HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarina Bay Club Supplement II 1988; SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 TO THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
AND
APPLICANT'S SUBMISSION FOR THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
MARNABAy Club F 71988
�.
FIRST ANd MAIN STREETS
NEW Suffolk, NEW YORk
JAC PLANNING CORP.
Prepared for
Southold Town Planning Board
SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
MARINA BAY CLUB
FIRST AND MAIN STREETS
NEW SUFFOLK, NEW YORK
Location
6+ acre site on east side of First Street including Main
Street , west of Cutchogue Harbor in the New Suffolk #15
School District in the hamlet of New Suffolk in the Town of
Southold, Suffolk County, New York
Lead Agency
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall
53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
Applicant
Marina Bay Club Associates
350 Fifth Avenue , Room 1826
New York, New York 10118
Richard T. Carr , President
( 212 ) 868-4777
Principal Preparer
JAC Planning Corp.
8 Bond Street , Suite 300
Great Neck, New York 11021
Jean A. Celender , President
( 516) 487-4549
with:
H2M Group, water supply, wastewater and site engineers
Dunn Engineering Associates , traffic engineers
Niego Associates, architects
B . Laing Associates , ecology and permits
Dravo Van Houten, Inc . , marina engineers
Henry E . Raynor, Jr . , planning consultant
John J. Hart , Esq . , Pelletreau and Pelletreau, attorney
Contact Person
Southold Town Planning Board
53095 Main Road, P . O. Box 728
Southold, New York 11971
Jill Thorp, Secr . to Planning Board
( 516) 765-1938
Preparation Date - October , 1988
Acceptance Date - _^ , 1988
Deadline Date for Comments : 1988
SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 TO THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
MARINA BAY CLUB
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
INTRODUCTION 1 .
SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 3 .
APPENDIX A
Southold Town Board Resolution of July 11 , 1988 A. 1
Szepatowski Associates Letter of June 24 , 1988 A. 4
Szepatowski Associates Letter of April 7 , 1988 A. 7
Correspondence and Additional Information A. 10
REAR POCKETS
Revised Site Plan dated 10/27/88 by Niego Associates
Revised Water and Wastewater Plan dated 9/12/88 by H2M Group
Revised Drainage Plan ( 3 sheets) dated 9/12/88 by H2M Group
i.
INTRODUCTION
This report, Supplement No. 2, is the second addendum report
prepared to supplement the findings presented in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed recon-
struction of the Northfork Shipyard called "Marina Bay Club" .
The project site, approximately 6.0 acres, is located on the
east side of First Street including Main Street in the hamlet of
New Suffolk in the Town of Southold. The applicant is Marina
Bay Club Associates, the owner of the property.
A draft DEIS was accepted by the Planning Board on October
19, 1987 . Following review of the report by the Town Planner,
Valerie Scopaz, and environmental consultant , Szepatowski
Associates, Inc. , Ltd. , and a public hearing on November 9 ,
1987, a Supplement was prepared and submitted to the Board in
March, 1988 . The Supplement presented a modified reduced
proposed action and impact assessment , as well as provided the
applicant 's responses to substantative comments received on the
DEIS in order to assist the Town in preparing the FEIS.
This Supplement , No. 2 , appends the original DEIS and
Supplement and addresses additional comments raised by
Szepatowski Associates in a Memorandum to the Planning Board
dated April 7, 1988 . Furthermore, this report provides a
modified site plan (rear pocket) related to water supply,
wastewater and drainage facilities in response to review
comments by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation and Suffolk County Department of Health Services.
1.
The modifications do not involve any additional changes in
square footage or uses previously proposed in Supplement No. 1 ,
but are revisions related to providing adequate separation
distances from leaching pools and well points from each other as
well as from tidal wetlands. In addition, a chlorination
injection point has been added upstream of the hydropneumatic
tank pursuant to Department of Health Services request for the
water supply system.
The original submitted DEIS, Supplement and this report,
Supplement No . 2 , together constitute the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the project, when accepted as complete by
the Lead Agency. Existing environmental conditions, alterna-
tives assessment and impacts of the original proposed plan and
alternatives are unchanged as presented in the DEIS .
2.
SUPPLEMENT NO. 2
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Site access and traffic
Comment No. 1 - The four parking spaces to the south for
employee parking seem inaccessible and awkward
to exit from.
Response No. 1 - The four employee parking spaces are located in
an area that is accessible only to employees
and emergency vehicles. They are intended for
use by employees only and it is anticipated
that these employees will exit via the
southerly exit . Exiting these spaces will thus
mean backing up once and turning to proceed out
the southerly driveway by the boat storage
building. Employees wishing to park their
vehicles in these spaces would either a) simply
pass the travel slip and enter the spaces head
on, or b) pass the travel slip and back into
the space. Thus, these spaces are not inaccess-
ible and can be entered and exited from easily.
Comment No. 2 - The traffic restriction, "No Right Turn" , is a
good mitigation measure but a sign alone will
not be sufficient . It should be designed to
prevent a right hand turn.
Response No. 2 - The northerly site driveway has been redesigned
so that the exit lane is channelized to direct
the exiting traffic to the south in order to
drastically discourage right turns out of the
site and to prevent them from proceeding to the
adjacent residential areas . (See Attachment A
and revised Site Plan in the rear pocket of
this report) . In addition, the "No right turn"
symbol sign will also be installed at this exit
lane. Thus, this design of the exit lane will
prevent a right turn out of the site and should
satisfy the town's concerns .
Comment No. 3 - Parallel parking 9 feet wide is proposed on
Main Street which would undoubtedly create a
traffic hazard. An alternate parking plan is
recommended.
Response No. 3 - Attached is a sketch, Attachment B, of an alter-
native parking plan for both the northerly and
southerly sides of Main Street from First
Avenue easterly to the Marina Bay Club entrance
that has been incorporated into the revised
3.
ATTACHMENT A
1
I.
ALL +�-
TRAFFIC KING STREET 1.
.c
13 14 D
2.•x'e V
• 1
OUT I
---� L, )CZ!
.�.
A3-2 C
3a'X3o`
F F�-1-4
! - • , 2-STY ®LDO
i I w EFFSUPPORT/ -
I :• , UTILITY
i �:� � -_• --•- � �•,�I opt ��,�n�
(n
in
LL
I I
i I
rri *
LT
POST
OFFICt
330 c
Lam._��� � ✓I �
10 '
j
THROUGH LANE
DOUBLE YELLOW LINE
THROUGH LANE
Ut 22' 22' 22' 22' 22' 22'
NO NO
PARKING STALL °D PARKING STALL PARKING STALL PARKING STALL
PARKING L PARKING
CURB
SIDEWALK
ATTACHMENT B
TRAVERS TANDEM PARKING
NOT TO SCALE
site plan (rear pocket) . This parking plan
utilizes a Travers tandem parking method, which
provides two parallel parking spaces with an
open space between the next two spaces so that
vehicles can either pull directly into the
space ahead of them or pull into the open space
and then back up into the space. In this
manner, the vehicles do not have to parallel
park in order to enter into this 9-foot side
parallel parking space. Thus, disruptions to
the main flow of traffic on the roadway are
essentially eliminated. The incorporation of
this alternate design should overcome concerns
relating to the creation of a traffic hazard.
However, it should be noted that the on-street
parking spaces are intended as an enhancement
to the parking that occurs in the area now.
The on-street parking is not required to accom-
modate the vehicles from the proposed Marina
Bay Club. Rather, the on-street parking is
being provided as part of the developer 's
overall improvement of the roadway section on
Main Street in the vicinity of the site. The
provision of the roadway width with one lane in
each direction with 9-foot parking lanes on
each side conforms to standards utilized by
most towns throughout Long Island. This
standard section is utilized extensively, is
not unusual , and is not disruptive to traffic
flow on an essentially dead-end street . If the
town decides to eliminate any parking on Main
Street between First Street and the Marina Bay
Club access driveway, the developer would have
no objections; however, it appears that the
provision of on-street parking is practical
since it would accommodate additional public
parking in the area. The existing residents
utilize on-street parking for their visits to
the existing post office facility. It should
also be noted that the Marina Bay Club parking
lot can be utilized by motorists traveling to
the post office since the times of the peak
activity of the post office do not coincide
with the peak activity at Marina Bay Club.
Again, since the town has the responsibility of
permitting parking or restricting parking on a
town roadway, the developer of Marina Bay Club
recognizes that the town can decide to elimin-
ate on-street parking. It is hoped that the
developer has presented several alternatives
for on-street parking that may help the town in
reevaluating their comment and reviewing the
need to maintain the existing on-street
parking.
6.
Comment No. 4 - The southerly exit and parking area doesn' t
provide turning radius for vehicles. An
alternative layout should be considered, or the
need for this parking area at all .
Response No. 4 - Attachment C, South Exit , indicates a 15-foot
exit path with adequate radii that can be
followed by employee's vehicles in exiting this
employee parking area. This sketch suggests
the path an exiting vehicle may take; however,
it is not the intent of the developer to
actually mark out this lane. As can be seen by
this sketch, there is adequate room for exiting
vehicles. It should again be noted that this
parking area and exit are intended for use only
be employees and not by the general public .
Comment No. 5 - The lack of parking is justified by comparison
to the lack of parking at other local marinas
and that the Town parking requirement was too
high. This doesn' t adequately answer the
issues of parking.
Response No . 5 - There is no lack of parking on the proposed
site plan. The parking requirements for the
revised site plan are 156 spaces based on the
sum of the individual parking requirements of
each use. There are 177 parking spaces
provided. In addition, the following points
should also be recognized :
1 . Peak marina activity occurs during the
daylight hours, on weekends with relatively
nice weather in the summer .
2 . The post office is not open for the entire
weekend for regular business . Also the lease
expires in two years and there is a question
regarding the lease being renewed.
3 . Marinas usually have an associated retail
store which caters to the needs of the marina
visitors, and parking for this store should be
counted in the marina use as number of cars per
slip.
4 . The restaurant and lounge will have its
peak use during the evening hours when the
marina use is low. In addition, it is
anticipated that a significant number of
restaurant goers will come from the transient
slips and to a lesser extent from permanent
boat slips .
7.
24' MIN.
4 SPACES La
.p R-20'
'TRAVEL LIFT
SLIP
V. BOAT STORAGE AND REPAIR
4 SPACES
�3s
24' R-20'
Mme• 7 SPACES
ATTACHMENT C
SOUTH EXIT
A demand of 45% of the peak measured demand for
parking for restaurant uses between the hours
of 1 : 00 P.M. and 4 :00 P.M. on Saturdays is
indicated by a study entitled "Shared Parking"
prepared for the Urban Land Institute by Barton
- Aschman Associates . Lower parking demand by
restaurants is projected at other daylight
hours of the weekend. This is the time period
when the demand for parking by marina users
would be the highest . Conversely, during the
evening hours when the demand for parking by
the restaurant users is at it highest, the
demand for parking by marina users is very
low. In light of these facts, it is reasonable
to assume that the parking needs for the
restaurant users would be 50% lower than when
the restaurant use is considered individually
because restaurant users could use unused
parking spaces allocated for marina users.
Therefore, the 60 required parking spaces for
this land use, the restaurant and lounge, could
be reduced to 30 spaces . Similarly, the post
office and retail store use could also be
reduced by 50% to 7 spaces . However, a credit
for shared parking has not been requested since
the number of spaces provided exceeds the
number required.
Comment No . 6 - The increase to double the amount of vehicles
is not minimum.
Response No . 6 - The increase in vehicles on the roadway may not
be "minimal" in the view of the town's consul-
tant planner who is reviewing this project .
However, the issue from a professional traffic
engineering standpoint is whether this increase
in traffic creates any hazardous conditions or
traffic congestion. Detailed capacity analyses
have been performed to quantitatively and quali-
tatively examine this question. These analyses
have shown that neither hazardous conditions
nor traffic congestion will result from the pro-
posed project . The analyses further indicate
that at the intersection of Main Street and
First Street , the closest intersection adjacent
to the proposed project , the existing and
anticipated traffic volumes are so low that
Level of Service A results. Qualitatively, no
better level of service can result . We term
this impact "minimal" because the increase in
traffic results in no change in the qualitative
impact on the operational levels of service at
this intersection. This approach is acceptable
and appropriate for detailed traffic engineer-
ing analyses .
9.
Drainage
Comment No. 7 - Significant flooding overflow is proposed to go
into Cutchogue Bay. This is not recommended-
and
ecommendedand an alternative drainage plan is
recommended.
Response No. 7 - As a response to comments on the DEIS and in
order to alleviate localized flooding along
First Street , leaching pools have been proposed
to be installed on First Street at both the
northern and southern ends of the proposed
marina site. These two areas are existing low
spots that currently flood during rainstorms.
These pools are not directly connected to the
overflow system. The overflow system will
carry excess runoff to the bay during extremely
heavy storms and only operate as follows :
The proposed leaching pools are to be placed
along the proposed curb line. At the pool
inlets , the proposed curb reveal is reduced
from the standard five inches to three inches
in height . For average storms, the runoff
should be contained in the proposed leaching
pools with no overflow into the bay.
During heavy storms, if leaching pools fill up
and overflow, the water will pond in the street
over the leaching pool inlet . When this pond-
ing exceeds three inches in depth, the water
will then flow over the curb and sidewalk and
be carried by sluice and pipe to the bay. As
the storm subsides and as soon as the ponding
depth over the leaching pool inlet becomes less
than three inches, the overflow system will
stop carrying runoff to the bay. This system
provides no benefit to the marina project and
was designed to alleviate flooding that already
exists in the area. Three ( 3) inches was con-
sidered to be an acceptable depth of ponding,
which determined the proposed curb reveal .
However, this depth, and thus curb height ,
could be increased if it is felt that a higher
ponding depth is desired.
Comment No. 8 - It is noted in the document that the drainage
plan proposed was reviewed by Raymond Jacobs,
Highway Superintendent . However, there is no
correspondence to support this statement .
Responses Na . 8 - The proposed drainage plan was reviewed by
Donald Sioss of H2M with Raymond Jacobs on
February 3 , 1988 . At that time, Mr . Jacobs
offered several comments and suggestions which
10.
were incorporated in the drainage plan sub-
mitted in the Supplemental DEIS. The revised
drainage plan has been forwarded to Mr. Jacobs
(see April 28, 1988 letter in Appendix A) and
his acknowledgment/response was received on
August 8, 1988, which states that he finds the
proposed system to be satisfactory (see
Appendix A) .
Comment No. 9 - The drainage calculations are computed based on
four-inch gravel coarse in the parking area.
However, they should be based on asphalt since
that is the Planning Board requirement . Also a
two-inch rainfall is inadequate, a minimum
should be a four-inch storm. What is the fre-
quency of rainfall which would cause stormwater
overflow into the bay?
Response No. 9 - Coarse gravel was chosen for the following
reasons:
e it maximizes recharge of stormwater runoff
e it is consistent with historical usage of
the site
e it maintains a more rural and quaint New
England flavor to the project , which is
aesthetically more appealing than asphalt
and in keeping with the community wishes of
developing an aesthetically pleasing project
Furthermore, there is no site plan requirement
to provide an asphalt surface as indicated on
Page 10045, Subheading E of the Town of
Southold Zoning Code which states, "All open
parking areas shall be properly drained within
the premises and all such areas shall be
provided with a dustless surface, except for
parking spaces accessory to a one-family or
two-family residence. " The coarse gravel
surface meets this requirement .
Additionally, a site inspection in April , 1988 ,
as part of the tidal wetland permit application
process by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation has revealed that
they will require, as a permit condition, a
gravel surface for parking areas south of Main
Street in order to reduce the amount of
impervious surfaces. In order to provide a
consistent surface, the applicant would also
provide a gravel surface for parking areas
north of Main Street , although it is not within
DEC 's jurisdiction to require it .
11.
With regard to the two-inch rainfall intensity
used in the drainage calculations, the Town
Highway Specifications state that a two-inch
rainfall shall be used for design purposes.
This is described in Section 108-29 of the Town
Code. The criteria for leaching pool design is
the formula V = ARC, where:
V = volumetric capacity
A = drainage area
R = 2"
C = weighted coefficient
This formula was used for leaching pool design
on this project .
With regard to the frequency which would cause
stormwater overflow into the bay, based on
prior rainfall frequency analyses, the design
storage in the system (2" rainfall runoff) will
suffice approximately 90% of the time. Conver-
sely, overflow to the bay can be expected to
occur less than 10% of the time.
In the past, some storms have caused the flood-
ing of First Street . The proposed overflow to
the bay and the flooding of First Street would
be reduced by the degree that the leaching
catch basin will capture much water and the
raised overflow invert (3 inches) will further
limit the overflow to the bay and return some
water to groundwater. Assuming the proposed
overflow is approved and constructed and since
it will be handling roadway runoff, it is
suggested that it be dedicated to the Town
along with an easement for maintenance.
Sewaae Treatment and Water Supply
Comment No. 10 - The water supply system should be reviewed by
the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services in the SEQRA process not simply prior
to commencing construction. The Health
Department has not reviewed the sewage disposal
and water supply facility design (see page
B. 29) . The Health Department asked the DEIS be
deemed incomplete until this information has
been received.
Response No. 10 - A separate wastewater engineering and water
supply report was submitted (May, 1988) by H2M
Group to the Health Department for their review
of the sewage and water supply facilities.
12.
The engineering report describes the proposed
and alternative water supply and treatment
schemes and the proposed wastewater collection,
treatment and on-site subgrade treated waste-
water disposal . Based upon prior preliminary
Health Dept . comments, the proposed water
system has been revised to include two standard
well screen sources plus a reserve fresh water
horizontal well screen as a future use possibil-
ity. (Originally, three potential water supply
sources were assumed. ) In either case, water
will be pumped to the treatment facility. It
is obvious from all the test well work done on
the property that all wells below about 40 feet
will be salty. The well supply will be con-
structed below the confining clay at a depth to
be established during final design but probably
about 122 feet . The test wells constructed on
site showed high iron and manganese to a depth
of 106 feet and, if reasonable, can be devel-
oped at 110 feet or deeper. Attempt will be
made to find a depth with low iron and
manganese.
