' 3.2 Water Resources Water Supply I The action requires drinking water supply from the Greenport Water District. This water purveyor has experienced supply limitation, and the proposed Bayberry Estates subdivision will ' have an impact on water supply resources. A typical family of four will use approximately 90 gallons per capita per day for drinking, food preparation, washing and sanitary needs. Although water conserving devices ( i.e. low flush water closets, flow I restrictors, etc. ) are becoming standard in modern residences, a figure of 360 gallons per day per unit is assumed to be an acceptable water demand level for Bayberry Estates. This computes to an overall site demand of 6,480 gallons per day (say 6, 500 GPD) . The impact to drinking water supply cannot be thoroughly evaluated at this time. The applicant has requested a statement of availability from Greenport Water company. The response from the purveyor, indicates water will be provided for the project at I a future date. If water is not available, the project cannot be built; there would be no predictable impact to water resources under a no build scenario. If the purveyor grants water supply, it is anticipated that (because water is available) the impact to water resources would be only of minor to moderate significance. Sanitary Disposal Each residential unit is expected to generate 300 GPD of sanitary discharge. These flows are recommended by design standards suggested by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, (SCDOH) the agency that will review and respond to sanitary plans for the subdivision. No municipal sewer system exists in this I area of Southold, and it is desired to utilize an individual septic system for each lot. As required for the SCDOH approval of sanitary waste disposal designs, test pits must be excavated and inspected for each septic system. Soil permeability characteristics will be evaluated with respect to leaching capability. If soil types are unsuitable for septic systems design, leaching pool areas can be excavated to an acceptable depth and backfilled with clean sand to provide suitable disposal conditions. Minimum lot areas accepted by SCDOH for septic use is 20 , 000 SF. The Young & Young yield plan is well within these regulations. Lot numbers 9 and 10 and 6 and 7 are contiguous to and at higher elevations (±10 feet) than the wetlands/buffer area. There is concern for potential impact to the surface water, intermittent stream, wetland hydrology from sanitary disposal generated from these four lots. The sanitary flows generated from the entire I subdivision is also a concern with regard to groundwater impacts. 7 t There is always concern for the pollution impacts to water resources generated from land development, on Long Island, particularly in Eastern Suffolk County. Municipal sanitary sewer systems and treatment facilities can provide some control to sanitary waste disposal, but availability is often limited in areas of Suffolk. Existing treatment facilities are experiencing operational difficulties on the East End, largely due to capacity and design limitations of the plants. In June of 1991, the NYSDEC assessed the success of Denitrification Systems use in Suffolk County. These sanitary disposal systems were designed to remove nitrogen from sanitary wastewaters; and allow the nitrogen depleted wastewater to leach back to groundwater. The method expected a reduction in nitrogen loading of water resources and to restore water to groundwater resources. As of this date, the NYSDEC determined that the Denitrification System is not an acceptable method for sanitary waste disposal in Suffolk County. Subsequently, Bayberry Estates is exclusively limited to ' individual septic system use for sanitary waste disposal in accordance with Suffolk County Department of Health and NYSDEC requirements. It is upon this criteria that a determination of no other reasonable alternative can be proposed and assessed for ' sanitary disposal. Therefore only septic system disposal impacts are evaluated. I Impact from nitrogen laden wastewater on water resources can be theoretically quantified. Nitrogen loading from septic system disposal can be calculated, and a zone of influence established ' to determine and assess pollutant loading impact of nitrogen on ground and surface water. For the assessment groundwater monitoring wells, test pits, soils taxonomy and characteristics, hydrologic data (vertical and horizontal flow direction and quantitative data for surface and subsurface water including intermittent stream activity if present etc. ) would need to be established. Additionally, the effect that the disposal method would have on wetland deterioration could require a Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) analysis and assessment be conducted. The WET method is a wetland qualitative assessment developed by I the US Army Corp of Engineers & USEPA requiring extensive, long range field and historic data collection for 144 parameters. The LEAF Part III narrative does not require assessment in the detail described above. Generally this type of environmental assessment is conducted for regional impacts on wetlands and water quality. If conducted for Bayberry Estates, these detailed assessments would be misapplied; examining only a small geographic area and 1 disregarding impacts caused by regional and seasonal influences. I This approach was ruled out for the Part III Narrative because of its nonconformance. Generally, nitrogen loadings in densely developed areas are a concern to groundwater impacts. Impacts I from the 18 lot clustered development over 50 acres will have lesser significance than projects of higher density. Obviously a net increase in nitrogen loading of water resources is unavoidable. The effect of nitrogen may be lessened by the plant life in the wetland area and buffer zones. Vegetation utilizes 8 nitrogen as a nutrient, collecting the compound through the plant root system. Providing the soils permit adequate leaching of sanitary waste, nitrogen concentrations are expected to be diluted by interaction with natural hydrologic conditions and absorbed by plant life sustained by existing wetland and/or upland conditions. This may reduce impact to a degree which can only be theoretically determined by long range multifaceted field and historic data assessment. Providing the septic systems are adequately maintained and land use limited to acceptable density, water resource deterioration from Bayberry Estates is at this time not quantifiable but expected to be of moderate impact. The ' SCDOH regulations and review will provide for future and final determination of sanitary disposal methods. It is recommended to review the SCDOH evaluation for a final evaluation of water resource impacts. Impact to Intermittent Stream and Wetlands tThe use of the southwest corner of the site and impact concerns regarding potential intermittent stream activity and wetland resources has been presented in Sections 3 . 1 and 3. 2. The ' importance of the wetlands and uplands for habitats for plants and animals is more extensively evaluated in Section 3 . 3 . I I 1 1 I 1 9 ' 3.3 Vegetation and Wildlife Resources It has been reported the site supports raptors, heron, deer and herptiles, potential threatened species and species of special ' concern. The Town of Southold required that the site' s habitats and wildlife be characterized as support for maximum preservation of open space through clustering. Description of Ecology The site is characterized by wetland and upland environments that provide ecologically significant habitats for a diverse ' population of wildlife and vegetation. To observe and record habitat conditions, Maguire Group conducted a field visit and preliminary assessment on June 10, 1991. The wetland area delineated by NYSDEC includes a stillwater pond approximately 60 feet wide and 100 feet in length (with an unknown depth) . The pond' s perimeter is heavily vegetated with almost no areas of open space along the banks. The transition zone between the wetland and upland area is also densely vegetated with saplings and shrubs. Soil survey maps and an evaluation by CVA (CVA February 15, 1991) suggest the wetland is indicative of intermittent stream i activity. However, the lack of a formulative transition zone sustaining a dominance of faculative wetland vegetation and the density of shrub and saplings in the