It is expected that the future use fresh water
horizontal well screen as a source of the
supply system would not be utilized unless
extensive pumping tests and analyses were made
and presented to the Health Department for
approval . There is some reservations by the
Health Department as to this source and its
sanitary protection, but since the filter
material will be greater than that used on a
normal filter plant which might have river
water as a source, it is not expected that this
source will be at risk. The water would be
treated by filtration, corrosion control and
chloration with excess contact time in the
water storage tank. If necessary, the fresh
water source water could also be passed through
the R.O. system and be treated more efficiently
at less pressure than the salt water.
The SCDHS has responded that this revised
system is consistent with the design require-
ments of the New York State Department of
Health (see Appendix A) . The SDCHS recommended
the addition of another point for chlorination
just upstream of the hydropneumatic tank. This
comment has been incorporated into revised
engineering plans provided herein in the rear
of the document .
Landscaping
Comment No. it - The landscape plan is mentioned in the document
but not contained on either map SP-1 or SP-2 .
13.
Response No. ii - Landscaping details are provided on SP-1 and
were included on the plans submitted in the
March Supplemental report . However, due to the
lightness of the prints, they were not
legible. Subsequently, the details have been
darkened to enable a better reproduction of the
SP-1 sheet included in this report in the rear
pocket .
Bulkheading
Comment No. 12 - The Supplement states that the AWPI and EPA
agree that creosote and CCA are environmentally
acceptable. There is no reference to this,
however, in the correspondence from these
agency.
Response No. 12 - Reference is made to Page B. 14 , B. 15 , B. 16 and
B. 17 where correspondence from A.W.P. I . and EPA
state that pressure treated wood with creosote
or with CCA are acceptable industry-wide for
marina usage. The only concern from a
regulatory standpoint is the treatment
application method, the personnel conducting
the work and handling precautions during
construction.
Underwater Land and Riparian Rights
Comment No. 13 - The discussion in the Supplement regarding
underwater land is poor since it does not
elaborate in any detail the question of
ownership but only reiterates what has already
been said. A title search should be done to
substantiate the statements .
Response No . 13 - The question of ownership of the land under the
waters of Peconic Bay and Gardiners Bay was
addressed in the supplement to the DEIS and was
found to be vested in the State of New York.
(Refer to previous citation of Town of Southold
v. Parks, et al . , 41 Misc. 456; 84 N.Y.S . 1078;
aff 'd 90 N.Y. S . 116; aff 'd 183 N.Y. 513 . )
The New York State Grant of 1838 was originally
made to Ezra Youngs, Abiel Tuthill , Ira B .
Tuthill and Isaac T. Tuthill in order to
promote commerce. It also gave them permission
to erect wharves and/or piers.
The grant has passed to each successive fee
title owner and rests now with the present
owner .
14.
The project 's boundaries go beyond the grant
area because the riparian owner is not limited
by the boundaries of the grant . All riparian
owners have the right to erect wharves and
marinas and to use the lands in front of their
property lying under the water for the purposes
of commerce provided that such use does not
impede navigation.
(The premises covered by the grant extend 300
feet from low water mark eastward into the bay
and are 350 feet in width from north to south. )
(See Survey of Roderick Van Tuyl , P.C. dated
August 21 , 1982 and amended March 7, 1986 and
December 22 , 1987, included in Appendix A. )
A title report was ordered from Chicago Title
Insurance Company and a copy is included in
Appendix A. The salient point of the report is
found on the legal description of the property
which includes "All lands under water as
described in grants from the Town of Southold
and the State of New York as recorded in the
office of the Clerk of Suffolk County in L 510
cp 375 and L 510 cp 373, respectively. The
title to this is found by the title company to
be in its insured Shamrock Properties .
The Town Attorney has reviewed the applicant 's
position with respect to the underwater land
and riparian rights and has found that the
claims of riparian rights and extensions beyond
same appear to be correct . Basically, a ripar-
ian owner has a right of access to navigable
water so long as his use is reasonable (see
Appendix A) .
Comment No. 14 - Does the owner have the right to go beyond the
grant line? It may impede navigation.
Response No. 14 - As shown on the site plan the entrance to the
marina is in excess of 600 feet , which is
double the width of typical marina entrances .
With this large entrance there will be no
impediment to navigation. The project exceeds
the New York State grant lines, however, the
boundaries of the grant are irrelevant . No
marina may be constructed without the applicant
adhering to the requirements of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers . Construction
along coastal waterways is governed by their
regulations as well as those of other state
agencies . The matter of prime importance to
these agencies is that no construction impede
15.
navigation. In fact, their construction res-
trictions make it impossible for any impediment
to navigation to occur. The extent of construc-
tion is, therefore, contingent on the recommen-
dations of the Army Corps of Engineers rather
than the limits of the grant lines.
Comment No. 15 - The applicant states that 14 boats an hour does
not produce a very dense traffic pattern. No
comparisons are given by way of illustration.
Response No. 15 - School House Creek to the north of the project
is capable of handling 20 boats within a 15
minute period with only a 20 foot channel width
based upon visual observances in the summer by
Henry Raynor, who also has maintained his own
slip there for several years. In comparison,
Marina Bay Club has 4 times the channel width
at 80 feet . Therefore, the estimate of 14
boats per hour can be easily accommodated and
will not pose any problem to navigation.
Comment No. 16 - It is recommended that a cross section of the
property be prepared to show that all the cubic
yards of fill can be accommodated on the site.
Response No. 16 - Earthwork calculations and computer-generated
cross sections prepared by H2M Group are
included in Appendix B and are evidence that
all of the dredged material (approximately
21 , 800 cubic yards) will be utilized as fill on
the site.
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT/DEC ISSUES
Comment No. 17 - Section 4 . 6, page 4 . 26 of the DEIS should be
expanded to address all relevant State coastal
policies . The following policies should be
addressed as part of this section: 7, 11 , 14,
15, 20, 33 , 34, 35, 38 , 44 .
Response No. 17 - As per the above comment by the Department of
State, additional CZM policies that are
considered applicable to the project include:
1 . Policy #7 : Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats
will be protected, preserved, and, where
practical , restored so as to maintain their
viability as habitats .
Reasoning : Portions of Cutchogue Harbor north of the site
have been designated by the DOS as a Signifi-
cant Coastal Habitat . The Cutchogue Harbor and
16.
adjacent wetlands are recognized as a valuable
ecosystem despite their moderate summer
recreational use and human disturbances.
The proposed activity will neither degrade the
water quality in Cutchogue Harbor or adjacent
wetlands nor adversely affect the biological
productivity of this area through environmental
conditions (e.g. , temperature, salinity) .
Surface water quality in the vicinity of the
project site may be improved by the project
through the following mitigation measures being
provided: positive drainage system, tertiary
sewage treatment system, on-site pumpout facili-
ties, expanded marina with greater flushing
capabilities and shoreline stabilization
(reduce runoff to bay) .
2 . Policy #11 : Buildings and other structures will be sited in
the coastal area so as to minimize damage to
property and the endangering of human lives
caused by flooding and erosion.
Reasoning: The designated Flood Hazard Areas exist along
the entire New Suffolk waterfront as identified
on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for this area,
as shown in Figure 8 and described on pages
3 . 10 and 3 . 12 of the DEIS . Local , state and
federal laws regulate the siting of buildings
and other structures in Flood Hazard Areas and
Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. These regula-
tions are genearlly adequate to implement the
policy and the proposed action adheres to the
required floodplain management standards to
prevent the loss of life and to minimize
property loss in the event of a flood.
3 . Policy #14 : Activities and development including the
construction or reconstruction of erosion
protection structures, shall be undertaken so
that there will be no measurable increase in
erosion or flooding at the site of such
activities or development , or at other
locations .
Reasoning: The proposed action does include construction
of erosion and flood protection features
through the developed drainage system proposed
on-site and along First Street . The proposed
overflow to the bay will alleviate flooding of
First Street thereby reducing direct runoff
(and sedimentation) to the bay. The positive
drainage system on-site will result in recharg-
ed runoff to groundwater which currently gener-
ally flows overland and runs off unfiltered
into the bay.
17.
4 . Policy #15 : Mining, excavation or dredging in coastal
waters shall not significantly interfere with
the natural coastal processes which supply
beach materials to land adjacent to such waters
and shall be undertaken in a manner which will
not cause an increase in erosion of such land.
Reasoning: Dredging will be accomplished in a manner so as
not to cause a reduction of beach materials or
change their natural regenerative powers.
Since bulkheading shall be provided for the
entire waterfront , erosion will also be
controlled. All dredging and excavation will
be conducted in accordance with state and
federal regulation (see Policy #35) . As stated
on page 4 . 13 of the DEIS, no significant
effects are expected on water circulation and
numerous marine construction techniques have
been introduced to ensure shoreline protection
(e.g. , splash boards, fixed dock, floating
docks) .
5 . Policy #20 : Access to the publicly-owned foreshore and to
lands immediately adjacent to the foreshore or
the water 's edge that are publicly owned shall
be provided and it shall be provided in a
manner compatible with adjoining uses.
Reasoning: The proposed action will not limit access to
the publicly owned foreshore and to lands
immediately adjacent to the foreshore or the
water 's edge that are publicly owned.
See also response to Comment No. 19 .
6 . Policy #33 : Best management practices will be used to
ensure the control of stormwater runoff and
combined sewer overflows draining into coastal
waters .
Reasoning: The project incorporates structural methods of
mitigating pollution by providing a sewage
treatment facility and stormwater collection/
treatment system. The project will be required
to contain runoff on-site as specified in town
and county regulations .
7 . Policy #34 : Discharge of waste materials into coastal
waters from vessels subject to State
jurisdiction will be limited so as to protect
significant fish and wildlife habitats,
recreational areas and water supply areas .
18.
Reasoning: The discharge of sewage, garbage, rubbish and
other solid and liquid materials from a
watercraft or the marina into the adjacent
surface water will be prohibited. Pumpout
facilities will be provided for the marina and
connected to the sewage treatment facility for
disposal .
8. Policy #35: Dredging and dredge spoil disposal in coastal
waters will be undertaken in a manner that
meets existing State dredging permit require-
ments, and protects significant fish and
wildlife habitats, scenic resources, natural
protective features, important agricultural
lands, and wetlands.
Reasoning: The proposed dredging activities will abide by
state, federal and local regulations. Dredged
material will be removed and disposed of in the
town landfill only.
9 . Policy #38 : The quality and quantity of surface water and
groundwater supplies, will be conserved and
protected, particularly where such waters
constitute the primary or sole source of water
supply.
Reasoning: The proposed project will not utilize existing
public water supplies and instead proposes to
create potable water from plentiful supplies of
brackish bay water . The quality of the
adjacent surface water will not be adversely
impacted due to the usage of an on-site
tertiary treatment plant and stormwater
collection system.
10. Policy #44 : Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater
wetlands and preserve the benefits derived from
these areas.
Reasoning: The project is partially located in lands
adjacent to tidal wetlands and partially
comprised of uplands not subject to the DEC 's
regulation. Wetland areas and potential
impacts and mitigations are fully described on
pages 4 . 11 to 4 . 15 of the DEIS. Additional
discussion can also be found herein in response
to Comment No. 24 . It has been stated that the
water quality and adjacent wetland areas will
not be degraded by the proposed action since
the project incorporates many mitigating
measures (on-site pumpout facilities, contain-
ing stormwater runoff , dock and marina construc-
tion techniques and materials , on-site sewage
treatment plant , and RO water system) .
19.
Comment No. 18 - The DEIS should include a description of how
the marina expansion, the RO system and sewage
treatment system will impact recreational and
commercial shellfisheries and finfisheries in
the immediate and adjacent areas .
Response No. 18 - The reverse osmosis system and sewage treatment
plant will not significantly impact commercial
shellfishes and finfishes in the adjacent tidal
waters .
Reverse osmosis is a physical process by which
potable water is produced from a saline (salt)
water supply. In this case, the bay water will
be forced under pressure through a series of
selectively permeable membranes . These mem-
branes allow 30 percent of the water to pass
through but , by and large, salts (Sodium = Na,
Manganese = Mn, etc. ) naturally occurring in
the bay water are retained in the water within
the membrane and discharged to the bay. Bay
water, at a rate of 100 gallons of water per
minute with salinities of approximately 30, 000
parts per million (ppm) , will be separated into
30 gallons per minute of potable water and 70
gallons per minute of brine with salts concen-
trated to 42 , 000 ppm (a 1 . 4 multiple increase -
less saline inputs would also be concentrated
by a factor of 1 . 4 , but since the initial
salinity would be less , the effluent brine
would also have a lower salinity) .
Since reverse osmosis is a physical and not a
chemical process , no compounds or elements are
added to the 70 gallons per minute of process
effluent water . Additionally, the physical
nature of this process also implies a mass
balance . The 30 gallons per minute of potable
water derived from the system are to be used
on-site . This water is then treated in a
sewage treatment plant and discharged to leach-
ing pools . The treated water then leaches back
through the site 's soils and discharges to the
bay. Consequently, the 30 gpd of water "lost"
to the bay system in the short-term is regained
in the long-term following use on-site .
The 70 gallon per minute reverse osmosis
discharge will be fed back into the bay via a
diffuser system . The discharge line will be
approximately 200 feet long with diffusers
spaced every 20 feet . The location of the site
proximate to the channel separating Long
Island ' s north fork from Robbin' s Island,
20.
results in substantial tidal flows moving past
the site ( i .e. , 0 . 555 billion gallons per
cycle) . Dilution effects will reduce effluent
brine concentration to 30,450 ppm at the bay
bottom. The expected average salt/brine
concentration on bay water is 30,000 ppm and
this concentration routinely varies by 20 to 50
percent in tidal systems . The reverse osmosis
discharge, therefore, will be quickly diluted
to well within the naturally occurring salinity
range of bay water. With the rapid, short-term
dilution and long-term mass balance, the
reverse osmosis discharge will have no effect
on fisheries in the bay.
Since sanitary wastes are currently being
discharged from commercial operations via
leaching pools on-site with no discernible
effect , the sewage treatment plant effluent
will have no significant impact upon the bay's
fisheries .
Comment No . 19 - With respect to public access discussed in
Section 4 . 7 . 2 , page 4 . 29 and Section 4 . 6 on CZM
policies #19 and #20 , the DEIS should clearly
outline the current type and amount of public
access at the existing site and the type,
amount and location of public access which
would be provided under the proposed project .
Response No. 19 - Existing public access to the site is limited
to the various retail activities on the pro-
perty including the restaurant , delicattessen ,
yacht sales and post office. Public access
will increase with the proposed action by
maintaining the existing retail uses as well as
through the establishment of transient slips
and a fishing pier ( for exclusive use by Marina
Bay Club patrons) , the locations of which are
identified on the site plan. Originally it was
planned to have a public fishing pier on the
site, however , it is not practical because of
the potential congestion that it would cause
and, furthermore, two adjacent facilities ( town
launching ramp and beach) already offer public
access that need not be duplicated at this
site.
Comment No . 20 - The section on surface runoff/drainage on
Section 4 . 2 . 3 , page 4 . 7 , should indicate the
location of leaching pools and overflow
outfalls , as well as discuss the proposed
filtering system.
21.
Response No. 20 - The locations of the leaching pools described
on page 4 . 7 of the DEIS are shown on Figure 12
in the report and on the full-sized drainage
plan submitted to the Town.
Subsequently, the proposed drainage system has
been revised (see rear pocket) to relocate
pools to adhere to separation distances
required by the Health Department and the DEC.
The revised plan shows the locations of the
leaching pools as well as the drainage calcula-
tions .
A filtering system, as such, is not proposed.
The only type of filtering which would occur
would be the use of sand underneath the parking
lot . This would include both naturally
occurring sand and sand which is dredged from
the harbor . Stormwater disposal is proposed by
groundwater recharge. The stormwater would
then be naturally filtered, as it percolated
back to the groundwater table from the leaching
pool system and/or the gravel surfaced parking
lot .
Comment No. 21 - The DEIS discussion of wetland impacts on page
4 . 11 indicates only that approximately 500
linear feet of bulkhead will be constructed or
replaced . The DEIS should indicate the
location and length of new and replacement
bulkhead, its location relative to the line of
mean high water and the amount and source of
backfill for the bulkhead . The DEIS should
also address the impact of these structures on
the beach in front of and adjacent to the
bulkheads .
Response No. 21 - Supplement No . 1 (March, 1988) contains a map
of bulkhead and proposed dredging areas which
outlines the locations of new and replaced
bulkhead. (The map is also included herein in
Supplement No. 2 as Attachment D. )
See also response to Comment No. 24 .
Comment No . 22 - The mitigating measures section, Chapter 6 .0,
should include possible mitigating measures for
loss of valuable shellfish habitat and loss of
downdraft beaches through increased erosion.
22.
Response No. 22 - Downdrift erosion will not be caused by
bulkheading the northern half of the Marina Bay
Club shoreline where the existing bulkheading
will be replaced. Downdrift beaches south of
the Marina Bay Club site already contain sev-
eral small cross-shore bulkheads or jetties .
These jetties will minimize any downdrift
erosion which may result from the installation
of bulkheading on the southern half of the
Marina Bay Club site 's shoreline.
Comment No. 23 - The alternatives section, Chapter 5.0, should
include an evaluation of a scaled down version
of the proposed project including the
construction of Phase I only.
Response No. 23 - Subsequent to the preparation of the DEIS, the
applicant modified the site plan and presented
a significantly scaled down version of the
proposed action. The impact of this alterna-
tive as compared to the original proposed
action is evaluated in Supplement No. 1 to the
DEIS dated March, 1988 .
While it is physically possible to reduce the
scale of the project even further to construc-
tion of Phase I only as suggested by the
comment , any further reduction in square
footage or slips developed is not reasonable or
feasible for the project sponsor since it is a
private, commercial venture. SEQR provides
(NYCRR 617 . 14 f5) that "the range of reasonable
alternatives considered for a private sponsor
may be limited to those which are feasible,
considering the applicant 's objectives and
capabilities . "
Comment No. 24 - The DEIS should indicate the total amount of
square footage of littoral zone and coastal
shoals that will be created and/or destroyed
resulting from the bulkheading, dredging and
fill portions of this project .
Response No. 24 - Pursuant to Tidal Wetland Use Regulations
(Title 6 NYCRR Part 661 ) the DEC has jurisdic-
tion over all tidal wetlands on-site but has
only partial jurisdiction over uplands on the
Marina Bay Club site. Wetlands on-site are
currently classified as Littoral Zone (LZ) and
shallow-marine coastal shoals , bars and flats
23.
1 ' .1 - :• _ .. , _ ,'. 14f' .~`.,Rel" -
00
�1 90� � D2 �.fC�c`iri4aiir� • • � ; • �
1 i "OeTw wole: Nv5 u!?1+INs o e lo °
1 C3 / v`
1 p
t
• CTrf)� �
_ i p
o D' i
1 3e' t' d
X.- No
D4 P Dredging
�\ Required >
B2 ! 1 I
1 T
r -
Fb.t Sx+crvtt '+�Oe�L
y..�n Nwe NYs 49Ae'f'L-IMC
rr+s�.rr x�r Al A2
45'
MAR/NA &4Y CLwb Assacmrws
Aow- %T"o poeee naw +v&J
MAP OF BULRHEAD AND PROPOSED DREDGING AREAS
MA2/NA LAYOUT
AMINEW REPLACED BULKHEAD FEa. ). ,ia� Sr ss�<-aer-7
Van Houten �.� NEW BULKHEAD -- „
(SM, DEC Tidal Wetlands Map No. 712-540) . The
limit of these wetlands is marked by the bulk-
head line on that portion of the site north of
Main Street and at the mean high water line on
that portion of the site south of Main Street .
The amount of wetlands occurring on-site will
actually be increased by the proposed action.
Areas B1 , B2 and B3 as shown on Attachment D, a
dredging diagram by Dravo Van Houton, are
currently uplands adjacent (AA) to tidal
wetlands .
These adjacent areas (AA) total 22 ,066 square
feet or 0. 507 acres above the mean high water
or bulkhead (wetland) lines. Areas B1 , B3 and
the middle swath of B2 (as a westerly extension
of Bl ) consist of a very old rock/rubble fill
peninsula which served as a breakwater for the
old marina. The northern section of B2 is an
old concrete-wall , travel/lift slip and the
southern portion of B2 is an unvegetated beach.
This entire area will be dredged to elevations
below mean high water and will become Littoral
Zone (LZ) wetlands . Consequently, the project
will have a long-term positive impact upon
marine life by increasing tidal wetlands by
0. 507 acres on-site. No wetlands will be
filled to erect the new/replacement bulkhead.
Of the remaining uplands on-site, only those
south of Main Street are under the jurisdiction
of the DEC . Pursuant to Part 661 .4 (b) and
(b) ( 2 ) adjacent area (AA) . . .
"shall mean any land immediately adjacent to
a tidal wetland within whichever of the
following limits is closest to the most
landward tidal wetland boundary, as such
most landward tidal wetlands boundary is
shown on an inventory map. . . to the seaward
edge of the closest lawfully and presently
existing ( i .e. , as of the effective date of
the Part ) , functional and substantial man-
made structure ( including, but not limited
to, paved streets and highways, railroads,
bulkheads and sea walls, and rip-rap walls)
which lies generally parallel to said most
landward tidal wetland boundary. . . Adjacent
area shall not include any area lying land-
ward of an imaginary line drawn between the
seaward edges of two existing substantial
man-made structures which constitute the
landward limit of an adjacent area. . . where
the area landward of such imaginary line
25.
does not have located thereon any such man-
made structures and where such imaginary
line is less than 100 feet in length, as
measured generally parallel to the most
landward limit of the tidal wetland
involved . "
South of Main Street , the wetland line is demar-
cated by the mean high water line occurring
along a sandy/gravely beach with no substantial
existing structures at least 100 feet long.
Therefore, the DEC's AA jurisdiction extends
westward from the mean high water line to First
Street . North of Main Street, no uplands occur
under the DEC 's jurisdiction. This is due to
the fact that this portion of the site's
easterly wetlands line is demarcated by an
existing man-made structure, the bulkhead.
Additionally, DEC AA jurisdiction resulting
from wetlands occurring north and south of the
bulkhead is prevented by a northerly bulkhead
and by Main Street to the south. Therefore,
structures north of Main Street need not comply
with Tidal Wetland Land Use Regulations Part
661 . 6- Development Restrictions, but structures
south of Main Street must comply.
Comment No. 25 - Stationary pumpout facilities must be provided
at this facility and a suggested location would
be the pumpout at the gas dock. Further
details including the type, capacity, holding
tanks details, etc . will require further DEC
review.
Response No. 25 - Sanitary pumpout receiving facilities will be
provided at the gas dock. There should be no
special need for holding tanks since these
wastes will be transmitted to the sanitary
sewer at a point upstream of the sewage
treatment lift station. If it is required to
place facilities at points which are not
drainable by gravity, then a pumping unit would
be required .
A detailed design of such a facility will be
provided to the DEC in the near future.
However, it should be noted that while specific
design details for pumpout facilities must be
provided and reviewed by the DEC prior to its
decision to issue or deny a Tidal Wetland
permit , it is not necessary that the detailed
design be provided for inclusion in the DEIS or
FEIS .
26.
Comment No. 26 - The DEIS should state whether the effluent
discharge will meet New York State surface
water quality standards for discharge.
Response No. 26 - The effluent from the wastewater treatment
plant will be discharged into groundwater and
will meet groundwater discharge requirements.
The reject effluent from the reverse osmosis
system will , if necessary, be treated to remove
some of the more concentrated iron and
manganese to below a level which might cause
discolored water.
Comment No. 27 - It is recommended that the parking area be
constructed of permeable materials.
Response No . 27 - The DEIS, site plans and grading plan have all
been designed to incorporate a crushed gravel
parking lot to decrease stormwater runoff and
maximize recharge on the site based upon
preliminary review of the project by the DEC as
well as review of Planning Board requirements .
We certainly acknowledge that DEC ' s preference
for parking lot material cannot override local
zoning requirements . However , we also question
whether or not the Planning Board can require
an asphalt surface, when the Town code requires
only a "dustless surface. " The proposed gravel
surface certainly meets the code requirement .
H2M Group has prepared preliminary calculations
to assess the impact of changing from a gravel
surface to asphalt pavement . There are cur-
rently 52 leaching pools on the site, based
upon a gravel surface. An asphalt pavement
would require 38 additional pools, thereby
increasing the size of the drainage system by
almost 75 percent . These calculations can be
finalized and the additional pools added to the
plan, if required by the Town, but we do not
feel it is the recommended alternative.
As we understand the Town Code 's drainage
requirements , the system must contain runoff
from a 2-inch rainfall . The regulations do not
state that this is a minimum requirement . The
system as designed stores the runoff from a
2-inch rainfall in the leaching pools . Taking
into consideration the interconnecting pipes,
tops , slab openings and leaching rate of the
soil. , runoff from another 1/2 inch of rainfall
could be handled. Any further rainfall would
27.
overflow to the bay and would not be expected
to occur more than 10 percent of the time. In
summary, based on experience with other
jurisdictions, the drainage system has more
than adequate capacity and in excess of the
2-inch requirement .
Comment No. 28 - It is not clear if the applicant will require a
variance to the 75-foot minimum setback out-
lined in Part 661 (Tidal Wetlands Land Use
Regulations) for those sections of construction
within the DEC ' s jurisdiction (upland) . Also,
DEC has established a maximum percentage of 20
percent coverage for adjacent area. The DEIS
does not address whether the project is in
conformance with this coverage standard .
Response No. 28 - The total of adjacent areas east and south of
Main Street is 77 , 700+ square feet . A building
of 10, 880 square feet and 1 , 200+ square feet of
impermeable surfaces are planned. (These
calculations assume construction of permeable
paving materials for parking areas as preferred
by the applicant and DEC, but this matter is
currently in dispute with the Town of
Southold. ) The impermeable areas constitute
only 15 . 4 percent of the adjacent area and as
sucl, will comply with the 20 percent coverage
rule . The proposed boat storage building is
also at least 75 feet westward of the existing
tidal wetland line . Other structures are
landward of existing bulkheads .
The location of sanitary wastewater effluent
pools have been altered on the revised plans
included herein to be at least 100 feet from
the existing wetland line (e .g. , relocated
north of the proposed boat storage building) .
The water and wastewater plan provides 150 feet
minimum clearance from wastewater leaching
pools and 50 feet minimum clearance from runoff
drainage structures for all three wells .
The proposed or pending Suffolk County
Department of Health Services lateral distances
between the enclosed wastewater treatment plant
and nearby property lines, buildings and
shorelines will require variances as the
property width does not make the proposed
distances possible . An application for a
waiver of distances between the sewage
treatment plant and nearby properties has been
submitted to the Health Department (copy of
28.
application is included in Appendix A) . The
following are the variances requested:
SCDHS On-Site
Distances to Requirements Provided
Property Line 150 ' to PL 80 ' to PL (south)
Surface Water 300 ' to PL 90 ' to bulkhead
The waiver is justified and will not present
any potential for environmental consequences
since the treatment plant will be enclosed
within the boat storage building.
29.
APPENDIX A
• Southold Town Board Resolution July 11 , 1988
• Comments by Szepatowski Associates
dated June 24 , 1988
• Comments by Szepatowski Associates
dated April 7 , 1988
• Correspondence and Additional
Information
P
Z
T D
SL
Southold, N.Y. 41971
(516) 765-1938
July 13 , 1988
Henry Raynor
320 Love Lane'
Mattituck, NY 11952
RE: Marina Bay Club
SCTM #1000-117-8-18
Dear Mr. Raynor:
The following action was taken by the Southold Town
Planning Board on Monday, July 11, 1988.
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board declare the
second supplemental DEIS is incomplete. There are deficiencies
that need to be addressed before the DEIS will be deemed
complete. This parcel is on 3 . 45 acres located at New Suffolk.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact this office.
Ver ruly yours,
�ifi/st `
BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR.
CHAIRMAN
enc.
jt
A.1
Ofoil(
P
T D
SL
4 Y
Southold, N.Y.•11971
(516) 765-1938
July 13 , 1988
Henry Raynor
320 Love Lane
Mattituck, NY 11952
RE: Marina Bay Club
SCTM #1000-117-8-18
Dear Mr. Raynor:
The second supplement to the draft environmental impact
statement has been reviewed. The Planning Board finds that the
second supplement still does not address all of the deficiencies
that were posed to the applicant at the January 1988 meeting and
in the April 7, 1988 review by Szepatowski Associates of the
first supplement. These deficiencies are stated in Mr. Emilita' s
memorandum to the Planning Board dated June 24, 1988, and, to
our understanding, also were communicated verbally to the
applicant by Mr. Emilita.
The Planning Board feels that the DEIS and its two
supplements are not complete. Before accepting the document and
setting a public hearing and comment period, the Planning Board
feels the supplement should address the deficiencies noted
herein.
Therefore, the Planning Board hereby declares its intention
to forward to the applicant a copy of Mr. Emilita' s letter of
June 24, 1988, with a request that the deficiencies noted
therein (as they pertain to Responses 7,8,9,10,12,13 ,14,16) be
addressed.
A.2
Further, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation in a letter dated July 5, 1988 and the Trustees in
a letter dated July 11, 1988 have requested additional time
within which to review the second supplement. Any comments that
are recieved from these agencies will be forwarded to the
applicant upon their receipt in the Planning Board office.
Very truly yours,
L BEMNET'r ORLOW SRI,-JR.
CHAIRMAN
jt
A.3
RECEIVED BY
SOUTHOLD TOV ii FLMWING BOARD
Z-N j JUN 2 '7 1988
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & PLANNERS _
DATE v5 --a-,-'-
1�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Southold Pla LgBoard
FROM: David J.S. E , Szeaptowski Associates, Inc.
RE: Marina Bay Club DEIS and Supplements 1 and 2
DATE: June 24, 1988
We have reciewed the documents cited above and make the
following recommendations to you:
1. The three documents taken together constitute a significant
amount of new information since the last public hearing of 9
Nov 87 on the DEIS alone.
2. Many questions remain unanswered to date. However they can
be addressed during a new public comment period. Our
questions are detailed below and are keyed to Supplement No.
2.
Response No. 7
First Street drainage is shown to be via catch basins at the
low spots. It appears however that when the catch basins are
full, runoff is intended to find its way to the 15" RCP drain
through tide gates to the docking areas. However at the
southerly end of First Street, road grade elevations appear
to continue to drop. What frequency storm will be captured
by the catch basin system without overflowing to the Bay?
Will the road simply drain south and never enter the
southerly drain? Have the Highway Superintendent, Trustees
and other Town agencies approved of this concept? Who will
be responsible for maintaining this overflow system and the
tide gates?
A.4
23 Narragansett Ave. ):mestown, RI 02335 (401) 423-0430
J,
�
Response No. 8
We repeat that no acknowledgement of Mr. Jacobs review
appears in the Supplement.
Response No. 9
The Planning Board will be the final arbiter of parking area
pavement specifications. The NYSDEC has no override over
local zoning requirements. Drainage calculations should thus
be based on an asphalt surface. Drainage calculations should
be produced to verify the conclusions reached. A 2" rainfall
may be a minimum requirement, however the Planning Board
would need assurance that greater than a minimum drainage
requirement could be met.
Response No. 10
Until the recommendations of the Health Department with
respect to the water supply and sewage treatment systems have
been received, the DEIS cannot mature to an FEIS. See the
SCDHS letter of 19 November 1987.
Response No. 12
The Consumer Information Sheets in connection with inorganic
arsenic and creosote treated wood on pages B 14-17 of the
Supplement to the DEIS state that, " (treated) wood should not
be used where it may come into direct or indirect contact
with public drinking water except for uses involving
incidental contact such as docks or bridges. " The well
screen intake for the water treatment system is shown to be
quite close, within a few feet, of proposed dockage. It is
not clear whether this is "incidental contact" in the context
of the information sheet. Input from the County Health
Department is necessary.
5ZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS A PLANNERS
A.5
4 f
Response No. 13 and No. 14
The Town Attorney should be consulted to verify the claims of
riparian rights and extensions beyond same. Referral to and
comment from the New York State Department of State 's Coastal
Management Program is not reported in the DEIS and will need
to be addressed before the FEIS can be completed.
Response No. 16
The disposal site for the excess material is still not
discussed conclusively. This must be addressed so that the
Planning Board can assess the impact on the disposal site and
properties adjacent to it.
3. In the interest of timeliness as expressed in Section 617.3
of the SEQR Regulations, particularly with respect to review
by other involved agencies, we recommend that the Board
accept the DEIS together with Supplements 1 and 2 as
satisfactory with respect to scope, content and adequacy and
commence a new public comment period. Said public comment
period should include a public hearing. We recommend that it
not be held until after all involved agency reports have been
submitted to the Planning Board. Following said public
comment period, it may then be possible to move to an FEIS.
SZEFATTOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & PLANNERS
ZE
Z� 7 A.6
J
Ltd.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & PLANNERS
NNIN6 BOARD
MEMORANDUM
TO: Southold Town Planning Board
RE: Comments on Marina Bay Club Supplement to the DEIS
dated March 1988
FROM: Szepatowski Associates, Inc. , Ltd.
DATE: April 7, 1988
We have reviewed the above mentioned supplement to the DEIS and
have found several inadequacies and/or discrepancies with regard
to the project document. We recommend that the document be
deemed incomplete until these issues, as listed below, have been
adequately addressed.
1. Site Access and Traffic
a. The 4 parking spaces to the south for employee parking seem
inaccessible and awkward to exit from.
b. The traffic restriction - "no right turn" is a good
mitigation measure but a sign alone will not be sufficient. It
should be designed to prevent a right hand turn.
c. Response to Comment No. 92 - Parallel parking 9 ' wide is
proposed on Main Street which will undoubtedly create a traffic
hazard. An alternate
parking plan is recommended.
d. Response to Comment No. 93 - The southerly exit and parking
area doesn't provide turning radius for vehicles. An alternate
layout should be considered, or the need for this parking area at
all .
e. Response to Comment No. 94 - The lack of parking is justified
by comparison to the lack of parking at other local marinas and
that the Town parking requirement was too high. This doesn't
adequately answer the issue of parking.
f. Response to Comment No. 95 - The increase to double the
amount of vehicles is not minimal .
A.7
22 +j-2333 -(1i) =23-0430
2. Drainage
a. Significant flooding overflow is proposed to go into
Cutchogue Bay. This is not recommended and an alternative
drainage plan is recommended.
b. It is noted in the document that the drainage plan proposed
was reviewed by Raymond Jacobs, Highway Superintendent, however,
there is no correspondence to support this statement.
c. Response to Comment No. 112 - The drainage calculations are
computed based on a 4" gravel course in the parking area,
however, they should be based on asphalt since that is the
Planning Board's requirement. Also, a 2" rainfall is inadequate,
a minimum should be a 4" storm. What is the frequency of a
rainfall which would cause storm water overflow into the Bay?
3 . Sewage Treatment and Water Supply
a. Response to Comment No. 55 - The water supply system should
be reviewed by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
in the SEQRA process not simply prior to commencing _
construction. The Health Department has not reviewed the sewage
disposal and water supply facility designs. (See Page B.29) . The
Health Department asks that the DEIS be deemed incomplete until
this information has been received.
4 . Landscaping
a. A landscape plan is mentioned in the document but not
contained on either map SP1 or SP2.
5. Bulkheading
a. Response to Comments No. 106 and 107 state that the AWPI and
EPA state that creosote and CCA are environmentally acceptable.
There is no reference to this, however, in the correspondence
from these agencies.