wetland area and pond, ' suggests the surface water may be resultant of an abandoned man made irrigation pond. Test hole data in the wetland zone shows the presence of hydric soils, and this area may in fact be the zone where the Canadice silt loam soils predominate. It would be sensible from an agricultural viewpoint to locate an irrigation pond in this area because the upper soil level would retain water. This area is too wet to sustain mature trees in the pond and several fallen trees were observed, Red-osier dogwood tree stumps were observed with a ±3" caliper, with new shoots generation. Black gum, Red maple, wild grape and sensitive fern also characterize the swamp and bank area. The vegetation of the upland area is indicative of old field and judging from the wetland and pond vegetation, the site may have been abandoned for agricultural use 25 to 30 years ago. Areas within the wetlands have been disturbed; a 55 gallon drum, abandoned farm equipment and several large deposits of scallop I shells were observed. This disturbance is minor and generally the wetland is well protected by vegetation and not easily accessed by man, resulting in a high quality wetland area. I I 10 These conditions provide for wildlife habitats classified as ' "Shrub Swamp" . Beyond the swamp, in the poorly defined transition zone and upland area, the habitat is characteristic of "Shrub Sapling/Opening Edge" . These two habitats, while separated by a NYSDEC jurisdictional delineation, are ' interrelated ecological zones. The swamp provides food and shelter for birds, mammals, vegetation, insects and herptiles which themselves act as food source for upland birds and mammals. Wildlife hunting space includes the shrub sapling/opening edge and the open upland area to the north of the site, especially important to avian predators. Deer lays were observed in the ' shrub sapling/opening edge; frogs and turtles visually and audibly identified in the shrub swamp; rabbits, catbirds mourning doves, crow, northern flicker, mocking bird and sparrow also visually and or audibly observed. ' Upland vegetation included but was not limited to gray birch, weeping willow, eastern red cedar, white birch, Russian olive, red oak, eastern Baccharis (saltbrush) and varieties of golden rod, ferns, Rosa multiflora, grasses and poison ivy. The vegetation in the upland area provides ground cover, avian cover/nesting areas and shelter. The open areas are suitable for raptor feeding on small mammals. The CVA report supports the assessment of wildlife habitat abundance by visual observation of species and presence of spent shells from use of the property by ' hunters. Evaluation iThe NYSDEC published list (which includes the Federal list) of potentially threatened species and species of special concern, ' and the State list of protected plants identify vegetation and wildlife protected by State Conservation law. There is indication that the natural environment of the site can or does provide permanent and/or periodic habitat for several species of ' protected plants and animals. The area of open space provided in the Bayberry Estates Sketch Plan is warranted and its geographical location with respect to natural wildlife habitat co-existance with the proposed clustered subdivision is well selected. The wetland area in the west area of the site is as ecologically significant to the habitats in the northerly open space area as is the open uplands importance to the wetlands. The 100 foot wetlands buffer provides both a protection to the designated wetland area and an enhanced ' transition area that extends the shrub sapling/ opening edge habitat into the habitats defined by upland area. The plan provides preservation of low ground cover, open field, mature trees, wet areas and areas of transition among a mixture of habitats. This permits wildlife movement on the ground and in the air for purposes of nesting, hunting and hiding, unrestricted by manmade features. Generally it is not the pure presence of people that disturbs wildlife habitat but rather man' s physical changes that create problems. Physical change can be minor as with walking through a field and disturbing a rabbit to the more extreme level of a major agricultural development that would remove all natural habitats, vegetation, disturb hydrology, etc. 11 1 Therefore, to further encourage preservation the clustered development is well placed within the site, with respect to the more valuable natural resource area. Some disruption to wildlife will occur, habitats will be significantly disturbed in areas of r development; this is resource loss and impact which cannot be avoided. As construction takes place, the animals from these habitats will likely seek refuge in the preserved area or relocate to areas off-site. The wildlife that cannot relocate may not survive, however the disruption is limited and may be outweighed by the continuity of the preserved areas; more likely to support habitats for species of protection and concern. The habitats for plant and wildlife preservation may be enhanced by the long range impact of the residential development. There ' may be protected species that under current conditions are being destroyed by unlawful hunting and trapping practices. If the residents elect to prohibit hunting and trapping of animals and restrict access to the open space zones, sensitive habitats will be protected. This is expected if a natural resource management program is developed and maintained. It is not encouraged to ' obstruct the open areas with fencing or structures that would restrict wildlife movement. Enhancing the perimeter with natural landscaping that would screen out unnatural movement and discourage entry by people, but still allow for lateral movement r of wildlife between habitats, is permissible. Future placement of an osprey platform may provide additional wildlife refuge. Attention to future development and potential impacts from the area along the west boundary of Bayberry Estates should be considered. Ideally this parcel should include a zone of open space preservation contiguous to the area proposed by Bayberry Estates. The impact to wildlife and vegetation is considered moderate because of the balance between preservation of the existing more valuable natural resource area and a low density cluster plan; albeit these are forms of mitigation. r r 1 1 r r 12 PARTIAL LISTING OF SPECIES OBSERVED OR EXPECTED TO EXIST IN HABITATS - By Common Name ' ANIMALS: *Great Blue Heron *Eastern Screech Owl *Great Egret *American Goldfinch *Snowy Egret *Mourning Dove *Common Yellow Throat Redwing Blackbird *Swamp Sparrow Crow *Northern Harrier *Brown Headed Cowbird Bull Frog *Northern Flicker Green Frog *Brown Thrasher Wood Frog *Mocking Bird Spotted Salamander Field Sparrow Eastern Newt Eastern Cottontail Two lined Salamander White Tailed Deer Snapping Turtle Eastern Harvest Mouse Painted Turtle *Eastern Box Turtle Eastern Ribbon Snake *Alder Fly Catcher *Red Tailed Hawk Northern Leopard Frog Red Bat ***Osprey *Gray Catbird VEGETATION: Red Oak Poison Ivy Eastern Red Juniper **Golden Rod Red Swamp Maple Chokeberry Black Gum Milkweed Gray Birch Saltbrush **White Birch Russian Olive Crested Wood Fern Weeping Willow Sensitive Fern Rosa Multiflora **Alder Duckweed Sassafras Common Ragweed **Wild Grape Catalpa * Protected wildlife in New York State ** Some species of these plants are protected by New York State *** Threatened species of wildlife ' 13 21 it 13 12 '� _.;t- • �' mil ' SUoh7 G- _ T � •i`;<�/ 1 `i" - � i`sem.- /':��id �•. ._� _ - XJ=r, r � ti 40 Iry 40- A 10 dids 77 27 ' •�:. _ • - .:r "• / e Jennings Pt 90 : - =P MAINARY FRESq� V`ATER WETLAH ' • Beixedon ;,� F. S►UBJEc TO -REV 51)0;Southol 61 - This is a section oft e 53 ive'freshw�ter Wetlands Map I S L Tentat Cd u my Tor — ��, 3` Founder Landing pursuant to ArtiCl 24 of the Environmental Park �on3� i'or�2 v R 6s N\ I S L A N D �w Harpers 1 Q a PL 3 Cr'a ' ' ' : New York State DePartment k Eq�onMant- W -x-. 70 eSouthold Conservetion � s Bays /7 r. 3 4 ; am •' _ _ .i _ *_....'.... J := r •o �. �• 29 :. -: _ _ �t� �• /{ South* l?d Paradis j• ��. F <� :'/ e Taenr Wu _.:r POinL j + •KI- Gop ''>•a.. '! , - �. -, _; ;.._....'J e 't' (r - _ it ?�..- /.�.r� -' /o .. 0 -1 Cao' � •` a 'a:: �l o,. ; l -; � - .w.ti-.,... o-: '-� • __- �� 1fr' .,r X' -_� 't`k;— •10o y•✓� o•'�� 1 ��� _ - ,,, •L e - �, "�- e \. :J \- •' ' eta �'t Ceda 14 ' 3 . 