-2-
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENIAL CONSULTANTS
f� �� A.8
6. Underwater Land and Riparian Rights
a. Response to Comment No. 36 is poor since it doesn't elaborate
in any detail the question of ownership but only reiterates what
has already been said. The response to Comment No. 37 is also
poor and perhaps a title search should be done.
b. Response to Comment No. 40 is questionable - does the owner
have the right to go beyond the grant line? It may impede
navigation.
c. The response to Comment No. 104 is questionable - it states
that 14 boats an hour does not produce a very dense traffic
pattern. No comparisons are given by way of illustration.
d. It is recommended that a cross section of the property be
prepared to show that all the cubic yards of fill can be
accommodated on the site.
-3-
L
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENIAL CONSULTANTS
A.9
CORRESPONDENCE AND
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A.10
I . �AFIV LA B/\Y �.LL ASS JCI
E 1107E
, � .'_� - '`w� 1 �' " � -' Y ' ''"- J• �'t u � t �' - �\til .>, � �� ! -
I �• , •' , ,. .!Ft`s'' .r � .. 7p \`Dp V ` �� ' � I.
O`• �:,2YN LItJS N Y 1 62AN 1'
N �
{`
i ut!%IJV �� �.l+v .` � �f � •�J�' '' ri-� N \ � a 1
1 I
8 p".•Lf>r;. I
FQ&r
' 1 �' Com•• iFl`E, I ws[<I1:1C9 h• IS OI '.•. ���-r '
e1 •.O 1 t ��WL,t. .9' 'IL1.�' 4.:T. � .�,n r.. •w,
Pl
�•. , �'r?I � '/ fT 's►..ra-s1(eff-eLfµ4:(A`(M.e.�� \�1}.�=�_ _ - "- 11` _ __«:�-�........,...t
��"'-����{' (•OtC�/ _._-. [AMC
19294,� •. .:�__. r'- `�.�-��_"_��� f _
>= be ES 27 Go•w—��-- 9 94•
fttK TItEF.T ✓� `�. m
,-rte• ;w I b� /:•••cowcl:fTr J �- - .__ 300
i � _-,. 't �_ � -�� -5.85'27CJO•E'.=--- -`f'-- - _ _... •...,..... 1
_ '• '.i'1, Fn:�.• - 1 1 F I _• _ _ - '• .__ 1 � _ir rN _.1'7.: 7U � - __
_ s• •. ' .F J 1 .. , ss.Y ,..6 ,_ ., fid' C/ y. .. j �� s I
Ck
n,nr'a, '
• •• t. i' r � •/ t I,vkriPFRT•r Its trt RDGa 2JNC A-.!� �J
'~ 2G.�rrGU�_F_4',1%LgCU,FWAEr�.•_:.�
;,{,C•, .f ', F." ' , _ _ J1! -r•t! ._ I 4, SU16 hV._DA_Ul I-ItP1J SC'A L.e
�. / (: _ - .. .. `:,. .- .. -- i / :� °r 9. F A'�I�l.C"v/IT�•�...._'F�-4>1�2 I.
--
�.
---------------•._..._._. ',�•/ t '� I MSN 5Ea_LEVt=L.
Y� i - -�, U/ `y 11 - 1 —1 .(. ^_gLJNC>i'Ju•S lvE M F_EC�T EC'17w
t01JC2 P'tCN!LOW
1 �� L � 1• �I � _ - •. .. ,- --�,�t��,• . -. l AUG't1,129z i .• 1
•. U.J1 ti �. _ ,'f-, fir,' Je• '•- w t' � t _
' a.�.. r4 __-�GKI.ONR•FKAK6. - _-• !� ..}6TTY•;�, ..`1-. �1i .,. - ,.. _ ., ��� 1/C ...._. .'.'-• r , r ifl i "
r 1r. -ci+.p"i 1 -t•.e:T' ^ � IC' lf.1L JK IF V��S — ^L�F�Jt��L'l�N'f. .,rN y._.
VAM
1 . . ,..I` ':_:- � ' - .� _ , _ • • ; 7�'�F, � �•;\,•+`.-. • ,- MAp AMEN'Q���t•'1AJ7•Iy36 ' ,, '" .ti l L — `" �`` _
.t 'l• '��• a,, t 1 w.• '� I'•' a �s .v_a.__QE C.zZ.� $? .. _ _ / F y' i
MAC laY. .
• h`c' µi. T. ?': LUFFQ71GCO7n<MAF A!1 :I1I;8
•;__-�'T^����-/.,A��� .s. .. .�.......y.r L9, u•.�_�a �•' - •j,t , �..l.�.l'•,_ I�.:>,' .. . . ._ _• _. .,.r i.i'7-_ .. _. _ _..
•'�,� (.. '.T r.�. �'+,:....4p C:~.. ... `'•'f.�'��.. .«., .. _ ! . ..•iL..-'..o..a,yc.G'•.0-:y...«..�':L'.i.L.h.Y`„ .-Yw�1 rt..• ._- - � .a' '
U2AGROUP
Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. • Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, Inc. • H2M Labs, Inc.
Engineers, Architects, Planners, Scientists
575 l3road Hollow Road, Melville, N)' 11747-5076
(516) 756-8000 • (201) 575-5400
FAX.516-694-4122
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS April 28, 1988
Mr. Raymond Jacobs
Highway Superintendent
Town of Southold
Peconic Lane
Peconic, NY 11958
RE: Marina Bay Club
RCMB 87-01
Dear Mr. Jacobs:
You may recall that on Wednesday, February 3, 1988, the
undersigned met with you to review a proposed storm drainage
system for the above-referenced project. More specifically,
we had proposed constructing a storm drainage overflow system
to serve First Street. The purpose of the system is to func-
tion when First Street becomes heavily flooded (i.e. due to a
Northeaster) and to facilitate the return of the flood water
to the bay.
The system originally proposed by H2M would have provided
two leaching pool systems on First Street, which would be
piped into the bay through the Marina Bay Club site. You had
indicated that there has been a lot of pressure to eliminate
direct discharges to the bay and that the system, as proposed
at that time, was not likely to be acceptable.
We then discussed an alternate system which would still
provide two shallow leaching pool systems on First Street.
However, the invert of the overflow pipe would be set at an
elevation of three inches above the street grade. This then
would only permit the overflow system to operate during a
heavy flooding event and when there was more than three inches
of flood waters on First Street. We are enclosing a set of
plans which illustrate the revised proposal , which we had dis-
cussed on February 3, 1988.
At this time, we would like to request a written acknowl-
edgment of our meeting and discussions concerning the drainage
system. In addition, if you generally agree with the system
as revised, we would appreciate a statement to that effect.
A.12
Mehvilk \Y 0 Rivvrhvad. \1 0 Fairfield. \I
1HIMGROUP
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed plan, we
would be pleased to discuss this matter either by phone or in
person, if you would contact the undersigned at 756-8000,
extension 300. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
HOLZ ER, L MURRELL, P.C.
c
Donald A joss, P.E.
DAS/j lh
Enc.
cc: Richard Carr
Jean Celender <-
A.13
- I
li
NEW YORK BOARD OF TITLE UNDER WRITERS FORM 100E
33 000E 07 016029
I
I
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
i
i
in consideration of the payment of its charges for the examination of title and its premium for
insurance, insures the within named insured against all loss or damage not exceeding the amount
of insurance stated herein and in addition the costs and expenses of defending the title, estate or
interest insured, which the insured shall sustain by reason of any defect or defects of title affecting
the premises described in Schedule A or affecting the interest of the insured therein as herein set
forth,or by reason of unmarketability of the title of the insured to or in the premises, or by reason
of liens or encumbrances affecting title at the date hereof, or by reason of any statutory lien for
labor or material furnished prior to the date hereof which has now gained or which may hereafter i
gain priority over the interest insured hereby, or by reason of a lack of access to and from the
premises ting all loss and damage by reason of the estates, interests, defects, objections,
liens, encumbrances and other matters set forth in Schedule B, or by the conditions of this policy
i
hereby incorporated into this contract, the loss and the amount to be ascertained in the manner
provided in said conditions and to be payable upon compliance by the insured with the stipulations
of said conditions, and not otherwise.
i
In Witness Whereof, CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused this policy to
I
be signed and sealed as of the date of policy shown in Schedule A, the policy to become valid
when countersigned by an authorized signatory.
I
i
i
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
I
Issued by:
EQUITY ABSTRACT,INC. ��
1380 Roanoke Avenue
Riverhead, New York 11901-0202
t f::s esident.
(516)727-8899 ATTEST:
I
i
.I
Secretary.
I
I —
A.14
W.Y.B.T.U. FORRM
' 2 3 4
DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE
OFFICE VICE MUM/ER POLICY NUM/ER
le 8708094317 33 0008 07 016029 November 10_;, 1987 $1 ,280,000.00
OFFICE FILE NUM/CR POLICY NUM/ER
DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE
Dan
Name of Insured: SHAMROCK PROPERTTIES CORP.
'he estate or interest insured by this policy is FEE vested in the insured by means of
DEED made by Marine Associates, _Inc. to the INSURED, dated November 10, 1987.
SCHEDULE A
The premises in which t e insured has the estate o- interest covered by this policy is described on the description sheet
annexed.
SCHEDULE B
The following estates, interests, defects, objections to title dens, and 4 Judgmen•, against the insured or estates,interests, defects, objections,
incumbrances and other matters are excepted from the covert:,-, of this liens or im:u_rnbrances created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by or with
policy the privity o, the insured
1 Defects and incumbrances arising or becoming a lien of%- the date 5 Title to -i-,% property beyond the lines of the premises,or title to areas
of this policy,except as herein provided. N ithin or rip ," or easements in any abutting streets,roads,avenues,lanes,
2 Consequences of the exercise and enforcement or attemptr-.I enforce-
ways or watr- ways, or the right to maintain therein vaults,tunnels.ramps
or any oth; structure or improvement, unless this policy specifically
ment of any governmental,war or police powers over the prem)—• provides thi such titles, rights, or easements are insured Notwithstanding
3 Any laws, regulations or ordinances (including, but no, umited to any proviswin to this paragraph to the contrary, this policy, unless other-
zoning,building,and environmental protection) as to the use 1,.;upancy, wise excepiL, insures the ordinary rights of access and egress belonging
subdivision or improvement of the premises adopted or Imp,2�.td by any to abutting '.w ners.
governmental body, or the effect of any noncompliance witth or any 6. Title to.um personal property,whether the same be attached to or used
violation thereof in connectrclt with said premises or otherwise
Mortgage held of record by The Bankin_ Center of Conr-ecticut in the amount of
,1 ,250,000.00
!, Mortgage held of record by Crossland Savings Bank in the amount of $500,000.00
3. Survey by Young and Young dated September 25,
1987, last redated October 24 1987 guaranteed
to Crossland Savings, The Banking Center and Chicago Title Insurance Company shows a two
story frame building containing a post office and store; a two story frame restaurant; marina
facility including two frikeandsheds,
bulkheadsmewoodmachine
dockshand spilesmareconcrete
located inslabs,
watersteel
west
launching rise board a
ofCAg&Se t -continued-
NOTE: ATTACHED HERETO 1 ADDED PAGES.
Autbotiud Sipato ROBERT 0. WILCOX, Counsel FORM 3265
A.15
Page - 2 -
4. Except the right of the United States Government to establish harbor,
bulkhead or pierhead lines, or to change or alter any such existing lines, or to
remove or compel the removal of fill and improvements thereon (including buildings
or other structures) from land below the mean high water mark of PECONIC BAY
and CUTCHOGUE HARBOR without compensation to the insured.
5. Except rights of the United States Government, the State of New York and the
Town of Southold, or any of their departments or agencies, to regulate and control
the use of the piers, bulkheads or land under water and land adjacent thereto.
A.16
JAM '
a9.,a, aRv.•. rMRiRL A35LXIAihS,
INC. TO JAMES ARTHUR KENNIFF 6 JONATHAN ROSEN
DATED 11/10/87
SCHEDULE A
ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at New
Suffolk. Town of Southold. County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and
described as follows:
BEGINNING at a monument located at the intersection of the southerly side of
Main Street and the easterly side of First Street:
RUNNING THENCE along the southerly side of Main Street South 83 degrees 45
minutes 00 seconds East 193.50 feet to a point and the easterly end of Main
Street:
THENCE along the easterly end of Main Street North 6 degrees 13 minutes 00
seconds East 49.50 feet to a point and the northerly side of Main Street;
THENCE along the northerly side of Main Street North 83 degrees 45 minutes 00
seconds west 192.94 feet to a monument set in the easterly side of First Street;
THENCE along the easterly side of First Street North 6 degrees 54 minutes 30
seconds East 272.45 feet to a monument and land now or formerly of New Suffolk
Fishing Station;
THENCE along said last mentioned land South 83 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds
East 149.30 feet to the approximate high water mark of Cutchogue Harbor;
THENCE South 6 degrees 25 minutes 49 seconds West 2.88 feet to a wooden bulkhead:
THENCE along said bulkhead the following courses and distances:
1. South 83 degrees 34 minutes 11 seconds East 102.98 feet;
2. South 1 degree 35 minutes 22 seconds East 15.82 feet;
3. South 70 degrees 24 minutes 59 seconds East 4.12 feet;
4. South 1 degree 35 minutes 22 seconds East 155.97 feet;
5. South 28 degrees 35 minutes 24 seconds East 90.35 feet;
6. South 89 degrees 46 minutes 01 seconds East 14.84 feet;
7. South 28 degrees 56 minutes 18 seconds East 33.18 feet to a concrete
bulkhead;
THENCE along said bulkhead the following courses and distances:
1. South 86 degrees 48 flinMs 4 seconds East 20.94 feet;
2. South 79 degrees 10 minutes 39 seconds East 26.67 feet:
3. North 41 degrees 30 minutes 14 seconds East 1.47 feet to the westerly
end of a steel bulkhead;
THENCE along said bulkhead South 84 degrees 08 minutes 06 seconds 45.28 feet to
the approximate high water mark of Cutchogue Harbor;
THENCE along the approximate high water mark of Cutchogue Harbor and Peconic Bay
the following tie line courses and distances;
1. South 36 degrees 29 minutes 41 seconds East 15.18 feet;
2. South 77 degrees 32 minutes 52 seconds East 46.70 feet;
3. South 24 degrees 11 minutes 15 seconds West 20.27 feet;
4. South 40 degrees 58 minutes 46 seconds West 25.24 feet to a wooden
bulkhead.
THENCE along said bulkhead thr following courses and distances:
1. South 87 degrees 00 minutes 50 seconds West 144.86 feet;
2. North 63 degrees 48 minutes 19 seconds West 40.12 feet to the
approximate high water mark of Peconic Bay;
THENCE along the approximate high water mark of the Peconic Bay the following
tie line courses and distances:
1. South 43 degrees 21 minutes 31 seconds West 103.93 feet:
2. South 29 degrees 49 minutes 42 seconds West 96.97 feet;
3. South 18 degrees 36 minutes 29 seconds West 40.27 feet to land now or
formerly of the Southold Development Corp.;
THENCE along said last mentioned land South 83 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds /
West 208.60 feet to a monument set in the easterly side of First Street;
1 "
THENCE along the easterly side of First Street North 6 degrees 54 minutes 30
seconds East 211.02 feet to the/point or place of BEGINNING.
C� y �C l f
G �� tvrl� sa-LLc.� eL"<c y i,t •� )u c,)
TAX MAP INFORMATION: Dist. 1000 Sect. '117.00 Block nA nn r.,. nip .nnn
A.17
s .s
CONDITIONS OF TRIS POLICY
1. Double" lender and it shall have been finally determined that the rejection
(a) Wherever the tetra "insured" is used in this policy it oftheet tle twas justified because of a defect or encumbrance not
includes those who succeed to the interest of the insured by opera- except(f) Where the insured shall have transferred the title insured
his policy.
tion of law including,without limitation,heirs,distributees,devisees, f) instrument contained covenants t nand to title it
survivors, personal representatives, next of kin or corporate suc- �' g g warranty
cessors, as the case may be, and those to whom the insured has thereof and there shall have been a final determination on any of
assigned this policy where such assignment is permitted by the such covenants or warranty,against the insured, because of a defect
terms hereof, and whenever the term "insured" is used in the con. or encumbrance not excepted in this policy.
ditions of this policy it also includes the attorneys and agents of (g) Where the insured estate or interest or a part thereof has
the "insured." been taken by condemnation and it has been finally determined that
(b) Wherever the term "this company" is used in this policy the insured is not entitled to a full award for the estate or interest
it means Chicago Title Insurance Company. taken because of a defect or encumbrance not excepted in this policy.
(c) Wherever the term "final determination" or "finally deter- No claim for damages shall arise or be maintainable under this
mined" is used in this policy, it means the final determination of policy (1) if this company, after having received notice of an
a court of competent jurisdiction after disposition of all appeals or alleged defect or encumbrance,removes such defect or encumbrance
after the time to appeal has expired. within thirty days after receipt of such notice; or (2) for liability
(d) Wherever the term "the premises" is used in this policy, voluntarily assumed by the insured in settling any claim or out
it means the property insured herein as described in Schedule A without the written consent of this company.
of this policy, including such buildings and improvements thereon s. Notice of Clahn
which by law constitute real property.
(e) Wherever the term"recorded"is used in this policy it means, In case a purchaser or proposed mortgage lender raises any
unless otherwise indicated, recorded in the office of the recording question as to the sufficiency of the title hereby insured, or in case
officer of the county in which property insured herein lies. actual knowledge shall come to the insured of any claim adverse
to the title insured hereby, or in case of the service on or receipt
a. Defense and Prosecution of fulls by the insured of any paper, or of any notice, summons, process
of pleading in any action or proceeding, the object or effect of
(a) This company will, at its own cost, defend the insured in all which shall or may be to impugn, attack or call in question the
actions or proceedings founded on a claim of title or encumbrances validity of the title hereby insured, the insured shall promptly
not excepted in this policy. notify this company thereof in writing at its New York office and
(b) This company shall have the right and may, at its own cost, forward to this company such paper or such notice, summons,
maintain or defend any action or proceeding relating to the title process or pleading. Delay in giving this notice and delay in for-
or interest hereby insured, or upon or under any convenant or warding such paper or such notice, summons, process or pleading
contract relating thereto which it considers desirable to prevent or shall not affect this company's liability if such failure has not
reduce loss hereunder. prejudiced and cannot in the future prejudice this company.
(c) In all cases where this policy requires or permits this com-
pany to prosecute or. defend, the insured shall secure to it the right S. went of Leu
and opportunity to maintain or defend the action or proceeding, (a) This company will pay, in addition to the loss, all statutory
and all appeals from any determination therein, and give it all costs and allowances imposed on the insured in litigation carried
reasonable aid therein, and hereby permits it to use therein, at its on by this company for the insured under the terms of this policy.
option, its own name or the name of the insured. This company shall not be liable for and will not pay the fees of
(d) The provisions of this section shall survive payment by any counsel or attorney employed by the insured.
this company of any specific loss or payment of the entire amount (b) In every case where claim is made for loss or damage this
of this policy to the extent that this company shall deem it neces- company (1) reserves the right to settle, at its own cost, any claim
sary in recovering the loss from those who may be liable therefor or suit which may involve liability under this policy; or (2) may
to the insured or to this company. terminate its liability hereunder by paying or tendering the full
amount of this policy; or (3) may, without conceding liability,
3. Cases where Liability Arises demand a.valuation of the insured estate or interest, to be made
No claim for damages shall arise or be maintainable under this by three arbitrators or any two of them, one to be chosen by the
policy except in the following cases: insured and one by this company, and the two thus chosen selecting
(a) Where there has been a final determination under which an umpire.Such valuation,less the amount of any encumbrances on
the insured may be dispossessed, evicted ore mined from the rem- said insured estate and interest not hereby insured against, shall be
y Po l P the extent of this company's liability for such claim and no right
ises or from some part or undivided share or interest therein. of action shall accrue hereunder for the recovery thereof until
(b) Where there has been a final determination adverse to the thirty days after notice of such valuation shall have been served
title upon a lien or encumbrance not excepted in this policy. upon this company, and the insured shall have tendered a con-
(c) Where the insured shall have contracted in good faith in veyance or assignment of the insured estate or interest to this
writing to sell the insured estate or interest, or where the insured company or its designee at such valuation, diminished as aforesaid.
estate has been sold for the benefit of the insured pursuant to the The foregoing option to fix a valuation by arbitration shall not
judgment or order of a court and the title has been rejected because apply to a policy insuring a mortgage or leasehold interest.
of a defect or encumbrance not excepted in this policy and there (c) Liability to any collateral holder of this policy shall not
has been a final determination sustaining the objection to the title. exceed the amount of the pecuniary interest of such collateral
(d) Where the insurance is upon the interest of a mortgagee and holder in the premises.
the mortgage has been adjudged by a final determination to be (d) All payments made by this company under this policy shall
invalid or ineffectual to charge the insured's estate or interest in reduce the amount hereof pro tanto except (1) payments made for
the premises, or subject to a prior lien or encumbrance not excepted counsel fees and disbursements in defending or prosecuting actions
in this policy; or where a recording officer has refused to accept or proceedings in behalf of the insured and for statutory costs and
from the insured a satisfaction of the insured mortgage and there allowances imposed on the insured in such actions and proceedings,
has been a final determination sustaining the refusal because of a and (2) if the insured is a mortgagee, payments made to satisfy or
defect in the title to the said mortgage. subordinate prior liens or encumbrances not set forth in Schedule B.
(e) Where the insured shall have negotiated a loan to be made (e) When liability has been definitely fixed in accordance with
on the security of a mortgage on the insured's estate or interest in the conditions of this policy, the loss or damage shall be payable
the premises and the title shall have been rejected by the proposed within thirty days thereafter.
Form 3328 CONDITIONS (Continued on Reverse Side)
A.18
CONDITIONS OF THIS POLICY (CONTINUED)
Ce-iwawun" and Appertena,ent intendent of Insurance of the State of New York on behalf of this
(a) Ie- the event that a partial loan occurs after the insured
and other member companies for continuation of liability to grantees
of the insured in certain specific circumstances only. In no circum-
makes as improvement subsequent to the date of this policy, and stance provided for in this section shall this company be deemed to
►nly in that event, the insured becomes a co-insurer to the extent have insured the sufficiency of the form of the assignment or other
►ereinafter set forth. instrument of transfer or conveyance or to have assumed any Ha-
If the cost of the improvement exceeds twenty per centum of bility for the sufficiency of any proceedings after date of this policy.
the amount of this policy, such proportion only of any partial loss
stabiished shall be borne by the company as one hundred twenty S. Subnwafto
er centum of the amount of this policy bears to the sum of the (a) This company shall, to the extent of any payment by it of
-mount of this policy and the amount expended for the improve- loss under this policy,be subrogated to all rights of the insured with
meat. The foregom provisions shall not apply to costa and actor- �p�thereto. The insured shall execute such instruments as may
neys' fees incurred by the company in prosecuting or providing be requested to transfer such rights to this company. The rights so
or the defense of actions or proceedings in behalf of the insured tratisferred shall be subordinate to any remaining interest of the
,ursuant to the terms of this policy or to costs imposed on the insured
insured in such actions or proceedings, and shall apply only to that
portion of losses which exceed in the aggregate ten per cent of (b) If the insured is a mortgagee,this company's right of subro.
the face of the policy. ggation shall not prevent the insured from releasing the personal
Provided, however, that the foregoingco-insurance Provisions liability of the obligor or guarantor or from releasing a portion
p of the premises from the lien of the mortgage or from increasing
shall not apply to any loss arising out of a lien or encumbrance or otherwise modifying the insured mortgage provided such acts
for a liquidated amount which existed on the date of this policy do not affect the validity or priority of the lien of the mortgage
and was not shown in Schedule B; and provided further, such co- insured. However, the liability of this company under this policy
insurance provisions shall not apply to any loss if, at the time of shall in no event be increased by any such act of the insured.
the occurrence of such loss, the then value of the premises, as so
improved, does not exceed one hundred twenty per centum of the 9. NUsrepresentaNea
amount of this policy.
An untrue statement made by the insured with respect to any
(b) If the premises are divisible into separate, independent material fact, or any suppression of or failure to disclose any mate-
parcels, and a loss is established affecting one or more but not all rial fact, or any untrue answer by the insured to material inquiries
of said parcels, the loss shall be computed and settled on a pro rata before the issuance of this policy shall void this policy.
basis as if this policy were divided pro rata as to value of said
separate,independent parcels, exclusive of improvements made sub- 10. He wake. of COMM" r
sequent to the date of this policy.
(c) Clauses "(a)" and "(b)" of this section apply to mortgage This company may take any appropriate action under the terms
policies only after the insured shall have acquired the interest of of this policy whether or not it shall be liable hereunder and shall
the mortgagor. not thereby concede liability or waive any provisioq of this policy.
(d) If, at the time liability for any loss shall have been fixed 11. polky cadre Coormt
pursuant to the conditions of this policy, the insured holds another
policy of insurance covering the same loss issued by another com- All actions or proceedings against this company must be based
pany, this company shall not be liable to the insured for a greater on the provisions of this policy. Any other action or actions or
proportion of the loss than the amount that this policy bears to rights of action that the insured may have or may bring against
the whole amount of insurance held by the insured, unless another this company in respect of other services rendered.in connection
method of apportioning the loss shall have been provided by agree- with the issuance of this policy, shall be deemed to have merged
ment between this company and the other insurer or insurers. in and be restricted to its terms and conditions.
12. VaOdaden and Med"kei n
r' Asslpmew of pocky This policy is valid only when duly signed by a validating officer
If the interest insured by this policy is that of mortgagee, this or agent. Changes may be effected only by written endorsement.
policy may be assigned to and shall enure to the benefit of succes- If the recording date of the instruments creating the insured inter-
sive assignees of the mortgage without consent of this company or est is later than the policy date, such policy shall also cover
its endorsement of this policy. Provision is made in the rate manual intervening liens or encumbrances, except real estate taxes. assew
of New York Board of Title Underwriters filed with the Super- menta,water charges and sewer rents.
i
z ►--�
S
' " 3
Z � '� Oo
� � M
z
004 0
7d y
ZAP 3�y `'�
� NY • l 1
A.19 g
1 '
i J
1 1 I I
IV C/ TSO /VO /,•7 , / ,sJ' I
•i J i .�� i li4� vSJ
Y � 1
I; 11
LLLV .SO
KING STREET "`"�" '['✓ „a ;K 1
S✓ �'� d J9 /� 1 / 1
21.10 E ,ififi' 64 b'qh S,qA by/ , I/ I j
A o I
;7'cr EC a tLG2 � �I ' - � _ _ 1 -f il
EF 6Q7i vE 6 I b l •ry f F f S+60 I
- OC.o TN___—�1 • A' ti/Lw L/a a '� d,•,p , _ / i • x 6 • • ,e •
150
r✓P€2 �!.' 7° )•'1 'd'? !• / •✓ \ 0'1 y\\\ /L
P”
t22�',
O 0 ',f\ , '1 11 _ 41A0
UJI
W14,
� ' I ).moi 1 " ti ' ,• � - „ \, -
'p �3+� .... 1 !/,AS/ r i,w � �v\. zT Y/•Se ETA/L� �9_ 1 �Y /' ♦ ♦ \ ♦ I ` ♦
._ P d- !", i� w' ' \• a»-_ ' - , ' \ S -/)'
I•' r I i. A �
� O, '1:,; oy_ 2,•/,\ Ct w4[ !cd�a�o,r1.sL 4 y1
_.,._ -�_ ;•, Q �' -I{-� � �.6 -r ♦ -J. i MLN ` _
Sy- r' HARE
"'E z H)
MAIN l•1 T+�
II Ty t
,� F .,
�AdT/ti��;:a�-- n ,n��•fr�O r ` ��' � �V .f• ° '� A - , AQG / it / M1�1,' ' 1 ,
- r2 u V /N .0.71' / ,\°'1: I`` , •I IrSJ
if
.re>ewR>e. l 7' 1l
LL
' l pr ,L +/• X° I 1 / 1 1 I 1 1#00
f
fM CwJTw)LP
AREA !
1
OM
1
' •(. jR P,'DOA}[/' RAO[,;��.• �.••:,
P✓a9LL NL Ii<L l.o A t •••l•'_•E a q // JOY i/ 4 v 1 6.P/.vf
ERr Ect✓� O t '
3'EFFEC>.iE 06 P1Nr (1 I // \� `0 3 b Zss ✓.TKA VtC(_ C I '1
y� O�
�. CROSS— SECTIO/\/
., /
..�. 02 O O j f fuCL.✓O r,.4 %ON 6 /r / /r - •// /
rYK 7
/NVA-.PT ECEv z 00 W '
J EFFE[T Vi OEPTN--� �r I I 1 •'Ntl4�.. �... �F 2 1$'� .� -
/ .— O.00
t I •'. •f0) i+..::yyf!1OO,,r1 '!SO 2 ( rZO�/♦� �2LO ' � 9-d ap —eA-R AiE 3/26 aF BOAT Jr"A°E
,R s ) • 1/ / / /"4 SO% 'S1:'O� •SS9 •(]oO �G50 1700 �7SO •OVd FLOA/i.v0 G GA'CA OU! CMANQEO
<
LOT 19 r,' �o o u au
j+•' w' �� / I 1 / / /L\FFKET/ / / // ••0� O'P•i/NAG C: 70 FIA-Sr srREEr
SCALE: 1'=40'
Ci I 1 ,
"'•RIT iY Nf,MRNN6 nl
LEGEND tl.•R MARINA ASSOCIATES INC.
' EXAMPLE nowt dM-a z/a Am✓e MLl.V LRw w+ret CA+LwJ Ar eurc+'oa✓L ----
MARINA BAY CLUB
/.lLw a:♦F`cLa .. °o"cc IyBc
NOTE' `�:M,./ -sof Aha✓e ER9 ,�;«✓eL
C—.1)Al X-1' ��� NEW SUFFOLK, SOUTHOLD TOWN
n/Ew reR�EY ,
r�o�as�� SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
Pr�r`ERrr +.<^ N wS ex L/••/e.s J.vow o<Pnv deG9w .weAN La.✓ reR 1.1-88 GENERAL
�1 C` - G/./K S, iRCGybRTNY L,.vC3 SN9w LL<✓, A-✓u -AN SLR LL✓LL AT
2sy 2r yy ___
J RG r]�(J ..♦AC'�>/9eTe N r SIMOy Na9t,N6W JER.]OY „�/.,y���
^ O C^'/L w) ��•6�
f♦-�+rrao/.r-.anarcr•<on cm,o..••.verpacu>wx,rs.ras.,
i"�I/ Consulting Engineers
Scientists
� AArcEnvironmentalllecls Planners-Jis .................._ arA
s11 ey.Inw
�Is�;;'•,�
^•A -��'''� '�' i ;` 1 Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. z
,-/ Lr./YC1N/v.: !-c�r-sL .v'�L1'../-v /vLFr 1�. I
M•I•NI•,N Y NIy1,M.J it O Y f•1 r1u11y„LI•N Y f•NNuly N J r C.0 i1 Gr.Nv tCl'a: .v-t A,L,1) l'G,✓Gn' ` -_ "__ _- _ __ _—_ ."
Sheel Title: Slltlel '�
ORAIHAGE PLAN
• 1013
A-2o
a
Highway Department
1 own o1 Southold
Peconic Lame
Peconic, N.Y. 11958
JACOBS
Tel 734 3� 11
19
Sur)ennlendent 7 34 5,'. 1
August 8, 1988
Mr. Sam McLendon
Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, inc.
575 Broadhollow Road
Melville, New York 11747-5076
Re: Marina Bay Club
RCMB 87-01
Bear Mr . McLendon:
I have reviewed the above mentioned project and
find the alternate system to be satisfactory for the
relief of major storm tides as occurred with storm
Nelson on March 29th , 1984 .
The elevations of the drainage inlets are posit-
ioned three inches above road grade to eleviate
precipitation but will not cause road runoff into the
bay with normal rainfall .
R pectfully,
ymond L. Jacobs
Superintendent of Highways
cc: Bennett Orlowski , Jr.
A.21
•`mak lo.!
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ALBANY. N.Y. 1 223 1-000 1
GAIL S.SHAFFER r
SECRETARY OF STATE
November 27, 1987
Ms. Valerie Scopaz
Town Planner
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 728
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: S-87-031
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Marina Bay Club, Town of Southold
Dear Ms. Scopaz:
The Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization has
reviewed the above-referenced Draft Environmental Impact Statement and hereby
submits comments pursuant to your review under the State Environmental Quality
Review Act (SEQR) .
State Coastal Policies (Section 4.6, p. 4.26)
This section should be expanded to address all relevant State coastal
policies. The following policies should be addressed as part of this
section: 7, 11 , 14, 15, 20, 33, 34, 35, 38, 44.
Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat (Section 3.4.2, p. 3.17)
Cutchogue Harbor and Wetlands was designated by the Department of
State as a significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat as of March,
1987. The DEIS should assess the impact of the proposed project on the
viability of this area as a habitat. Portions of the project which may
impact the habitat include: marina dredging and construction, .incre ased
boater use, stormwater runoff, outfall or leaching from the sewage
treatment facility, reject water outfall from the reverse osmosis (RO)
facility, intake for the RO facility, and bulkheading. A narrative and
map of the Cutchogue Harbor and Wetlands habitat is included to assist
with this assessment. Please note that any activity which may affect a
designated habitat must be reviewed regardless of whether that activity is
within the habitat boundary.
A.22
Ms. Valerie Scopaz
November 27 , 1987
Page 2
Yater Supply/Reverse Osmosis System (Section 4.7.3, p. 4.31)
This section should include additional details on the location and
operation of the intake and outfall for this system. This section should
also indicate what the composition of the reject water will be including:
salinity, temperature, pH, and percent dissolved solids.
Sevage Treatment/Community Collection System (Section 4.73. p• 4.33)
i A site plan showing the proposed location of the sewage treatment
facility and leaching pools including setbacks from wetlands and other
buildings should be included or referenced in this tion.
i
Public Access (Section 4.7.2, p. 4.29 and Section 4.6 policies 19, 20)
The DEIS should clearly outline the current type and amount of public
access at the existing site and the type, amount and location of public
access which would be provided under the proposed project.
Surface Runoff/Drainage (Section 4.2.3, p. 4.7)
This section should indicate the location of leaching pools and
overflow outfalls. A filtering system for the overflow should also be
discussed.
Fish and Wildlife (Section 4.4.2, p. 4.10)
The DEIS should assess impacts to the designated significant habitat
as noted above and should assess impacts to the populations of fish and
wildlife using the area. Of particular concern are the nearby
shellfisheries in Cutchogue Harbor.
Wetlands (Section 4.4.3, p. 4.11)
The DEIS indicates only that approximately 500 linear feet of
bulkhead will be constructed or replaced. The DEIS should indicate the
location and length of new and replacement bulkhead, its location relative
to the line of mean high water and the amuont and source of backfill for
the bulkhead. The DEIS should also address the impact of these structures
on the beach in front of and adjacent to the bulkheads.
Mitigating Measures (Section 6)
This section should include possible mitigating measures for loss of
valuable shellfish habitat and loss of downdrift beaches through increased
erosion.
i
Alternatives
This section should include an evaluation of a scaled down version of
the proposed project including the construction of phase I only.
A.23
+ Ms. Valerie Sco paz
November 27 , 1987
Page 3
Please also include any additional information which would assist in the
assessment of consistency of the State coastal policies as outlined above.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at (518) 474-3642.