4 Agricultural Land Resources The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land, into a residential land use. An impact to ' agricultural land use was a noted concern. The site is assessed to have some agricultural value albeit ' limited in area by some soil types, wetlands and the natural topography conditions; obstacles in converting the land for agriculture. Evidenced by the old field vegetation, and what may ' be an old irrigation pond, sections of the site may, in the past, been farmed. Development of the site for residential purpose will have unavoidable long term impact to the use of the site for agriculture. Other sites exist in Southold where agricultural ' use could be considered. The subdivisions under construction to the west of the site and along the east side of Laurel Avenue create a compatible land use with the proposed action but compete ' with overall land to remain for farming. Bayberry Estates exacerbates the condition of land use for residential development that historically was planned for farm use. This impact to land ' use (with focus on agricultural land resources in Southold Township) was assessed by comparing the subdivision impacts to agricultural impacts. ' The alternative land use for agricultural purposes may have a more significant adverse impact over several environmental concerns: I * Disturbance to Natural Hydrologic Conditions - due to regrading and potential to significantly alter natural Idrainage to attain maximum site yield. * Potential for Surface Water Contamination - Agricultural use could provide a high risk to wetland deterioration if I herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers are misapplied or if an accidental spill occurs. * Removal of Natural Vegetation - converting the site would drastically and potentially, irreversibly destroy habitats preserved by the Bayberry cluster plan. Similar I preservation of the habitats could result in economic hardships to farming a restricted site by reduction of crop yield and land use. Natural resource availability within Southold Township, would be reduced if sections of the site were not preserved for open space. A productive use of approximately twenty acres of agricultural land resources would adversely impact area wide farmland use. This impact must be weighed by the potential deterioration of the site ' s ecological value in comparing impacts between the cluster residential and agricultural uses. Relative to this comparative 1 analysis, impact significance to agriculture is expected to be moderate to minor. 15 ' 3 . 5 Open Space and Recreation Resources The development of the 18 lot cluster subdivision will potentially reduce open space and recreational resources in Southold. The proposed action provides slightly more than 30 acres of open ' space area. The cluster unit plan concentrates the area of development and provides essential open space which includes an important wetland - transition zone - upland continuity. As ' stated in section 3 .3 the natural existing ecology is best supported by this land preservation approach. The lack of disturbance to this mix of habitats is important to recognize when considering open space and recreation. Even passive recreation (hiking, exercise trails, etc. ) can disrupt sensitive nesting and hunting habits of birds, reptiles and amphibians. The picking or transplant of New York State protected plants is ecologically damaging and unlawful. To reduce the occurrence of ecological degradation even by ' unintentional practices, the open space areas are not recommended for recreational use. Recreational suitability is also questionable because of the density of vegetation in some areas. Attempts to eradicate nuisance vegetation ( i.e. poison ivy) could have more significant impact on other plants and animals. Similarly uncontrolled hunting, fishing and trapping could damage the natural resource value of the open space areas. The subdivision will predictably restrict access to the site by the general public. This results in a net loss of available, public recreational space but a net gain in controlled open space resource management. There is a park along the North border of the site; recreational facilities exist in the immediate area. Therefore, the cluster plan supports open space preservation and impact to open space and area lost for recreation is of moderate to minor significance. I I I 1 16 4.0 GENERAL ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS STAT T I 1 I ' 4.0 General Assessment and Conclusions Statement The proposed action impact concerns predominate on the sensitive environmental conditions established by the existing wetland ' system and its inter-relationship with transition zone and upland ecological natural resource values. While intermittent stream activity cannot conclusively be verified or denied, the parcel has valuable wet resources including hydrophytic vegetation, aquatic wildlife, water dependent species and hydric soil conditions. These characteristics are equally important to the ' upland habitats that greatly depend on the wet area for survival. The Bayberry Estates cluster subdivision as presented in the Young & Young Sketch Plan, has produced an extreme and cautious ' approach to avoid disturbance of the site' s natural resources. Several additional mitigating measures proposed in the Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Bayberry Estates Long EAF Review Report, ' February 1991 concur with Maguire Group' s specific assessments. Construction on slopes of 150 or greater can be further mitigated ' by accessing lot #11 with a private driveway, thus eliminating the cul de sac at the westerly terminus of the access road. Suitability of soils for stormwater recharge can be mitigated by ' either: 1) Relocation of the recharge basin to the south of lot #11 ' (although this may adversely impact wetland related hydrology) ' 2 ) Locating the recharge basin as proposed, excavating unsuitable soil and backfilling the effective area of recharge with suitable material. To encourage natural hydrology supporting the wetlands, an outlet structure is ' suggested at the north end of the recharge basin. Suitability of soils for sanitary waste disposal can be mitigated by: 1) Evaluation of test pit information as required by Suffolk County Department of Health prior to sanitary disposal plan approval. 2) Removal of unsuitable soils and replacement with soils Iacceptable for septic leaching Availability of drinking water supply must be confirmed by the I Greenport Water Company. Physically, water supply is readily available from the main running north and south along the west side of Laurel Avenue. If water is not available, there would be no net loss of water resources. Disruption to potential intermittent stream activity and the wetland area has been minimized by clustering and by suggestions regarding drainage and sanitary structures. i 17 ' Habitats for valuable vegetation and wildlife resources have been carefully preserved by cluster designs. The upland/wetland open space is largely contiguous with total open space comprising ' about 60a of the site. Agricultural land resource reduced by the residential use development of more than 10 acres of agricultural is an ' unavoidable impact. It is assessed that if the natural resource of the site' s ecology is preserved, approximately 20 acres remain for farming. The practicality of crop yield for ± 50 acre site ' is questionable. Potential impacts to the environmentally sensitive areas caused by agricultural pesticides and herbicides, alteration to hydrology and suitability of soils for agriculture may greatly reduce agricultural value, and/or adversely impact ' significant ecological land value. The Bayberry Estates plan supports open space goals by use of 1 subdivision cluster techniques. Recreational activity of the site will likely be restricted to the immediate homeowners. Providing an acceptable natural resource program is implemented and maintained, unauthorized (hunting, trapping, vegetation removal) activities will be minimized. This could result in an overall protection to sensitive habitats. Additionally, other recreational areas are provided within reasonable distance of the site. In accordance with the review of impact concerns of land use, ' water, ecology, and existing environmental conditions the Bayberry Estates residential subdivision plan (October 1989) has been evaluated to have moderate to minor impact to these parameters. It is recommended that soil conditions be evaluated and further assessed for suitable stormwater and sanitary disposal practices, as required for Suffolk County Health Department Approval, and a final determination of drinking water availability be confirmed. l I i 18 i i i i i5.0 PHOTOGRAPHS i i ` BAYBERRY ESTATES PHOTO LOG PHOTO NUMBER DESCRIPTION 1 Bayberry Estates site looking north along Laurel Avenue ' 2 Bayberry Estates site looking west from Laurel Avenue 3 Bayberry Estates site looking south along Laurel Avenue 4 Upland area looking northwest 5 Old field - potential hunting zone for avian predators 6 Open space upland area 7 Upland - old field looking north 8 Upland area - note ground cover ' 9 Upland area - note ground cover 10 LILCO Tower transects northeast to southwest 11 Typical upland plant 12 Wetland looking west 13 Wetland - possibly old irrigation pond 14 Probable deer lay area 15 Shrub swamp wetland 16 Scallops shells I 17 Shrub swamp wetland 1 18 Typical wetland vegetation 19 Wetland - note uprooted tree 20 Wetlands 21 Wetlands - note abandoned drum 22 Wetland vegetation - food source • ' �.. �F• Fes'/ �'.� i! . w r t , 41 ROW •tom . " 0' i Aim - � � - 791 •'t _ •x• '.Amp. R1 T + , « LIM- All f J, r le ILI yMi '••, ^^� ♦ r1�." ^yys � �� ♦ ►' `• ^mut,� +M.� +�41 �L (" ''►►�� 1 p► '.r, � � .-mss �� �Y� � �. \/' . �i � � I "�"' .� ` � .`' /'� � tel'-� ^•"� w� i y •4.� ;t—� �1 fOC.... SI rS - ''� ,f'f {,x'a�""�'• 1i.? r � . .e,~ All Vi `` f 06 4b Al ���?�` ��,�� + 'tea,.�•� , �w t, a` �,�� 4 � � s y .:. :' 40 ra I IF „ri r _ � ., '+t .i; �{{, � }4 1 1'`. �( . is�?� r •.> - :�. r 1.. ii Y• �� � ifi 'CJs~� 1 ,� � �_ � � - .. . ! 1 1 .. i ,_ � _ �.. - �� 's �, t ,. _ �! , r• ��. �♦ r.� .' ,ar.} � ' I � `r J i i k i 6.0 BAYBERRY ESTATES SKETCH PLAN OCTOBER 1980 .--� N 0 00 V\ 1 L of 39 0.0_ Lot 40 Nw c „E `459.86 m N.84 L,ONQ CREEK �\ 24.07' - b , Z ` t r Y ENNEcp-f T s -4 '14 { o�' G ` o N ' A � ' 34006 .E -a ',3'1 \ Q^� 27.80- . ♦ -.2 ?8• ,, ' YENNECOTT oro o ,N1 c� No. 5187 ©;�9 0 1{ , Suff. Co. File o `� ' V. ecott Park .O_ ENNE rr rot 1 "Yenn Lot 41 2j0 N /\ Subdivision " of 42 I N, 43 L 27.22 Lot ;50 0 now or formerly Lot 45 Lot 44 `� 25.60' . '`,� Park Lot 46 ,- % f Yen necott 1123.63 1 ` 1 � u y Ovine ASSO. _a.e3' % Propert round 11 ,{ - 19.89 1 1 1\ �� w "Park 8► playground ----_--N 8 2 00 E. �` `, 1 m N 1 27. 18' _,28_ f 1 25.97' o ` 18. - \ `�{ C, \\♦ ♦�6'\ \'{ ,251, 12�. \I nING 6NV��opE �TYV� 22o n r 1 --26'- 17 43' � / -•.. �\` {` 22.56' •�` ` �+` 15.29; 1�1t`7 .; � 11 ,,27.05 No ap OW r {� ' `. : . \ •. ` � , { � , •. ` NES N . i �J-3.39' 17.5 ` ` ` `� `� { t ♦ . �. .4% 17.56' 1 `` ♦ , ` ` \ � ```♦ `, ` -' '` \`, t`, ``♦ . i' .. ``\ - , 25.21' ` 17.40' ' 19.45' , ' OD \ \ ` \` ` ``` Q �24- - �` 23.45' `, `. w ,.► `.\ ♦ `, 23 X00',, ,� w W 17.60' 18.89' , \� 16.39 ` �`. �+ ` --- `. 1. 19.78' 23,hQ` , + N `� . '2 .33' ` ' f<• Lot 47 o M ai 1'O. ,� 18.78' 17 `2?�.77'+ .�♦ 1 -20.7 `. 76 , Dp � N SpA r `, ; m O �� \ , •� �` '�, `\ \` 143.61' `, `, 21.52' • \ ; 213.(0 : AGFK5� `� , I 1 ' - - ; 22;74'� .� 7.93' ,{ 12.98, 19;94 \ . - `\ 1 02' ' CV ` '. ��+ 18.98• 18. 0' `+ �. 1 , ?j5.70 ' '{ u , 1 •. , N I \, ♦ ` y� 'I r v1 ` ' `+ 1 , ,' �, 1 lNT {rN iD A N D 5 C� .1!' ��G. f� ,,' 3.A0• --_•__---- 19.86' o '�'a `♦ 1 18. 1 ` ♦ ` - - `• • __ - `• "r ; , i ,'N t now or formerly - 1�_ ---- - � - _ _ EDl LOCATION MAP Richard H. Wh Q 16.77' 20.96' `,�� ` ` 26.24',1'._-- - ~, 1 -�� 01� SCALE:I" =600' eeler Sc Z 64 i i 19.t27'p: `` `Y �`, - rj_ 5.5 '� `, N ,• / 0� n ' ' - 16.73 .\O . 25 03. ,-_0.- / , w --� Lauree E. Wheeler iv o - - 16.41 '` t' v� n w ; CV i' off, 16.62' ,' ' 21.45• ,`. ', -- ------ -t'S' Q `\ {t /" \ f17 .70' \ ` • , o { { 1 , 1fj. 6' `'{ ` `• 27.89' _ _-_ 4 P \ __ -28--- -- t X01 .4 1, LINE OF WETLANDS , \\ '`,` `t `, AS FLAG ED BY N.Y S DEC. ,`, { '0 , LOCATED 6/1/89 �e•01 Q4.9 ,' `. (� ' { ` 'w' -----�_ `u 20.24 ' 16.79' �� `` `,, ; '', 26186. (off- � 31 . 1 ' 2' a,3 \` '' 1 A`, 221734' - •• 'I • 19.65 { 17.78 `1, . Q ...�""�"• .� •. - `♦ ', `\ ♦ 1 .7 ` I \ e t { ` �i`\ 0.48, 0' Zoo 1 1 p ` *`t w 1 34' 1 1 !P iA 17.69' .46 • �, 1 , 't R=ov' '` `Iwo i d+'{ m 19.79' 1 ` Q' 16x.97' , `.,37 26. _ �4 ' 16.80• � ; •1 , ,,' � `, t ', C ' � , { `♦-r v •� { , Z'`� It17.0 4' 1 , S. 28.99'tt , ,\ , , 29 9 14 6.59' 6. , �• Q LotC (�i '\\s {, {t '1 0; 31. 14' , \ / 7 7 �s�-c�ooy �.� 20.20. 1 �1, ' '%23. 13'x, , \It 25.is 3dt. s;', oa A ��� �� { N SITE DATA : IS.46' \` r ' � /N -rJ• aG. 2kk. 4 11 I. TOTAL AREA = x,50.0171 AC. 2. ZONING USE DISTRICT - "R - 80" RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY 'A' It S - I1 �' �;^ \o. 3. TOTAL LENGTH OF ROAD = 1600 ± L.F. 19.85• \ '139 1a� 2000: �.� N 4. TOTAL NO. OF LOTS = 18 S.88057'30"W. 572.83' 1� L , f a r , m ri o 2 S 2MO' M _ / 5. OPEN SPACE AREA = 33.9 ± AC. Q 17. 16• ` c^8.7 8 1 w ------------ { 19.45' 1 7 IAO 31 .06' n 03 18.90' �O o '. ,' \ Ze ----- "' o 16.58' 2 2� 2 .33' �` OJ . - /��".---.- 19. 17' B �� .' 20. 16 �. ` {It ` W . r'' \ 27 ` '8 16,0 6 = �.� +n 17 20.94' 11• . ti- _ �,` 2i��62' `� ` \\��,`• 13' �O'- f- C •m now or formerly Herbert R. Mandel $ �:1a1 Qo' 31000 ..�, , ' 6 9.•61 •� ``` {;95" \ - (� 20.08' 003 21.06- \ 4 `^*`. `� , 24.05 \. ' V 't 0 tAf�• • , i 18t9`7` . , j A j ` I DDDIfi h.>= O - J 28.69' i , p a. `n ` 2 ,#23. 1 .:� ``' , 2 .85 1 25 94' . - p--l-- - dA , Op � N r-- It j 20.65' (� ♦` �{`` (P ! >0 - 6. ./ -1 /� {i , N Ido 24. 1 Its ' `�: '`\ 't i ' '{ i ' ( y o? 7g J5•3 A6 9 �c Zs \\ I, r \ { A �9s \ � N Oz ' 2 .67' p CLUSTER 2f4.6 \.\,. 20.�2� �• ' 35000 ± �.>; v ,{ •`•;, `. 0 O 26.33' i' 23.38' 7 I\ �,{`�i �M. .34 ti 15 , SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN m0 `� ~`,2 24 91 , 3 5 000: \ 1�8%G9AKGE 1{{{I'J'A5IM ` N epi O� 26.59' ' , 1,t 21 \ tT PREPARED FOR 'y ' .1 I I I ' '� / \Q G NOTE : 7 O i I `{ .� 1 6s• `.'Q 1. SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP " ,1{6.3'0' . , S• s y ` b �,,r,D /2p; \ 25.37' �,. 27.8,Na , N BAYBERRY ESTATES DIST. 1000 SECT.055 BL.06 LOT .035 a 035 O O^ , 1 3.5 `, 200' , 23.24 w HIST. l000 SECT.056 BL.01 LOT 01 7 P P p i ,`, ,Y ,,` 21.76• I Z �, 23. 2.ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO M.S.L. co " �- ` Q ` tt 23. AT SO UT HOLD DATUM (N.G.V.D. 1929). 24.12 ♦* - , �Qpf P 25.01' I \ `, ��\ 33 04)0 t CO {9� ,/1.25• 23. 13'O TOWN OF SOUTHOL i 'I 0 21 68' pD 4. O'3•<01�f�0 ±"�. f D - j 0t SUFFOLK 21.8�� . ,' „ - _ o .33• , :- - FOLK COUNTY N . YCP , Vs ° ,A* 20. ..O `�_ ,` `,62• 21.7,9' oI -' .1nAUTHOkILED ALTERATION OR A00"t"' p3•09• • / PO TO THIS SURVEY 15 A VIOLATION Of i 0 20,35' ' c�2.72 SECTION 7209 of THE NEW YORK STATE (�• .� { ' 21.04 Q I'd EDUCATION LAW- -- (�\� O -- `}s�Q f 'aE'D COPIES Of THIS SURVEY MAP NOT BEARIN 20. -ZZ- ' THE LANG SURYevO4'S S[AL OR ` ` ~1, T t;t CO*+-.tDEREE • - - (+r EMDOSSkD 5rn: ssanu Nc .++ . • 23. 12', `� ,'� 21!FH' 8�5 EM BE A VALID T:'UE COPY O^ 20.40' 20.79• ' ' ' BOB' `- . `Na ;aUARA!�TEES IN9t::ATLU HEREON SHALL RUN / 22.5-2- 0 ^ / O FOR WHOM AL RURVE \ P / T '��' �• e ONLY TO THE PihSVi: F O ' SY IS FREE AfaU, AI+D ON HIS ELHALF TO THE \ / COVLKty.+ENIAL AGfr4CY AHS / 23.87' { TITLE coM>:ANT, 20.4 Q ENDING INSTITUEIJN LS5icU HLREON, AND r�l(,,p , rO THE ASSIGN,ES Of TfiE LENDING INSTI- r / '8• ' S l" � � - J a>.l EF.S A0.f NOT TRANSFERAEL� • ' 23. �O. 45$9 N . <,sFERAIILI // DATE OCT. 23 1989 C s w i YOUNG 8f YO NG IFN / SCALE 1 = 100 400 OSTRANDER AVE.,RIV A ,DIVS, 2.9ON NO. 85 -1482 ALDEN W. YOUNG, N.Y.S, PE. a L. . LIC. N0, 12845 20.6 b' \1 HOWARD W. YOUNG, N.Y.S. L.S. LIC. NO.45893 �. 500 38 7.0 APPENDIX 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM MAY 1987 APPEN011 A EAF DIVIRiI:MEMAL ASSISSYENT - DART Preis• InfmrMatlen maTICE: This document t0 assist In determining whether the action pmo0sed may have a stgttflesnt effect on the anvlrCnvant. Please cO moiete the entire Data Sheet. Answers to these auestiens will be cznsteared as Oart Of the aoollcatfon for ao0roval and Pwy be subject to further verlflca:ton and Oub11C review. Provmde Any additional fnferemation You believe will be needed to comtetn PARTS 2 and J. invol"It Is •soectee that eomictlen Of tie EAF will be deoeneent on information currently available and will not oIndi ate studies. researse or lnvestlaatfon. If InfOremation rwnuirina such additional wart is unavaSaOli. se tnatute and soeeltY each insiahee. 