Sine rely, 4
` Andrew S. Milliken
Project Analyst
Division of Coastal Resources
& Waterfront Revitalization
Enclosure
ASM:dlb
cc: U.S. Army COE/NY District - Steve Mars
NYS DEC/Region 1 - Robert Greene
Suffolk County - Louise Harrison
Town of Southold - Paul Stoutenburgh
i
A.24
I �
1
New York State Department of Environmental Cons
Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11794 O r
(516) 751-7900
1OWIi
PLANNING BOARD
Thomas C. Jorling
July 6, 1988 Commissioner
Southold Town Planning Board
Town Hall
53095 Main Rd.
P.O. Box 728
Southold, NY 1U118
Re: DEC Application No. 10-85-0840
Marina Bay Club
Dear Sir:
We conducted a field inspection and reviewed the DEIS and have the following
questions/comments to make.
Please update us as to the applicants response to the letters generated
from review of the DEIS
Page 1.3
Additionally the applicant should describe how the marina expansion,
the reverse osmosis system and sewage treatment system will impact
recreational and commercial snellfisheries and finfisheries in the
immediate and adjacent areas.
What is the total amount in square footage of littoral zone and coastal
shoals that will be created and/or destroyed resulting from the .bulk-
heading, dredging and fill portions of this project.
Page 1 .7
We suggest that the fishing pier should be made available to the general
public not just patrons of this facility.
Stationary pumpout facilities must be provided at this facility if approved.
We suggest locating the pumpout at the gas dock. Further details including
the type, capacity, holding tanks details, etc. will require further DEC review.
Will the effluent discharge meet New York State surface water quality standards
for discharge?
We recommend that the parking area be constructed of permeable materials.
It is not clear if the applicant will require a variance to the 75' minimum
setback outlined in Part 661 (Tidal wetlands Land Use Regulations) for those
sections of construction within our jurisdiction (upland) . Also, our limit
for percentage coverage for adjacent is 2UZ. Please have applicant address
A.25
Southold Town Planning Board
July 6, 1988
Page 2
these concerns.
Thank you for allowing us this opportunity for comment.
Sincerely,
Dennis W. Cole
Senior Environmental Analyst
DWC:jf
cc: file
A.26
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
�
SEP 9� 1988
PATRICK G. HALPIN Surecu a D,rh, k;rq Vv Iter
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DAVID HARRIS. M.D., M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER
September 8, 1988
Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
Southold Town Planning Department
Southold Town Hall
53075 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
RE: Marina Bay Club, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Water and
Wastewater Supplementary Report
(Prepared by H2M, dated 6/88, revised 8/4/88)
Dear Ms. Scopaz:
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), Bureau of
Drinking Water, recently completed its review of the the above-mentioned
supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
Related portions of the Bureau's review report are provided below for
your information.
1. Water Supply Alternatives
"Regarding the water supply alternatives, the Bureau of Drinking Water
regards a central upland source and distribution facility to be the most
desirable, for essentially the same reasons cited by the engineer (page 16
of the report). It is our position that, throughout this period of
administrative review, the applicant should continue to pursue this
alternative with the Town, and the Suffolk County Water Authority.
"However; as a concept, the alternative of an on-site brackish water
source with reverse-osmosis (r/o) treatment, as proposed, is consistent
with the design requirements of the New York State Dept. of Health
applicable to a non-community water supply."
2. Application Requirements
"The water supply proposal would appear to necessitate the following
filings:
a - A Long Island Well Permit and possibly a SPDES permit for the 100
gpm well and r/o reject water disposal respectively.
COUNTY CENTER
Z(48 FS?$
RIVER►.EAO KY 1 Igo I -/pyQ o
A.27
better to Valerie Scopaz
Sept. 8, 1988
Page 2
b - Plans and specifications for the water supply and sewage treatment
disposal systems with the Bureau of Drinking Water and Bureau of
Wastewater Management, respectively.
"Concerning the site plan and flow schematics presented, we note that
the well location, under our standards, must provide a minimum 150'
clearance from cesspools, and 50' clearance from runoff drainage
structures."
"Regarding the water treatment system schematic we recommend provision
for an additional point for chlorination just upstream of the
hydropneumatic tank should this operational option prove to be more
desirable at a later date."
We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with information
pertaining to the review of the proposed action. Should you have any
questions or require additional information concerning the review of this
supplementary report, please contact the Bureau of Drinking Water at 348-
2900, or the Office of Ecology at 548-3060.
Sincerely,/
Robert S. DeLuca
Biologist
Louise W. Harrison
Supervisor, Bureau of
Environmental Management
Office of Ecology
RSD/amf
cc: Vito Minei, P.E.
Steve Costa, P.E.
Paul Ponturo, P.E..(
A.28
o
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road .�
P.O. Box 1179 •
Southold,New York 11971Oj ' ��
TELEPHONE
(516)765-1938
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
October 3, 1988
John J. Hart Pelletreau & Pelletreau
20 Church Street
Patchogue, NY 11772
RE: Proposed site plan for
Marina Bay Club
SCTM #1000-117-8-18
Dear Mr. Hart:
This office has been asked by Mr. Schondebare, Town
Attorney, to respond to your letter.
The Planning Board has been informed by the Town Attorney's
office that the claims of riparian rights and extensions beyond
same as stated in the Daft Environmental Impact Statement appear
to be correct.
Very truly yours,
157
;ter
BENNETT ORLOWSKI,JR.
CHAIRMAN
cc: James A. Schondebare,Town Attorney
Henry Raynor, agent
A.29
o�oS�fF��co�
JAMES A.SCHONDEBARE V. , �*� Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
TOWN ATTORNEY O P.O. BOX 1 179
ROBERT H.BERNTSSON ��1 i � Southold,New York 11971
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY
TELEPHONE
(516)765-1939
OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO- tames A. Schondebare, Town Attorney
FROM: Robert H. Berntsson, Assistant Town Attorney
DATE: Sept. 13, 1988
REF: Marina Bay Club
In Dave Emilita' s comments on the Marina Bay Club DEIS and
Supplements 1 and 2, he states that "the Town Attorney should be
consulted to verify the claims of riparian rights and extensions
beyond same." I have reviewed comments No' s. 36 through 42 of
the supplement, and comments13 and 14 of Supplement No. 2. I
agree with the conclusions reached therein. The case law cited
appears to be on point. I also note letters in Appendix B of the
Supplement from then-Town Attorney Tasker and the Executive
Department, Office of General Services, which reach the same
conclusions found in the comments and responses of the DEIS and
supplements. Basically, a riparian owner has a right of access
to navigable water so long as his use is reasonable.
It appears that John Hart would like a response from our
office. Please advise if you wish anything further. I also
attach relevant sections of some of the case law cited.
�D
SQUiHOLp iU',:N
PLANNING l3Gr�D
A.30
4712
ES TOWN OF ISLIP v. POWELL 178 Mise 2d 1007J 1016 ,
.etal in addition to, and not in lieu of " permits as may be required `'
ing and piling by municipalities. This coexistence represents a sound policy
J)of Nassau which maintains local zoning control while preserving certain
ude construe- prerogatives to the State. The wisdom of such a policy as it
foreshore in relates to tidal waters in Nassau and ,Suffolk Counties is for
is no rational the Legislature and not for this court. _
een these two The defendants make a further assertion that the construction
and use of the docks in issue is a normal exercise of their riparian
Law and the rights which the town may not restrict by its zoning ordinance.
eed they both It is elementary that riparian owners have th lght of_access.to._
regulate that; �Ya ig ble<v-at-e��clud'yg the riglit tQ•construct-a-dock.{Crance
iteria (People v. State of New York, 284 App. Div, 750, revd. on other
grounds
of Farrell v. 309 N. Y. 680). These rights have—}�een_defined�-o include�l�
32). The rule 2se of water for eneraL pnrposes_as-bathing and_domestic_us J
;hould be read ) wharfing out to navigability; 3) ..access to navigable waters
__ .
r force where (Hilt v. Weber,252 Mich. 198) and it is-the.latter-two-uses-which—
of the Legis- are relevant to the issues at hand. If the wharf and the access
Grp., 267 N. Y. to na'viia-ble water are c`om�ercial in nature, then use of the
vas amended residential upland as accessory to such uses would constitute
wharves and a violation of residential restrictions (1 Rathkopf,Law of Zoning
State to the 2nd Planning, p, 25-1
;ssion of the [Supp-1; cf. CitJ of Yonkers v. Rentways,
80 App, Div. 821, affd. 304 N. Y. 499). Riparian rights are an
1965, ch. 955, extension of the rights of abutting upland ownership and they
adoption of are subject to the same limitations. The defendants'use of com-
nly. Had the mercial docks strung out in front of residentially zoned property
!semption fvr is not an extension of the riparian rights of their residential
e of the term ownership and it achieves no exemption from residential zoning
etion 429-c of restrictions.
e latter term As a separate defense the defendants assert that the instant
vended it. To issues have already been determined in criminal proceedings
io long main- instituted by the town and are therefore res judicata. It is true
be to thwart that such proceedings were decided in defendants' favor on the
•f Nassau and ground that the zoning power was pre-empted by the State. Nev- ='
m the State's ertheless, the defense of res judicata is without merit. Neither a
" in the two conviction (Dalton v. Vau Dial, 72 Misc 2d 287) nor an acquittal
are not now. (Rcilly Constr. Corp. v. CitJ of ATew York, 70 Mise 2d 651, affd.
lire pa to the 25 AD 2d 053) of a criminal charge is a bar to a civil action by
Department the government, arising out of the same facts on which the crim-
ition because inal action was based. The town i
mina
Law excludes of the Town Law to enforce its ordina ccs by both sa ton 13l
)re. action and an action for an injunction (Incorporated Pil. of
e re;;ulatory Westbury v. Samuels, 46 llisc 2d 633).
700) but that The town has demonstrated a clear legal right to injunctive
_on " shall be relief and is entitled to a preliminary injunction (Town of South- '
i
A.31
ES TN.OF HEMPSTEAD v. OCEANSIDE HARBOR [38 A D 2d 2631 263
Ping, as set ers' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the objections
an presents filed by the guardian ad litem, to dismiss said objections, and,
his and the as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs and without
there is not disbursements, and the cross appeal dismissed.
this trustee
in the light
rust instru- A- {v'32i�YZd 8S9
trustee. Towx OF HEMPSTEAD et al., Respondents, v. OCEANSIDE YACHT
ting to tax Mmaox, Ixa., Appellant.
has experi- Second Department, February 14, 1972.
its original Navigable waters—marina—owner of upland fronting on navigable chan-
according nel may drive piles into underwater land owned by town and may lay thereon -
t11e Watite floating ramps and docks and mooring slips and may rent such mooring slips
more valu- to its many boating customers; town's action for reasonable value of such
the obser- alleged use and occupation of town's underwater land is dismissed.
The Town of Hempstead owns, by colonial grants, the land under the water
ion of fact of East Rockaway Channel adjacent to and bordering on the upland which is
teary judg_ owned by defendant, a marina corporation. From a bulkhead on defendant's
upland, ramps which rise and fall with the tide are attached to nine floating
or further docks which extend up to 100 feet into East Rockaway Channel. The docks are
all of the secured by piles which are driven into the land under water. The United States
•e find the Department of the Army has issued a permit for the construction of such docks.
Moorin,slips extend from the docks and are rented by defendant to its customers.
n and the The floating docks thus accommodate about 150 boats, and defendant also pro-
vides gasoline and repair service and storage for the boats during the winter.
Cial Term _lpparentli these docks do not obstruct public navigation. The town did not
-ment, the introduce any expert testimony to show that this upland owner's commercial
calf'; but use of its right of access to and on these navigable waters amounts to an unrea-
grant the sonable exercise of dominion over the town's underwater land. The town's action
the objec- the reasonable rental value of defendant's alleged use and occupation of the
t11C cross
town's lands under water is dismissed, and said defendant is granted judgment 1,
OSS on its counterclaim declaring a that it has the right to maintain its docks and pile's.
Toien of Hempstead v. Oceanside Small Craft Marina,64 Mise 2d 4, reversed. i.
t'
How-APPEAL by defendant from a resettled interlocutory judgment
is of no
'erker, 8 Of the Supreme Court at Special Term (BEaTnnnr HAR,rETT, J.),
lie facts dated April 1.1, 1971 and entered in Nassau County on April 15,
1971, after a uonjury trial of the issue of liability only, which
nterpre- adjudged that defendant is liable for the fair rental value of a
sere has i certain area. of foreshore and which directed an assessment of
simply + damages; except that, as limited by appellant's brief, the pro- _
>n gig en vision amending the title of the action is excluded from the
motion appeal.
� Cape, Schacher & Bradie (Charles B. Lapp, Jr., of counsel),
nrn�r, for appellant.
,eptem_ (:corqc C. Pratt, special counsel to Ilotvard B. Levitt, Townetition- _I ttorrtcr�,for respondents. ?_
26.1. 38 APPELLATE DIVISION REPORTS, 2d SERIES TN.OF HEMPSTEAD v. OCEANSIDE HARBOR [38 A D 2d 263] 265
Horr:rxs, Acting P. J. By colonial grants the plaintiffs are
the owners of the land under water adjacent to the upland owned of the public (Saunders v. New Pork Cent. & Hudson li:iv. R. R.
'
b
Co., 144 N. Y. 75, 87; Rumsey y. New York & New England
y the defendant, bordering East Rockaway Channel. On the
upland is a bulkhead from which ramps, rising and falling with R. R. Co., 133 N. Y. 79) or more khan one pier or clock (13arlres
the tide, are attached to floating docks. Mooring slips, also v. Midland R. R. Terse. Co., 218 N. Y. 91, 97-98). Moreover,
the right of access may be shared with others intent on cross-
known as fingers, extend from the floating docks and are rented
to the defendant's customers. ing the land under water for purposes unrelated to the use of
The plaintiffs sue to recover the reasonable rental value of the upland (Citi of New York v. ThirdAve. Ry. Co., 294 N. Y.
the use and occupation of their land under water by the defer- 238, 244). But the right of access cannot be expanded beyond
the purpose denoted by the term " access "—for example, the
dant in the operation of its business as a marina. The plain-
exercise of the right does not extend to purposes extrinsic to
tiffs' theory is that the defendant, through the construction of
the mooring slips, has ventured beyond the traditional riparian commerce and navigation, such as the operation of a restaurant
(
rights of an upland owner to such a degree as to trespass on the N.
of City of New York [Neptune & Enr11ro1rs �lves.J, 280
N. Y. 604), amusement parks (People v. Steeplechase Park Co.,
rights of the plaintiffs. The defendant in response claims that 218 N. Y. 459) or a plant for processing meat (Cite/ of lVeiv
the riparian rights include the installation of docks, floats and York v. Wilson& Co., 278 N. Y. 86). Nor may the richt be used
mooring slips above the plaintiffs' land under water, for which so that public navigation is impeded (Town of 13rookliavelc v.
Ise the defendant need not pap any compensation.
The Special Term, trying the case on the issue of liability Smith, 188 N. Y. 74, 87, supra).
w We must therefore look to the character and size of the
alone, found in favor of the plaintiffs and directed an assess- defendant's activities on the land under water to determine
ntent of damages. The opinion of Special Term held (64 Misc
2d 4, 9) that " the town may not charge for rents for its under- whether under the circumstances they represent a reasonable
water lands in the instance of clocks and floats which are pri- exercise of its right of access. The evidence as to those activi-
ties is substantiallyoperates a marina on its upland, and in con-
undisputed. Thus, it was stipulated that
marily for access from navigable waters to upland property, the defendant
but the town may charge the upland owner for use of the town's vection with that has nine floating docks which extend into East
underwater lands for clocks and floats and other installations
maintained there as distinct activities in their own right." We Rockaway Channel up to 100 feet, and that these docks are held
are unable to agree with the conclusion of the Special Term; in place or secured into place by piles which are driven into the
and we reverse the resettled interlocutory judgment, direct land under water " and that " in October 1961 the Department
dismissal of the amended and supplemental complaint, and grant of the Army issued a permit for the construction of 17 floats
* * * to extend up to 100 feet into the waters of East Rock-
judgment to the defendant upon its counterclaim.
away Channel." The marina provides repair service and gaso-
The defendant, as an upland owner, has a right of access to ..
and from the channel over the plaintiffs' foreshore (Town of line, as well as storage for boats during the winter. 1 he floating
Brookhaven v. Smith, 188 N. Y. 74) and that right follows the docks accommodate about 1:10 boats at moorin!; rental.
entire frontage of the defendant's property (Tiffany v. Town The Special Term found that the docks did not interfere with
of Oyster Bay, 234 N. Y. 15). The right of access comprehends public navigation; and, indeed in 1960, the plaintill's by 1.0-so-
the reasonable, safe and convenient use of the foreshore for lotion had authorized the installation of 16 docks by the dcfen-
navigation, fishing and such other purposes as commonly belong slant, declaring that the structures would not I'llrca,.otlal►ly
to the riparian owner, exercised in a reasonable manner (Tif- obstruct the plaintiffs' waterways.' Thus the plaintiffs have
fatly v. Torula of Oyster Bay, sitpra, p. 21). The scope of what 1. The permit issued under the re<olution rceited that it wn. c-ranted "upon
is a reasonable, safe and convenient use of the upland ou-ner s the condition that the a v lieanls enter into a lease with the Town of Hempstead
riparian rights has been gradually defined on a case-to-case for those lands lyin- underneath and adjacent to the aforesaid strurture+."
foundation. The lense was never executed. Iiowever, the plaintiffs in their brief di:rlaim
Thus, it is clear that the right includes the power to build a any reliance on the neceptance of the permit by the defendant as a ground for
pier, dock or-wharf for the upland owner's use or for the use
holding it to the pnyment of rent, 11 beenuse all parties desire to have the basic
ncinciiile nrl indicated."
266 38 APPELLATE DIVISION REPORTS, 2d SERIES BD.OF COOP.EDUC.SERV.v.GOLDIN [38 A D 2d 267] 267
acknowledged that the defendant's use of the foreshore by the ing that the defendant has the right to maintain the docks and
floating docks is not a menace to public navigation. piles in question.