1AlME OF PoO,TEC7: NAME AM ADDRESS OF nYNER (Tf niffo--"t! Francis O'Malley Laurel Avenue, Southold. New York "� ACCIIM Alio KAnE OF APvLICW, Creye; Francis O'Malley c/o Donald Rettaliata panel :.. ( uua 1�j01 285 West Main Street Esq.� CUM= P!i0t1E: 589-2500 TT—Lnm Savville. New York 11782 .u.1 caul 1 DJ OESCQlPTT^.'t 0► PoA,1ECT. (Briefly describe type of Project or action) Realty Subdivision of SZ). Ot7 /• A-CRc3 iN7)0 /H e0 s, y i,J AJ (MMSE CCIPLETE EACH QUESTIntl - Indicate M.A. If not aooll tC) A. SITE OESCAIPTION (Physical setting of overall pmjtct. bout develened and undevelooed areas) 1. Call-1aI Character of the lead: 6+rmerally unifors slap. Generally uneven and rolline or err ni lar 2. Present land use: bean . Industrial Conmmrreiel r SveoreaR�CRural Fsrss / Aqr/culture ,�tner _VAe,At,; 3. Total acreage of oroject area: 50 acres. 1 _— Aooro:imato acreage: Presently After Como letion Presently After -znvletion Meadow or Irmashland 39 acres 27. lacres Water Surface Area 0 rcres 0_ic"s Forested 3 acres 3 acres Unvegetated (rack. Aer4cultural0 -acns 0 acres earth or fill) 0—acres 0_acres Metland (Freshwater or Roads. butldlnas Tidal as ner Articles and other laved or F.C.L.) 8 acres 8 acres surfaces 0 accts 4 ac»s Other (indicate tre) O acres 9. ' icr!i L a, shat It ^-tdoennant 1011 t•rveW on nro!eet site' flaVP(I Loam S• a s,e :hero �Paroct Outcrolotnos on -•niptt sit.? —• Yrs ---X•_'1e — 1:t:• = Via: !s :evth :e oednc:' N/A 700.-t (,m 'eetj .3 I yS A. A:oroxtneta percentaoe of proposed project site with slope:• 0.105 III-fit .� M. or / / greeter :. 1.�..%• G I, Is orejeet contiguo�; to. or contain a buildtnn or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places! Yes N0 d. What i% the depth to the water table?20 feet /Z 7b 2-7 ;=7- it5 / c-T2 YOUiV6 - yo tl,ve" 9. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist 1n the project areal Tes X No +DD C-N D UV 10. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or er+dander-d - yes X 10. according to - Identify each species 1.A 2' i1/'S 77- 11. T11. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (Le. cliffs. dunes. other geological AVO formations • Yes X No. (Describe ) C i- if'CZ).t. 12. Is thet site presently used by the cc pity or neighborhood as an open space; or recreation Ce.v---E)z'-J , area - TY es iii(( Na. N.41cyvc45_ Or- yav:;,, V= USC.- 6Y / .t/:ZS /WO Gif/[,.D;'n 12. DOM the Present site offer or include scenic vines or vistas known to be ievortant to the caas.ntty? i N �A-A`C� . 14. Streams within or contiguous to projet:t area: �ilQ. SM�I.L �7)2F-W"-f FLY_ &.'_5714,-VV= /".+o S. Name of Strom and nane of river to which it is tributary N/A CROSSCS S/T' F-R" suu/7rE 'TU iUCRT/f�c.'E'S: 15. lakes. Pends. W tland areas within or contiguous to project area: a• Mine N/Ab. Site lin acres) N/A 19. W713t is the dawinant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the :reject (e.g. single family residential. 2-2) and the scale of develacimo t (e.g. 2 story). '- 6/?i Giit CzVi LV_lV i/h-L ✓AC AN 7- 1. 1. Physical dimensions and scale of :rojeet (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor 50 acres. b. ►reject acreage developed: 0 1 acres initially: 11 .9 acres ultimately. e. Project acreage to remain undeveloped - -18- 1 . d. length of project. in miles: N/A (if appropriate) e. If pretest Is an expansion of existing. indicate percent of expansion proposed: building square fact- Age N/A developed acreage N/A . f. Numeer of off-strept carting spaces existing 0 proposed . 40 g. Maximum venicular trios generated per hour 2-5 (upon completion of project) ///� 71'Z/OS/r�-' 'G A i~• � h. If residential: Numcer and type Of housinq units: l—'— 7r--/ / 6-7) :ne Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initial X Ultimate X eq 1. If: Orientation ::elgnoornood-Clty-aegionai Estimated Em010yment Commercial Industrial J. Teal hetynt of tallest ^ vnosed itruc:Jre �!!L. 2. Nov wamn natural meterlal (i.e. rack. earth. etc.) will be rwmved in= the sl to �0 ton% 0 *cuoic yards. 7. He* many acres of vevetation (trees. shrubs. ground covers) will be revved frpr• site - �cres. 6. Will any mature forest (over 110 years old) or other locally-imvertant vegetation be removed ty t!+lt ' project? A res ne S. Are there any plans for ra-vegetstion to replace that r•enoved??during construction? L-Tei '•o 6. If Single phase project: AntiCipated period of construction 1, .'Inths. (including demiltioni. 7. If mulct-phased project: A. Total num er of phases anticipatedN/A No. • b. Anticipated data of eonmeneem.nt phase :Fal I month 19R7vear (incluai-Rg dams 1 l ti an) C. Approximate caeoletion date final phase Fal I no,thl990 veer, d. Is phase i financially dependent an subsaouant mases? • res 'va 6. Will blasting occur during canatr=1on? Yes X No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction r_; after project is conaleta 1L. 10. Nurear of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project respire relocation of any projects or facilities? yes Y Ma. If yes. esalain: 12. a. Is surface or subsurface Ilouid waste disposal involved? X Tes 40. b. If" . indicate type of waste (sewage. industrial. etc.) Sewaae C. If surface disposal near of stream into which efflu"t will bt discharged 11. Will surface area of existing lakeA poner ds. streass. bays or other surface wat :sys be increased or decreased by proposal? tet Yo. la. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? Tet _L_%G 13. a. Does project Involve disposal of solid waste? _X—Yes No b. If yes. will an existing solid waste dlsnosal facility be used? X res me C. If yes. give nam: T/0 Southold location Cutchoalle d. lilt any wastts not go into a sewage diseaSal systee or into a sanitary lu+dfill? yes _vo 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? X yes " Lawns 17. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour Der day)? — Yes Y Mo 18. will project produce ocereting noise exceeding the local amosence noise 'levels? . 2e1 X vo 19. Will project result in an Increase in energy use? X res 'id. If yes. inatuta types) C%TY 6;,f'S i L , 4 20. If water suooly Is from wells indicate oumosnq :opacity N/A gals/minute. !' 21. sou6000l anciclnaced water usage per day oais/day. 22. Zoning: a. What is dominant zoning classification of site? A - Res i dent 1 d I /A ri cu b. Current laeciflc zoning classification of site A �Q _- PC'I -.� ret 1 a 1 /Ane i err 1 ` _fM C. Ss or000sev use cc-siitrn- .it1 nre7�enmt ton1nC? Yes d. If no. Indicate desired :ominr •1- 26. Avorevals: a. Is any Federal permit reouired? _ _Yes _1—K0 b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? --yet X no c. Local and Regional toprovals: Avoroval Required Submittal AoorovaI (les. Mo) (Type) (Oats) (Date) City. Town. Village Board YPq I tP City. Tmm. Village Planning Board —r?-T Z)ULm 1 V 1 S,j„n City. Town. Zoning Board NO City. County Health oaoartment1l ' , Other•local agencies m Other regional agencies —TIg cofm . State Agencies 'T1Zt Federal Agencies C. IAFORMATIOUL DETAILS Attach any additional informtion as 1uy be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse I acts associated with the proposal. Please discuss such impacts and the matures wi+ich can be taken to aittgata or avoid ZtZ �/,PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: 0 ` �/J�_-�-��— TITLE: Lq 5y,� E11o/L RETRES�'ITIIiG: a X14�L�"Ll .S v/'y/>/✓� ��U-tJ GTE: v, _s. YOUNG lb% YOUNG 400 OSTRANDER AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK rigor G 1(3-727.2:107 ALDEN W.YOUNG FAX 310-727-0144 PcofesawnolEngmeer if Land Surveyor HOWARD W.YOUNG Land Surveyor Bayberry Estates Southold Town of Southold (Francis O'Malley) Cluster Subdivision Addendum to Environmental Assessment Form August 1, 1990 Part 1 Item A 8 The elevation of groundwater is approximately 3 feet above mean sea level and since the ground elevations vary from elevation 15 to elevation 31, the depth of groundwater ranges from 12 feet to 27 feet. Perched water exists on the site at elevation 16. 5 more or less. Part 1 Item A 4 Although the predominant Soil Type is Haven Loam, a li--t of all moil Types are as follows: HaB Haven loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes HaA Haven loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes PmB 3 Plymouth gravelly loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded PmC 3 Plymouth gravelly loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded Ca Canadice silt loam 1 ` 2 3 IMPACT ON WATER Small to Potential Can Impar. Moderate Large Mitigated 3 Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Impact Impact Project Chi (Under Articles 15,24,25 of the Environmental Consenat}'on Law, ECL) �10 Examples that would apply to column 2 `` OYES • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C protected stream. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes F- 4. 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected exist i g r new body of water? NO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. ❑ ❑ [Dyes C • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes F- S. S. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? ONO AYES Exampks that would apply ti column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ Ayes Chave approval to serve proposed(project) action. /yttS *JC-- D .-*4hV`0 • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C gallons per minute pumping espacity. • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C supply system. • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ C Y es C do not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20.000 gallons per ❑ ❑ Oyes C day. • Proposed Action will likel" La,.-sP siltation or other discharge into an ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C existing body of water to the tment that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C products greater than 1,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water ❑ ❑ ❑Yes + C and/or sewer services. • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. • Other impacts: Sv-" %li N rl= S0/4-S "'I"' ❑ � Xyes C snit % r-C'^ S/an/' rry2V S'4 ,/ -roc; Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? ONO OYES E:Z:nples that would apply to column 2 • Prop-used Action would change flood water flows. ❑ 0 ❑Yes a a Small to Potential Can Impact Moderate Large Mitigated 8 Impact Impact Project Chan • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑� • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑� • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ) ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C3 •• Other impacts: r '1.7 ,: -iY, ,0 i rT7"1/'� �'Y',= ►tib 9 ❑ )E( ❑Yes 0 (1/!=T7•/l/Y1 : rli'T--Y) IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? XN 0 OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ ❑ ❑Yes D hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed S lbs. per hour or a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes Cl,- heat theat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ❑ ❑ Dyes C _ to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑1 development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑1 IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? ONO YES Eumples that mould apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ [:)Yes C. list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts: 5:7M /,-1 i ❑ 1Yes ❑ 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered norndangered species? ANO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑Yes of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?. ONO YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 8 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact E Moderate Large Mitigated El Impact Impact Project Ch" • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑N- agricultural land. • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ ❑Yes XN of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District. more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ ❑ Oyes ON. land management systems (e.g.. subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping, or create a need for such measures(e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ON IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCE-0 11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? O OYES (If necessary. use the Visual EAF Addendum in Sec ion 617.21. Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 0 or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses. or project components visible to user of ❑ ❑ Oyes ON aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ON screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ON IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of istoric, pre- historic or paleontological importance? kNNO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ON contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ON project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ON archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ON IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? - Esamples that would apply to column 2 ONO � YES )The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportun ❑ ❑ Yes ON ok==.jer reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ Yes ON • Other impacts: 0 13 Yes ON 3 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potential Can Imps, 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systtemsI Moderate Large Mltlgatec ANO OYES Impact Impact Protect Cr Examples that would apply to column 2 / • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes IMPACT ON ENERGY 1S. Will proposed action affect the community's so rc of fuel or energy supply? AO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ! transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibraq*cmv as a result of the Proposed Action? EaNO • DYES" Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ [--]Yes facility. • Odors will occur routinely(more than one hour per day). ❑ ❑ ❑Yrs • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local Q ❑ ❑Yes ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes noise screen. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safe N/O OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑Yes substances(i.e.oil,pesticides,chemicals, radiation, etc.)in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ ❑Yes form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating. infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ ❑ []Yes gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ Oyes within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. • Other impacts: ❑ 13 ❑Yes 1 2 3 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER Small to Potential Can Impact OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated E 18 Will proposed action affect the character of the exis7NA0 ' OYESommunity? Impact Impact Project Chai Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C3. project is located is likely to grow by more than S%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑. will increase by more than S% per year as a result of this project • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑ or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑ Dyes C (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ ❑ [--]Yes C • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ❑ ❑ 1:1 Yes C • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? �10 OYES If Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Pert 3—EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) m mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1 . Briefly describe the impact 2. Describe(if applicable)how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project cha 3. Based on the information available. decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) 2. TEST HOLE DATA/SKETCH PLAN JUNE 13, 1989 t ~UIHOKTZED ALIEkAII•JN OF AUUINks. fO THIS SURVEY IS A VIOLATION or SECTION 7209 Of THE NEW YORK STAT! LEGEND EDUCATION LAW. / COPIIKS OF THIS SURVEY MAP NOT BEARIP, fH5 LA'D iUi 7;.rOc,S L�:..-D SIAL 01 EMl"'<SCU SEAL. C " L -'T :E Co "-R ERI.` 0 PAVED ROAD 7061 A VALID Y. cr,Y O31.IAPANTEES ..- i. `HAIL ...,. >naLY T+ v. " Q SPOT ELEVATION + 29. 38 _ PK,, THE TC• 'ITEC COMPANY, G�.,V_ 1 Q -;,ALF .:'NDLIG INSIIIUT1Ui, LfS i,.VNIAL AGfl, , L Ot 39 b'�= C O N T O U R S I 'I THE ASSIGNIIS OF THE L_NDING INSTI GUARANTEES AkE NOT TRANSFERAW Lot40 \\ 7 „T1r,x.c no Sllu,cnlr.., * WOODED AREA \459.86 111(3) ` 4-38 E _ 0 MARSH - 25.39 I ` LONG CREEK 24.07 ' TRIB. AREA BOUNDARY 1` z , f Ec,OTT O ` .* oa' Y ENN _ p1 W 6 '� D'1 YEN NECOTT r c ' ,1-N •� , N • Zo 5187 a 2 f3.'7 9 1 to o o --- suit. Co. ile No. o ' 1 rk 11 Suit. CO :O- O P E- O YENNECOTT DR. lin " /� -10 11(ennecott Pa Lot 41 � * Q /1 / � Subdivision - Lot 42 N-` 27.22' , 01 A � Lot 44 Lot 43 ,\ ,, �� �J• � P G �';� � ', �o- �_ PEND- � 46 Lot' 45 31 `1 �� �� \ ,I cn FRANCIS O'MALLE N N Lot PE 03 r3 I- and _ - �.: ' �. G.