The question is consequently narrowed to whether the extent SaAPIRo and•GuLoTTA, JJ., concur with HOPKINS, Acting P. J.;
of the defendant's use of its riparian rights and the rental of CHRIST and BENJAMIN, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm, on the
the mooring slips attached to the piles to members of the public opinion of the Special Term.
owning boats constitute an unreasonable exercise of dominion Resettled interlocutory judgment reversed insofar as
over the plaintiffs' underwater land. As has been frequently
said, the term " reasonable " is relative, taking on color and appealed from, on the law and the facts, with costs; amended
significance from the circumstances (cf. United Paper Bd. Co. v. and supplemental complaint dismissed; and defendant granted
Iroquois Pulp & Paper Co., 226 N. Y. 38, 45). In this case, judgment on its counterclaim, declaring that defendant has the
the plaintiffs introduced no evidence in the form of expert tes- right to maintain the docks and piles in question.
timony that the defendant's use was unreasonable. Essentially,
the plaintiffs contend that the defendant's use is unreasonable
because it maintains a commercial operation, in which the BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, SOLE SUPERVISORY
riparian right is sold to others. DISTRICT, NASSAU COUNTY, Respondent, v. D.tvn) GOLDIN et al.,
By itself, the erection of more than one dock is not unreason- Individually and as Representatives of a Class the Members
able, if they are necessary to the upland owner's enjoyment of of which are known as" Baldwin Citizens Action Committee
his riparian right of access (cf. Barnes v. Midland R. R. Terata. Appellants, et al., Defendants.
Co., 218 N. Y. 91, 97-98, supra). Nor do we find authority for Second Department, February 14, 1072.
> restricting the right of access to the personal use of the upland
Declaratory judgments—when threatened litigation would cause irreparable
w owner; the rule is otherwise, for the owner may lease his prop-
injury—special statutes, empowering town to lease unneeded park land to
'p erty and docks to third parties (City of New York v. Third Ave. Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOLES), and empowering said
Ry. Co., 294 N. Y. 238, 244-245; Bedlow v. New York floating BOCES to lease building to be constructed on said land, supersede general
Dry Dock Co., 112 N. Y. 263, 279-281; cf. Moyer v. State of New statutes empowering BOCES to rent buildings for only five years and requir-
York, 56 lllise 2d 549; Huguenot Yacht Club v. Lion, 43 Dlise ing voters' approval and public bidding—thus, town properly leased 16 acres
2d 141). of unneeded park land to BOCES; and latter, pursuant to court order, properly
engaged not-for-profit corporation to hire general contractor; and said con-
Ne cannot ,say on this record that the defendant overstepped tractor agreed to construct such building for said corporation and then to sell
the bounds Of reasonableness by renting the mooring slips to building to said corporation for$6,182,000—so-called citizens action committee
individual owners of boats, even though the number of boats is has hired attorneys to prevent construction of building; in this situation, bank
considerable. The policy of the State, since in early time in will not lend money and contractor can cancel contract and town can terminate
the history of our State, has beendirected toward CI1cOttr'aZ,illits lease and thus BOCES would be irreparably injured; accordingly, BOCES
, 0 was properly granted judgment declaring leases and agreements valid—on
the private development Of waterfronts, subject only to the defendants' motion to dismiss such complaint for declaratory judgment, plain-
condition that the use be reasonable and not obstructive of navi- tiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment was properly granted—
gation (Town of Brookhaven v. Smith, 188 N. Y. 74, 79-80, 97, BOCES is real party in interest—declaratory judgment will settle real, present
sti )ra If a different controversy and discourage litigation.
p ). policy is to be formulated at this time,
favoring the right of the foreshore owner to be compensated 1. The Board of Cooperative rduentimtnl Sen•ires of Nnssnu Comity (herein
when the riparian owner uses the right of access by operating called norF.$) operates a school for emotionally disturbed children. The school
a marina accommodating the mooring of a substantial number is inadequately housed in a warehouse. The Legislature, upon home rule rrquest,
authorized the Town of IIempstead in said county to lease unneeded park land
of small private boats, the change ought to be accomplished by to nocFs, with or without consideration (L. 1970, ch. 79S); and aceordin.-iy in
the Court of Appeals which established the policy. 1970 the town properly leased about. 16 acre:; of land in Raldwin Harbor Town
It follows that the resettled interlocutory judgment should Park to noms for five years with options in noeFs to renew the lease three times.
be reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, 2. In 1971 the Legislature (by L. 1071, ch. 1183) empowered nocFs "to lease
for n period not , town
of ten years a building to he constructed Baldwin
with costs, the amended and supplemental complaint dismissed,
and the defendant granted judgment on its counterclaim declar- harbor town park, town of Iicmpstrad for the purpose of providing educational
services for emotionally disturbed children." Thereupon. in a special procred-
PELLETREAU & PELLETREAU
PETER V SNYDER ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW ROBERT S PELLETREAU
JOHN J.HART 20 CHURCH STREET-BOX Ito (1891-1943)
JOHN J ROE.III RICHARD A SCHOENFELD
FREDERIC L.ATWOOD PATCHOGUE.NEW YORK 11772 (1950-1980)
J TIMOTHY SHEA
BRUCE T WALLACE TEL. 516 447-8900 ROBERT H.PELLETREAU
KEVIN A.SEAMAN
VANESSA M.SHEEHAN• FAX 516 475-5651 OF COUNSEL
BENJAMIN L.HERZWEIG
RUSSELL C.BURCHERI
DOUGLAS J.LEROSE 447-8906 ... Q V
DENNIS D.O'DOHERTY,JR. t., r' ` �•
*ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA
*ALSO ADMITTED IN NEW JERSEY
August 31, 1988 r ;n"l Scuff'"�
Town of Southold _
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Attention: James Schondebare, Esq.
RE: MARINA RAY CLUB NEW SUFFOLK, NEW YORK
Dear Jay:
On July 22, 1988 we forwarded to your office copies of
Supplements 1 and 2 of the DEIS on the Marina Bay Club.
In the cover letter which accompanied the Supplements , we asked
that you address David Emilita ' s request that you reply to
Response No. 13 of Supplement No. 2 regarding the rights of the
Riparian owner . (I enclose a copy of Emilita ' s June 24, 1988
memorandum to the Southold Planning Board in which this request
is found. )
Our client is presently trying to complete the FEIS and we
would appreciate your cooperation.
Thank you for your courtesies .
Very truly yours,
PE LE +TREAU & PELLETREAU
John J . Hart
JFH: jle
Enclosures
lU/60
A.35
{
c
RECEIVED BY
SOUTHOLD TO11.H FLNINING BOARD
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS & PLANNERS JUN 2 7 1988
DATE v.:i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Southold PlXiig
Board
FROM: David J.S. , Szeaptowski Associates, Inc.
RE: Marina Bay Club DEIS and Supplements 1 and 2
DATE: June 24, 1988
We have reciewed the documents cited above and make the
following recommendations to you:
1. The three documents taken together constitute a significant
amount of new information since the last public hearing of 9
Nov 87 on the DEIS alone.
2. Many questions remain unanswered to date. However they can
be addressed during a new public comment period. Our
questions are detailed below and are keyed to Supplement No.
2.
Response No. 7
First Street drainage is shown to be via catch basins at the
low spots. It appears however that when the catch basins are
full, runoff is intended to find its way to the 15" RCP drain
through tide gates to the docking areas. However- at the
southerly end of First Street, road grade elevations appear
to continue to drop. What frequency storm will be captured
by the catch basin system without overflowing to the Bay?
Will the road simply drain south and never enter the
southerly drain? Have the Highway Superintendent, Trustees
and other Town agencies approved of this concept? Who will
be responsible for maintaining this overflow system and the
tide gates?
A.36
23 Narragansett Ave. Jamestown, RI 02335 (401) 423-0430
Response No. 8
We repeat that no acknowledgement of Mr. Jacobs review
appears in the Supplement.
Response No. 9
The Planning Board will be the final arbiter of parking area
pavement specifications. The NYSDEC has no override over
local zoning requirements. Drainage calculations should thus
be based on an asphalt surface. Drainage calculations should
be produced to verify the conclusions reached. A 2" rainfall
may be a minimum requirement, however the Planning Board
would need assurance that greater than a minimum drainage
requirement could be met.
Response No. 10
Until the recommendations of the Health Department with
respect to the water supply and sewage treatment systems have
been received, the DEIS cannot mature to an FEIS. See the
SCDHS letter of 19 November 1987.
Response No. 12
The Consumer Information Sheets in connection with inorganic
arsenic and creosote treated wood on pages B 14-17 of the
Supplement to the DEIS state that, " (treated) wood should not
be used where it may core into direct or indirect contact
with public drinking water except for uses involving
incidental contact such as docks or bridges. " The well
screen intake for the water treatment system is shown to be
quite close, within a few feet, of proposed dockage. It is
not clear whether this is "incidental contact" in the context
of the information sheet. Input from the County Health
Department is necessary.
�
1
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS d PLANNERS
:� A.37 -
Response No. 13 and No. 14
The Town Attorney should be consulted to verify the claims of
riparian rights and extensions beyond same./X Referral to and
comment from the New York State Department of State's Coastal
Management Program is not reported in the DEIS and will need
to be addressed before the FEIS can be completed.
Response No. 16
The disposal site for the excess material is still not
discussed conclusively. This must be addressed so that the
Planning Board can assess the impact on the disposal site- and
properties adjacent to it.
3. In the interest of timeliness as expressed in Section17.3
of the SEQR Regulations, particularly with respect to review
by other involved agencies, we recommend that the Board
accept the DEIS together with Supplements 1 and 2 as
satisfactory with respect to scope, content and adequacy and
commence a new public comment period. Said public comment
period -should include a public hearing. We recommend that it
not be held until after all involved agency reports have been
submitted to the Planning Board. Following said public
comment period, it may then be possible to move to an FEIS.
SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMFNTAI CONSULTANTS R PLANNERS
A.38
TO: James A. Schondebare, Town Attorney
FROM: Robert H. Berntsson, Assistant Town Attorney
DATE: September 7, 1988:
REF: Letter of Terry Waters Property Owners Association
With regard to the above-referenced letter, you have -
inquired as to what are the rights to underground water. The law
in New York appears to allow a landowner the reasonable use of
the water under the land.
It appears that water under land is divided into two
classes, distinct underground streams and water which merely
seeps or percolates through the land beneath the surface. See
Real Property Service, New York, Section 4 : 5 ( 1987) ; New York
Jurisprudence, Waters §239 (1978) . Distinct underground streams
are governed by the same theory of law which applies to surface
water courses. I assume that in the case of Angel Shores we are
dealing with seeping or percolating waters as opposed to an
underground stream.
"The right to underground waters percolating through his or
her own and a neighbors land, which are a common source of supply
for both lands, belongs to both landowners. Each landowner is
limited to a reasonable and beneficial use of the water. " Real
Property Service, Supra.
Finally, it should be noted, "it is well established that
the owner of land has a right to the enjoyment of the land and to
the underground waters upon it, and he may, in order to obtain
that water, sink a well. " N.Y.Jur, Supra, Section 240.
Based on the foregoing, it appears that it would be a
question of whether the Angel Shores developmc,�It were making a
"reasonable" use on the subsurface water.
A.39
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
BOARD OF REVIEW
SUFFOLK COUNTY CENTER
RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OR WAIVER FROM REGULATIONS OR SPECIFICATIONS
TO: Chairman of the Review Board
I, We, Richard T. Carr , residing at/
350 Fifth Avenue Room 1826
doing business at (mailing address) New York, N.Y. 10118
request a variance [ x ] or waiver [—J from (indicate Article and Section Number)
Section 220 Article 2 , of the (cross one out) DCSuffolk
County Sanitary Code, and is in reference to (indicate Health Services Reference
Number, 'name of proposed realty subdivision/development and Suffolk County Tax
r
Map Number) 0600 Section 117, Block 8, Lot 18
This request is based on the following (brief explanation of why variance/waiver
should be granted) : A waiver of distances between enclosed tertiary sewage
treatment plan and nearby properties. 80' to SO.Prop.Line 150' to west side of First St. ,
90' to bulkhead of on-site Marina: Treatment plant will be enclosed within boat stor-
age building These compare with a proposed 150' distance to property line requirement
and an existing 300' to surface water r
Date in-14-88 Signature(s)
Print Name(s) Richard T. Carr, President
1. Type or print legibly.
2. Submit completed form to the address at top of application.
3. Regardless of any prior submission to the Bureau of Wastewater Management,
you must enclose with this application
a. copy of survey for residential construction, site plan for commercial
construction, or map of proposed realty subdivision/development; and
b. copies of all pertinent paperwork (i.e. , Notice of Non-Conformance/
letter of rejection; estimate of cost to extend public water; etc. ) .
4. DO NOT CALL THIS OFFICE. You will be notified in writing of the date,
time and place for the hearing.
5. The hearing will be scheduled as soon as possible; however, all hearing
schedules will be based on a first come-first served basis.
WWM-061 (Rev. 6/88) 18.1285..6/88 ,�TOM0.H JM p�yp E..WA
Ca."Ea ce.n..w.
A.40
oes�RrrEirt a nuan�•tevres
.r.r.v�
Ll N/N
t
� •CST
,wew a J•r
Q O
o wwei
O C/oeCJNf
SCREEN 'C'
wfwtt
fctiiv i'/ro vii o/
cc.varN3,J/L tJ, Jw.�A/IAou
J JC s N/+N f•r'
icy r.
envaJ�t w�oc. WELL'8"
GG — ---
•we(.�a<
f e •pp.
cc
f- \ /M Z Yc�eec/
S •� M
fw eNiNa
,CJ, p
wweu
AfN Z I✓N/T WOL/7
OOLJ J.LU.
O
O
MAIN 41 1 STREET 45 i b
\ �1
0 Le A7•ICATIdfM
MAJ ICNArfw ° `J °
C A CfACNAV�
�7, O �oOGJ
CD
o
1/1 MN `JD
C O
n. 175 ' s Ain L:MI �
TREATMENT FACILI IES 90. C .�ifci/'riT°c/a
° o
OOI47 SrOffAQC OG O, C.A,$OC/Nf i O/flfi
1 IO 000 6dif.t pOYSt1
co
C O �iif0
1
YYY °
LIAC S s /LKC wa erA7/ON
,OO D
° LCI „VQ OeL
PLAN i
j I 0
SCALE: 1'= 80'
�l MARINA BAY CLUB
NEW SUFFOLK, SOUTHOLD TOWN
SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 10/ 14/88
MNGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • �R
PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS • 5�RVEY�ORS
IH2AGROUP
A.41
APPENDIX B
Earthwork Calculations
and Cross Sections
Pre ared by H2M Group
400
mm GROW - OF-
HOLMCNER, MaLENDON & MURRELL *MET NO.
CALCULATED By • DATE
CHECKED BYDATE
#CALE
uA ut-AT
_T"
4
4
:44 -
_ `=Zero- A41V"44'
TA ------
c,,Yy
0 m". G fuel.I ol,
Fpom _S_rTc-cALx_ 'FiLA-
_5uew_TAL 760
cry
cy
"To P'so � T-h AT
AOR 70 c.,v
-rf 5-1 PI)
NOTE z it "Toptco.. vQ c A-%S;T W 4D
Tc- ip-c 71kJcv-Ero AWAY
mmuc N&I fN�Is_- imw rm ow. B.1
i ,Do kcyy)R cm a I A Li
N2M GROW MEET*0. OF
HOLMCNER, McLENWN & MURRELL
EVn"M M"cb CALCULATED Sr P, ST_ - DATE
M:m
SclontlM
OWCKIED SrDATE
SCALE
B C.A-V
4
ON
-jo
-r tq C ToT AL. sI Tr
JT>o 1000 x f Z K Z. -I/004 .cl
his K fAr W.01471 B.2
H2M GROUP 04EET NO OF
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL
Englneers, Architects CALCULATED BY DATE
Planners and Scientists
OMECKED BY DATE
SCALE
ya
ILV.,;j.LATZ Von. fn E' -.01= ir-i L.A. _7NA AT
A 4
4
1>
41 Z4
10 30
?-4
H A
L. E T-FEC I i V Ei--111Cf-
F" Fe f. "r
mc F, too'r 0r Y' (
1t RE Fore �&SAL -V? = 47.3,6 rl
��4�7, V I L L- f-WT N C Lb Eb
-ro I ri V Ru. A7 CnJ
OF 4fAck.*,-- G
pmr C for. E 47're r' RA;".-r 'IC
B.3
)OS
3
HOLZMACHER � � MURREII saEET NO. O
F
Engineers, Amr I�itf CALCULATED CY �+ ` DATE
Planners and Saihntists
CHECKED BY GATE
- SCALE
ITS ___ 3�RlQR„ -� - - JJ •L�+
A OL
a
40.E- JZOMFY
-1S 14 ---
z -
_ t
A5 ,' K x ►od X bS = 13O0o
ti •s� f49Z76-�
1 _ 1 loTR1.YflLvme ` I"Z7S i� = SSZ°j tr
Ic
TO $E TRJC E D OF r- -7k S%T C
,5
Row,W:�s"w_ *a.as 0141: B.4
i. _ .
REVISED MARINA BAY FILL AREA
DATE: 01-26-1968
TINE: 20:40:58
EARTHMORK VOLUMES
Bl CUT FILL CUT FILL SUM CUT SUM FILL MASS
STATION AREA AREA VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME ORDINATE
(SO.FT.) (SO.FT.) (CO.YD.) (CO.YD.) (CO.YD.1 (CD.YD.) (CD.YD.)