�.N0. 9 r a o park & Play9r4 ro 0 _ 19.69^ I T-f= 2+72�'� \ o z N -�1 Q 0011 _ , t 2 T.G.= 21.00 , i E \ N I E.= 17.50 i _ IV.a �. i `--- --_ CA r �� 2� c+� ` 27. 1E' EAS M` \ N , �0 .. 6` 2 ,2' - - - - E ENT :N 16.I 59' �, ` _--- \ 23.1� , - , "-- _2.6 •17 43' r \• !. 2 \` 21.00 600' ` 16 3 9 �17.5 E, \ `I, , \ �--+- .�_ .0 SON 1i 4J' 15. 4 \ \ m �0 ` ____- .225' \ �yv �P" �• ,24 - _ -LILCO ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION - 910 + o� ' „ _ RANS J 1� 0 00 CO.F. oil 6c.c.M.R Q I.,Oj ' --- W MISSION LINE JI 9 0.X00% , 1 .7E' ir .ES 1 3_ 0 Lot 47 W M (O �' \ 17 .E u '� , . 23\ rJ`��00 }Gj F. -,4.33' O yL GRIT GHA n o 02 �2 C2-BLOD MI_V�12 cy ' 16.7E I cP,.77 E2O) X I o+ OD 17 7E ' \ 0 \ Q / Z ° `� ?� 6 o p\%� `� `\ I N �. 13.9 \•a 4f �o P9 Po 22,74' ,, t 1 I `\ / Q r �o `, cV / \ 1b9E' 18. J ' 23(fOF24pI�.G.G.M.P, n°j Vi �R s / i 70 1 u2' ; I N I . U� \ j S o e`S" 9� Zh X \FZ IZI 2'� DgK IF- now or formerly 7 2J .96 _- • \ ° - 9'P 1 16. , , m / �D LOCATION MAP Richard H. Wheeler 8� L - ' 19.27 2_ - �. y= - _ _ --�� 5, „ ( RpPOs '- SCALE.I" =soo' Laureen E. Wheeler iv o - - - 1E . . 16.7d ` fix. �� - 29.,a o W ' 16.62'_, 21 .4 LINE OF WETLANDS O1 .4� i - - ----- 1 1' / AS FLAGEED BY N.Y.S. DEC. � `, `, `� zi ,' y c�� 0 18 \ N'• � \ LOCATED 6/1/89 E 1 e4.5 ?s �0 'P� s, , rn . 2a 1 731 '.. - -- , l _ \ 0 �O_ I 11L \ .24 31 .01 ' � 20 `, iF.E3' / •° .\ f�C 2 O , 4 C 19.65' 17 . 7H - e0 IN SITE DATA \ I �0 . 4E, 5 S- o ,^ i m TE�OT HOLE NO.1 , :�1 \ , x V/ `��,`, rp QN I. TOTAL AREA - 50.0171 ACRES 1=4• '`i' �''`;\� 000 0 1 ; 2. ZONING USE DISTRICT = A- RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL 3. NO. OF LOTS SIL a1G 1? . y.. , � tL � � � �� 2 E.9_ � o * -Az - P A G E �� `' N 5 s �, 17 / �\ O 4. LENGTH OF ROAD 1910 ± FT. i a 1` O o_ 5. AREA OF OPEN SPACE = 27±ACRES 142000 ± COF 6. PERCENT OF OPEN SPACE = 54% JL o ' 16' ,. __ 0 0' - �.F. T R L 1'�. \ F c.6. n,6 3 r,B. ,Ak EA �TA. 3+o, �'rn.0+a6 -- - = 27.L31 ACT T.G.=27.80 JE .. N D.4 ES T. .. y t -r W _ / Gt. 1 ').4 \ 3 CI.E-= 24.31 f.E.= 23.80 -1 �^ ' ' -9TA.O+ 28 s, y 6 A T. T. . - 2731 : ..A S H8`�5 �'3l�"�V ` 572.$3 0. M I - � 43000 �. F r 1 a i �) 081 � �, t o 2 8.so R 5 A 1 N \ r- A 2.701 N O.� O,1 . •' s il AA � TE >T H?Liz N 7. i _ `�� i/ �v 1 . �\`06O o, _ o _ o i3.G.G. \ p ,V _ 6000`+ -_--- 2 :l ... d �.F 7 �}j1. - X40, _ ` G.2�.N0x3E?q2 ! SIL / r 9 S' W / pL-' 14 0 _ co f. G.e.NO.(„ 275'OF I816.GGMF TRI 27.83 1'+. 17 B f' l3` { �6' 7 4, CoTA. 3+00 0 AREA I f T.G._ 24.74 0 C� 996°/o N0.1 N I.E.- 2 I.07 4-B'-O Di A. >< q • (P CA N now or former) Herbert R. Mandel _ - .t1 - N 0 03� 1 . , / \ .\ \ ��-- oh-- P� / R (4 ` 15 S l K M 25.94 -_ o �.F/ � 2SOOO � 0 o ItINe po \ /25.79 0 0, 24. 1 ` � /24.05 (� °� GJTA.3+00 x ro =24.74 13 p =21.24 O T 24.67 Np O ; 20.2$ q _ �L' .F. \ �)\` •� O ` 0c'Jh �� 28'OF 18" 6.G.G.M.P. 23.36' \\S1\ 11 Q ` 1 .76 gy p2 �6 ° a . p 0.600%;4\0a PRELIMINARY O. ,, A. SUBDIVISION MAP X24.77 ' \ a . '�\ / ", ro � , p .o I ST HOLE NO. I TE�7 HOLE N0.2 e6 cy22� o�h// `�`� �2 \ Aho, / 23 1� 1 PREPARED FOR TE `� w x2 ' NOTE:SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP O i" ,`` s.' I �1 - ` 0 G �h\q�M2 R \\\\ / �`� \ 25.37' N DK.BROWN O.O DK. BROWN O.O Li 1` F -1 !9 2 0 ?3.24 W DIST. 1-000 SECT.055 BL. 06 LOT 035 a 036 LOAM LOAM 1 �0 O� L7 EI-4, I \ ` �' - , _ ' �'�G�/9 ,�3 72 • O \` � N , BAYBERRY ESTATES `' O ` PRoPO�ED WATER AAAIN' DIST. IOoo SECT.956 BL. O1 LOT �! 0.8 I.1 7 3 -1.�9 1 ,': 0' 1 Nx 23.7_, BROWN BROWN ,�-�o , , 1 ` 1,;.�a ,� Z �/ -2f.;m \ s `, `, ---- AT SO UT HOLD 2. B.C.C.M.P INDICATES BITUMINOUS COATED CORRUGATED GJILTY CO L �fiyP." 1 �, =L-1 ��° ` c� ,� 23.3?' METAL PIPE. �JAND 1 SAND ONpM*2- ��: 1� \ d \ S, //�\ 2.4 2.2 G fZ�B 0 p�P 1 1 ( I�yo XO 23. 13. ' RED/BROWN REDAFOWN ` O 21 .?_� ` VLJIL[71QG ENVELOPE (TYP) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 3. PIPES CONNECTING LEACHING POOLS ARE 18' DIAMETER. �2' GOAR�E GDARGJE ,50�°I° �� O ��P '91 O � 4. ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS SHOWN HEREON ARE REFERENCED coAND COAND @ 0 /�Z,� P �x 24. 1J TO M.S.L. (N.G.V.D. - 1929) 3.2 3.4 M.P. / 2 �O ti TR1�'q� 1 .66 S� �\ 13ROWNICGRY. GREYICOH h" a•// , _ _ / ` /_ _ SUFFOLK COUNTY, N Y GLAY GROWN , �F 19 2 .E7- ' , r` , , . I 1 � CLAY 135 , 6S, '� .` �, `\ � � `,, n2 •P , 4.4WATER) �� / \ 1 .N6' SANDY , \`� fi GRY/BROWN 1 + J,/ / lO \ \\ V L O N"a GLAY / 4.81 GLAY 20.9 O 24.62 /., bRowni £� 0 � i F?3.04_f• noIPTE OF +� R D d SANDE 1 CLAY �" 2J.S r a' `� 22.72' O (P P w 7.4(WATER) `4 21 .J4' 7.15 I O-pDROWNI O O E PALE 15RNUi �JANDGOAR19E 9 20. C+) 23. 1 13.0 13.0 O 2J. 4J 2o.79 _ f r L., o 223.B7' 0�W' ;Q16tS L 2J. 4SAO°5'LO JUNE 13, 1989 Stiq MAY 4, 1987 i rDATE 23._F• MAY I, 1987 YOUNG 8 YOUNG SCALE I " = 100' 400 OSTRANDER AVE.,RIVERHEAD, N.Y. \,ON `otmet,y `J 6L r ��• W. 85 -1482 ALDE N W. YOUNG, N.Y.S, P E. & L.S. LIC. N0. 12 845 HOWARD . YOUNG, N.Y.S. L.S. LIC. N0. 45893 1,011 01 0p0 04 i Esq - cOHEET I OF 2 50038 3. CRATER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES REPORT FEBRUARY 19, 1991 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L HARRIS Bennett Orltwwskt. Jr . Chairmanv04 Q� a A Super%iuor Geurce Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G Ward �� t' ;y Town Hall. 53095 Main Roa Hark S McDonald '�"-1=rly P O Box 1 179 Kenneth L Edwards Southold. 1\e�.% �()rk 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1939 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax 15101 765-1923 March 8 , 1991T-j Donald A. Rettaliata Attorney At Law APR 285 West Main Street P.O. Box 493 Riverhead, New York 11901 MARS, SLOANE & CONLON ' RE: Proposed Major Subdivision Bayberry Estates SCTM# 1000-55-6-35 , 36 1000-56-1-1 Dear Mr. Rettaliata: The Board has received their environmental consultant ' s review of the above mentioned subdivision. A copy of the report is enclosed. The Board would like you to complete Part III of the Long Environmental Assessment Form. The consultant has suggested that access to Lot 11 be via a private drive, so as to avoid the construction of the cul-de-sac for one house. Although the lot/road configuration may be revised after review of the Part III , you are still required to provide a tap road to the land now or formally of Edwin Mooney. Upon submission of the Long EAF Part III , it will be forwarded to the consultant for a cost estimate for the review. Payment must be submitted by your client before the Planning Board will authorize the review. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours , , Bennett Orlowski , Jr. Chairman Encl. CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS I!�► February 15, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Bayberry Estates SCI'1V1# 1000-55-6-35 & 36 1000-56-1-1 Dear Benny: As per the your request, we have completed a preliminary review of the above referenced project in accordance with our correspondence of October 11, 1990. Tasks and completed activities are identified as follows: 1. Review Part I LEAF The parcel has been field inspected by CVA, and the LEAF has been reviewed and amended as necessary. A copy of same is attached. 2. Prepare Part II LEAF The Part II LEAF checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional information concerning our findings is included below. 3. Advise as Necessary The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site and area have been consulted. Overall, we find this parcel to be extremely sensitive clue to the presence of an extensive perched wetland system, and significant use of the ,ite by area wildlife. We fully support the use of clustering as a means of reducing potential environmental impacts to these resources. Due to the extreme sensiti%ity of this parcel, we feel that the Board would benefit through the preparation of a L.)n(-, EAF Part 111 narrative discussing the existing environmental setting, the potential impacts of the project, and mitigation either presently reflected in the cluster plan. or additional means which could be employed to reduce environmental impacts. Tlie Long EAF Part 111 would constitute additional information needed by the decision- making agency in support of the Determination of Significance, whicfi the Planning Board is required to issue. The Long EAF Part III narrative could either be prepared by a consultant retained by the ap licant, in which case the information presented should be reviewed by the Board (and/or consultant) for accuracy, or we would be pleased to prepare the narrative. The following is a brief synopsis of the basis for our findings: Enviroiiniental Resources The subject parcel is 50.0171 acres in size, and contains an area of freshwater wetlands as designated by the NYSDEC on 6-1-89, and reflected on project maps prepared Page I of 4 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331 1455- t 11avberry Estates Long EAF Review by Young & Young. The wetlands location has been reviewed by the Town of Southold Trustees, and is found to be accurate. Accordingly, if activity is located beyond 75 feet from these wetlands, the Trustees have no further jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the Planning Board is obligated to consider impacts upon the integrity and use of these wetlands and associated wildlife resources, as a result of increase in intensity of use in adjacent areas, and other potential impacts. The subject wetlands are identified as Palustrine wetlands, forested in Broad-leaved deciduous plants, and Seasonally Saturated, as indicated in the National Wetlands Inventory. This classification is accurate with the exception of areas dominated by emergent vegetation within areas containing standing water. The wetlands support a significant amount of wildlife activity. The soils map was reviewed for information pertaining to the existence of these wetlands. Young & Young accurately identify the soils on site in the LEAF addendum. The wetlands is underlain with Canadice silt loam, which retains significant moisture. The soil survev also indicates that there are several intermittent streams associated with these wetlands. Intermittent streams are located within the wetlands and in areas below 20 foot elevation in the western and north central area of the site. These areas are identified as "not crossable without tillage" and "unclassified". Inspection of the area surrounding the site, finds existing stream crossings in the vicinity of the intersection of Laurel Avenue and Main Road (south of the site), and across Yennecott Drive, north of the site. The presence of flowing surface water streams north and south of the site, coupled with the poorly drained soils and intermittent streams identified in the Soil Survey on the site itself, strongly suggests a perched stream or some fairly extensive perched water condition, beyond the limits of designated wetlands depicted on the map. Accordingly this should be considered in the context of site use. The site also contains significant avian species, mammals and herptiles, in conjunction with wetland and overgrown field habitat. Great Blue lieron and raptors were identified in association with the wetland and adjacent areas. Common winter-resident avifauna were identified, as well as activities associated with fox, rabbit and deer. A high concentration of"gun shells" suggests an abundance of game on the site. The topography of the site is irregular; however, few areas contain steep slopes which pose a constraint. One area which should be given consideration is the depression in the southwest corner of the site (south of the isolated wetlands), which has slopes of up to 22 percent. Potential Impacts The yield plan appears to be feasible, andprovides a basis for ei �liteen (18) clustered lots. The "cluster' plan is effective in preserving the entire wetlands an�a 100 foot wetlands buffer. Further, there is significant upland open space buffer associated with the "cluster' plan, which we feel is essential. Potential impacts are substantially mitigated under the "cluster" plan through the preservation of 33.9 acres of land, or 68 percent of the site. We believe that the extreme sensitivity of this parcel as identified above warrants this subdivision concept. Given the CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL:,AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Pate 2 of 4 �= `W/ % Bayberry Estates Long EAF Review sensitivity of the site, the obligation of the Planning Board to take a "hard look" at the implications of a decision, and several issues raised above, we feel that the Board would benefit from the preparation of a LEAF Part III narrative. The following is an outline of issues which should be discussed. In addition, recommendations for preparation of documentation and possible design changes and mitigation is also included: IM_ PACT ON LAND Construction on slopes of 15% or greater South recharge area should be strongly considered for a natural recharge basin. The temporary cul-de-sac encroaches on depression which could be used for natural recharge. Natural recharge concept and feasibilfty should be determined. Consideration could be given to accessing Lot 1private drive, in order to avoid constructing additional cul-de-sac for one house. Construction in an area containing intermittent stream and poor soils Perched stream conditions may be present in area of south recharge basin and Lot 11. Sanitary system functioning anis hydrologic impacts should be considered. Test holes and/or lot relocation should be considered. IMPACT ON WATER Action requires use of a water source currently experiencing supply limitations Action appears to be within or near the franchise area of the Greenport Water District. Water availability from this source should be determined. Suitability of soils and subsoils for sanitary wastes Soil leachin limitations should be considered in the context of potential ground, surface anXIr perched water impacts. Impact to intermittent stream and wetlands Use of southwest corner of site should be considered in the context of impacting natural drainage characteristics. INIPAC7I'ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS Site supports raptors, heron, deer and herptiles, potential threatened species and species of special concern Habitats and wildlife should be characterized as support for maximum preservation of open space through clustering. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES Proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land Agricultural suitability of site, land use compatibility of agriculture and availability of alternate agricultural land should be considered. INIPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION Potential reduction of open space Site open space resource and character should be identified as support for maximum preservation of open space through clustering. �K\ ""1\ CRAMER. VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAt,AND. PLANNING CONSULTANTS Page 3 (if 4 vnd lma Bayberry Estates Lung EAF Review I hope this letter provides the board with the information needed to continue review of this project. We would be pleased to provide additional input upon request. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Very t/ y arles J. Voorhis enc: Part I/II LEAF CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTALAND..PLAMING CONSULTANTS Page 4 of 4 8.0 LIST OF REFERENCES 8.0 LIST OF REF'ERE'NCES Wetlands, Audubon Society, by William A. Niering, Pub. Alfred A. Knopf Inc. , Chanticleer Press Inc. NY, September 1989 Field Guide to North American Wildflower, Audubon Society, by Niering & Olmstead, Pub. Alfred A. Knopf Inc. NY, Chanticleer Press Inc. NY, January 1988 Field Guide to North American Trees, Eastern Region, Audubon Society, by Little, E.L. , Pub. Alfred A. Knopf Inc. NY, Chanticleer Press, NY, October 1988 Soil Survey of Suffolk County, NY, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington DC, 1970 Munsell Soil Color Charts, Kollmorgen Instruments Corp. , Kollmorgen Inc. , Baltimore, MD, 1990 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetland, by Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, (USACOE, USEPA, USF&W, USDA Soil Conservation Service) Washington DC, 1989 National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northeast Region, by P.B. Reed, gr. US Fish & Wildlife Service, 1988 List of Protected Plants - NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY List of Protected Wildlife Species, NYSDEC Albany, NY Preliminary Freshwater Wetland Map, NYSDEC Region I, Stony Brook, NY The Field Guide to Wildlife Habitats of Eastern United States, by Janine Benyus Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering, by Cook, Magraw Hill, 1990 Standards for Sewage Disposal Systems, Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Riverhead, NY, 1984