0.00 0 0
0 1225 0 1225 -1225
50.00 0 1323
0 2523 0 3741 -3747
100.00 0 1402
0 21b4 0 5911 -5911
150.00 0 935
4 13% 0 7308 -1308
200.00 0 573
0 14 0 7321 -7321
201.00 1 169
83 226 83 7547 -7464
249.00 87 85
2 lb BS 7563 -1478
250.00 0 764
0 1562 85 9125 -9040
300.00 0 923
0 1731 85 10856 -10771
350.00 0 946
0 1999 BS 12856 -12111
400.00 G 1213
0 2281 85 15137 -15052
450.00 0 1251
0 2508 85 17645 -17560
500.00 0 1458
0 810 BS 18455 -18370
530.00 G 0
B.5
REVISED MARINA BAY FILL ARE&
----------------------------
BATE: 01-26-1988
TINE: 20:41159
ORIGINAL SITE DATA HARDCOPY
= BASELINE OFFSET 1169 (F1)
- = MSELINE OFFSET LEFT (FT)
STATION 50.00 87ATION 100.00 STATION 150.00
STATION 0.00
ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION
A OFFSET---- ELEVATION ---------BL OFFSET - __-------------- ---------00 4.00 0.00 4.20
4.30 0.
0.00 2.40 0.00 4.30 50.00 4.70
50.00 4.10 50.00 3.90 50.00 4.70
� 100.00 4.40 100.00
100.00 3.90 100.00 f.so 420 150.00 4.60
.
150.00 4.80 150.00 4.00 150.00 4.70
200.00 3.40 200.00 4.00 200.00
200.00 3.60 255.00 3.00 255.00 1.50
220.00 2.00 235.00 2•�
STATION 200.00 STATION 201.00 + STATION 249.00 + STATION 250.00
Bl OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION
�� -- 0.00 4.62 0.00 5.68 0.00 5.70
0.00 4.60 50.00 5.20 50.00 5.20
50.00 5.20 50.00 5.20 300.00 5.59 100.00 5.60
100.00 5.00 100.00 5.01 5.34 150.00 5.40
150.00 5.00 150.00 5.01 150.00
5.40 200.00 5.40
200.00 5.20 200.00
200.00 5.20 200.00 5.20 200.00 5.40 250.00 4.80
250.00 1.50 280.00 4.50
250.00 1.57 250.00 4.13
250.60 1.56 279.40 4.44
STATION 300.00
STATION 350.00 STATION 400.00 STATION 450.00
BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION
---------- 0.00 3.90 0.00 4.50 0.00 4.40
0.00 5.10 S0.00 3.90 50.00 3.70
50.00 4.30 50.00 4.10 3.80 100.00 3.60
00
100.00 4.60 100. 4.30 100.00
150.00 4.30 150.00 4.50
150.00 5.00 150.00 5.00 s 20 200.00 5.20
200.00 5.30 200.00 5.00 200.00 5,06 2SC.OG 4.30
250.00
250.00 5.00 25G.00 b.40 275.00 5.00 270.00 4.40
280.00 5.00 2BO.00 4.50
B.6
STATIOk 500.00 STATION 530.00
BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION
6.00
4.6G 0.00 4.30
' 50.06 4.80
50.00 2.80 5.00
100.00 3.80 100.00
0.00
1.00 150.00 5.50
2 200.0 0 4.80
200.00 4.30 4.00
250.00 3.90 250.00
2b5.00
3.90 255.00 4.00
B.
REVISED MARINA BAY FILL AREA
----------------------------
BATE: 01-26-1968
TINE: 20:43:13
FINAL SITE DATA HARDCOPY
+ = BASELINE OFFSET RIGHT (FT)
- = BASELINE OFFSET LEFT (FT)
STATION 100.00 STATION 150.00
STATION 0.00 STATION BBL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION
• BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION ______�.----------
------------------------------
----------- 0 8.50 0.00 8.40
0.0
0.00 2.40 0.00 4.30 50.00 6.20
10.00 25.00 10.00 6.10
50.00 5.00 25.00 50.00 10.00 100.00
100.00 7.00 50.00 10.00 10.00 150.00 7.50
100.00 10.04 100.00 200.00 7.50
150.00 8.50 150.00 10.00
150.00 10.00 9.00 255.00 8.50
9.00
200.00 8.50 200,00 200.00
220.00 8.50 B. 250.00 8.60
235.00 255.00 8.50
STATION 249.00 STATION 250.00
STATION 200.00 STATION 201.00 BL OFFSET ELEVATION
BL OFFSET ELEVATION
ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION
BlOFFSET -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
4.b0 0.00 8.00
8.30 0.00 4.60 0.00 5.20 50.00 7•"
0.00 50.00 7.50 50.00 5.20 100.00 5.00 100.00 7.90
7.00 100.00 5.00 5.00 150.00 10.00
100.00 150.00 5.00 150.00
150.00 6.00 200.00 5.00 200.00 6.00
200.00 b.00 200.00 5.00 250.00 2.50 250.00 8.20
250-00
8.50 250.00 6.50 280.00 6.50
STATION 400.00 STATION 450.00
STATION 300.00 STATION 350.00 _-____
ELEVATION 8L OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVA N
BL OFFSET ---------------
--------------
-----------------------
-------------------
8.50 0.00 9.00
0.00 8.00 0.00 8.50 50.00 8.50 50.00 9.00
50.00 8.00 50.00 8.40 100.00 8.50 100.00 6.50
100.00 1.60 B.SC
100.00 8.10 150.00 150.00 8.00
150.00 10.00 150.00 8.00 8.50 200.00 6.50
200.00 6.10 200.00 210.00 10.00
200.00 7.00 8.30 220.00 10.00
254.00 8.20 250.40
B.8
280.00 6.50 2::.00
F !o 275.00 10.00 270.00 10.00
STATION 500.00 STATION 530.00
BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSETELEVATION
0.00 4.60 0.00 4.30
15.00 10.00 50.00 7.00
60.00 10.00 100.00 8.50
100.00 8.40 150.00 8.50
150.00 6.40 200.00 10.00
200.00 10.00 255.00 10.00
265.00 10.00
B.9
l5 15 '
15
14
to 10
' 5
5 '
0
4 124 144 164 184 244 ' 4 240
24 44 64 84 14
- 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
1 NORZ GRID UNIT - �� FT
� CUT -
0 SF FILL = 1323 SF
STATION = 58
15
10
10
5
4
r
4b
g 114 164 to 244
1 HORZ BRIO
UNIT = 48 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
AUT - 8 SF
FILL-: 1485 SF
STATION = 188,88
to '
0
b
N
120 160 20024
40 $
1 H4RZ GRID UNIT �8
- FT 1 VERT RIR UNIT = 5 FT
-
CUT _ N SF FILL = 935 SF
STATION = 159,88
. r r
14 r r r r r -14
5 ,
nnn..... u'rrr.rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr
�r'u
rr
'n
r ' '
24 44 64 84 144 124 144 164 180 244 274 244
1 HORZ GRID UNIT = 38 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = 8 SF FILL = 573 SF
STRT I ON = 288,88
, 1 1
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1
10 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 110
5 -
' 5
/1,
11
11,
11,
111
11
,••11
•11
0 1 1 1 10
20 40 60 84 100 120 144 160 184 240 224 240
I
HORZ GRID UNI T = 28 FT i VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = ? SF FILL = 169 SF
STATION = 281,88
� r
,to
...... .../rr/1r./........rr/...I.I...r./r/.....1/r..r
nnunu...nn... . un/nlu 11 ulln nrn nl.n nrr/l/. n,,,,,,y'.nurn r..�./.�� •
.nlurnrL n n.
0 1 1 ' ' 1 1
20 40 60 80 144 124 140 160 180 244 224 244
I N4RZ GRID UNIT = 28 FT 1 VERT ARID UNIT = 5 FT
GUT = 87 SF FILL = 85 SF
STRTI4N = 249.0
Ft5 . 15
10 14
5 5
4
44 86 1j4 l64 244 244
1 H ORZ GRID UNIT = 48 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = 8 SF FILL = ?b4 SF
STATION = 259.88
t515
F14 to
tz 4
� 44
84 1!4 t64 744 244
1 HORZ GRID UNIT = 48 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = 8 SF FILL = 764 SF
STATION = 259,98
1515
5
to
,
• � 14
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .. ...... ....7.....
5 ,,11,11 , • ,,,1,,,,,,,,,1 5
co 0 ,
0
t 4b 84
1i4 14 to 244
I HORZ GRID UNIT = 48 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT - N
SF FILL = 933 SF
STATION = 3M,M
14 14
V
44 84 124 164 244 244
I HORZ GRID UNIT = 48 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = 8 SF FILL = 96 SF
STATION = 358,88
15 15
14 14
.............
......
N ,
O
44 84 114 to 244 244
I HORZ GRID UNIT = 48 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = 8 SF FILL = 1213 SF
STATION = 488.88
15 i5
10 to
5 .............r,..,.,,,.. 5
bC
0
4b 84 114 164 244 244
1 HORZ GRID UNIT = 48 FT i VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = I SF FILL = 1551 SF
STATION = 458,N
AT THE TONE, , , PRESS SHIFT PrntSc
15 15
14 -- 14
� 5
.
N
to
N
0
� 44 84
110 164 2( 0 244
1 HORZ GRID UNIT = 48 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
AUT = 8 SF FILL = 1458 SF
STATION = 588,88
REVISED MARINA BAY DREDGED AREA
DATE: 01-27-1988 /�'V' K C&&7V,47-/0nl 71e,as AIL 4,J
TINE: 14:47:59 d f' fitPbt7 d I
EARINNORK VOLUMES
K CUT FILL CUT FILL SUN CUT SUN FILL NASS
STATION AREA AREA VOLINIE VOLK VOLK VO U)EORDINATE
(SIX.) (SI.FT.) (t1.YD.) NMI.) (CI.Yo.) (CI.Y/.J NIX.)
0.00 0 0
227 0 227 0 227
8.00 1536 0
2428 0 2655 0 2655
50.00 1586 0
2566 0 5222 0 5222
100.00 1186 0
2846 0 8068 0 6068
150.00 1689 0
4058 0 12126 0 12126
200.00 2494 G
5595 0 17721 0 17721
250.00 3548 G
4065 0 21786 0 21786
300.00 842 0
1438 0 23225 0 23225
350.00 112 0
1614 0 24838 0 24838
400.00 1031 G
2240 0 21078 0 27078
450.00 1388 0
2834 0 29911 C 29911
SOU.00 167 0
310 0 30221 0 30221
510.00 0 0
B.23
REVISED MARINA BAY DREDGED AREA
--------------------------------
DATE: 01-27-1988
TIME: 14:49:26
ORIGINAL SITE DATA HARDCOPY
+ = BASELINE OFFSET RISHT (FT)
= BASELINE OFFSET LEFT (FT)
STATION 0.00 STATION 8.00 STATION 50.00 STATION 100.00
Bl OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION Bl OFFSET ELEVATION --------- BL OFFSETELEVATION
IL
220.00 1.00 220.00 0.00 235.00 2.90 265.00 0.00
250.00 -1.00 250.00 -1.00 250.00 0.50
0 -2.OG 350.OD -4 00
300.00 -2.20 300.00 -`'00 300.0
350.00 -3.40 400.00 -7.00
350.00 -4.00 350.00 -4.00
400.00 -6.00 400.00 4.00 400.00 -5.50 450.00 -B.10
450.00 -8.00 450.00 -8.00 450.00 -7.40 500.00 -8.50
500.00 -9.50 500.00 -9.50 475.00 -6.00 550.00 -9.00
525.00 -10.00 550.00 -10.00 X0.00 -8.90 00 600.00 -10.00
550.00 -10.50 600.00 -10.75
STATION 150.00 STATION 200.00
STATION 250.00 STATION 300.00
BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVA'iDN BL OFFSET ELEVATION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'65.00 1.00 285.00 6.00 285.00 5.90
265.00 1.00 300.0c, 5.90
300.00 0.00 300.00 G.SU 300.00 6.00 350.00 -8.00
351.00 -1.80 350.00 .,.5C
350.00 -�•8f' 400.00 -4.00
400.00 -5.30 400.00 -4.20 400.00 6 450.00 -8.90
450.00 -730450.00 -6.60 450.00 3.OC'
500.00 -0. 60 500.00 6.00 SOO.OU 2 0G 500.0c, -10.00
515.00 6.00 520.00 6.00 570.00 -10.00
530.00 6.00 550.00 -9.00
550.00 -10.00 570.00 -10.00
STATION 350.00 STATION 400.00
STATION 450.00 STATION 500.00
BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION - BL OFFSET ELEVATION
280.00 -7.20 210.00 -7.50 265.00 -7.00
225.00 -6.80 300.00 -6.00
300.00 -7.00 300.00 -7.20 300.00 1.50
B.24
350.00 -1.00 350.00 7.70 35.'.00 -7.:5 350.06 -5.00
400.00 -7.00 400.00 -6.60 400.00 -b.5: 400.00 -6.00
450.00 -1.20 450.00 -7.00 450.00 -7.OG 450.00 -6.00
500.00 -7.00 500.00 -5.00 5(,11..00 -+.50 500.00 -5.00
550.OG -10.00 550.00 -7.00 550.00 -6.50 550.00 -6.00
600.OC. -9.00 600.00 -7.00 600.00 -7.00
650.00 -10. 00 650.00 -7.60 650.00 -7.50
700.00 -9.00 700.00 -8.50
750.00 -10.00 750.00 -10.00
STATION 510.00
8L OFFSET ELEVATION
265.00 -5.00
300.00 -7.00
350.00 -5.75
400.00 -4.90
450.00 -3.50
500.00 -4.80
550.00 -6.00
600.00 -7.20
650.00 -7.50
700.00 -8.50
750.00 -9.40
B.25
REVISED MARINA BAY DREDGED AREA
--------------------------------
DATE: 01-27-1988
TINE: 14:50:42
FINAL SITE DATA HARDCOPY
+ = BASELINE OFFSET RIBNT (FT)
- = BASELINE OFFSET LEFT (FT)
STATION 0.00 STATION 8.00 STATION 50.00 STATION 100.00
BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION
220.00 1.00 220.00 -10.00 235.00 -10.00 265.00 -10.00
250.00 -1.00 450.00 -10.00 475.00 -10.00 600.00 -10.00
300.00 -2.20 550.00 -10.00 550.00 -10.00
350.00 -4.00
400.00 -6.00
450.00 -6.00
500.00 -9.50
525.00 -10.00
550.00 -10.50
STATION 150.00 STATION 200.00 STATION 250.00 STATION 300.00
BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
265.00 -10.00 265.00 -10.00 285.00 -10.00 285.00 -10.00
550.00 -10.00 570.00 -10.00 570.00 -10.00 500.00 -10.00
STATION 350.00 STATION 400.00 STATION 450.00 STATION 500.00
El OFFSET ELEVATIDN BL OffSET ELEVATION Bl OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
285.00 -10.00 280.00 -10.00 270.00 -10.00 265.00 -10.00
550.00 -10.00 650.00 -10.00 750.00 -10.00 750.00 -10.00
STATION 510.00
BL OFFSET ELEVATION
----------------------
265.00 -5.00
B.26
300.00 -7.00
350.00 -5.75
400.00 -4.90
450.00 -3.50
500.00 -4.80
550.00 -6.00
600.00 -7.20
650.00 -7.50
700.00 -B.50
750.00 -9.40
B.27
5, 5
4
.„o
to still
co i4 14
54 1
154 X44 254 344 354 444 454 544 554
1 HORZ GRID UNIT = 58 FT i VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = 1536 SF FI LL = 8 SF
STATION = 81 m
14 14
5, 5
4 '
5, .5
N
14 -1Q..
D
54 144 154 244 254 344 354 444 454 544 554
1 HORZ GRID UNIT = 58 FT i VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT -: 1586 SF FILL = e SF
STATION = 59,H
4 4
5
to
W 14 o '
� 54 144
154 244 X54 344 354 444 454 544 554 644
1 HORZ GRID UNIT = 58 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = 1186 SF FILL = 8 SF miiiii
STATION = 188,88
F,O1 1 1 1 1 1 10 -
1..1.• 5
�
,
5 1
1 1 1 . , 1.....11..1, 4
.11,1 1
5. 1 1 ,11'1111,, 1 1 1 1
5
111111, ,
11,1,,.1.11111..111.1;
w
14
r 1C . . . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 • -15
` ti
54 144 154 244 254 344 354 444 454 544 554
1 HORZ GRID UNIT = 50 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = 1889 SF FILL = 8 SF
STATION = 158,N
1 1 14
5 .
.
.,
14 .
-14
w
N
15 - .
54 144 154 244 254 344 354 444 454 544 554
I
H4RZ GRIL UNIT = 58 FT i VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT :----2494 SF FILL = 8 SF
STAT I4N = X88,88
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14 1 1 1 1 14
5, .....1...1,1 1 5
1..1.,.1...... 111 I
1111
I11
11.11.11.11
/.1111
/
44
1
1
1 5
51
/
/1
14 / -10
w 1 I 1 1 1 -
15 15
54 144 M 244 254 344 354 400 454 544 554
1 HORZ GRID UNIT = 58 FT 1 UERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = 3548 SF FILL = 8 SF
STATION = 358,88
10 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 114
11111
. L
1
\
4 , 4
1 1 , I 1 , �1 1 . I 1 I
11
1
5 5
1 I , 1 . 1 I I 1 • . . . , ,-
1
.,.11....................11.
w
15 1 1 1 915
44 84 124 164 244 244 284 324 364 444 444 484
1 N4RZ GRID UNIT = 48 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = 842 SF FILL = 8 SF
STATION = 388.88
-5
11111/1111111,/tI1�Il11tt lots*is 19 I title 1t1111s1•,11,11/1111,11111
11
11
1t
01
1
is -14
to
za
Ln
1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 / ,
15 -15
54 140 154 244 250 304 354 404 454 540 554
1 HORZ GRID UNIT = 58 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = ?12 SF FILL = 8 SF
STATION = 358.88
0 low
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
55
11 /
,1111 1111
I
111111111111111/1111111/ 111
1111 X111/11111111111111 1111
ISI/
11/11• 10
11/11
14 1 1
'
i5 1 � -15
1 1 1
144 244 344 444 544 644 1
1 HORZ GRID UNIT = 188 FT i VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = 1831 SF FILL = R SF
STATION = 488,88
OF
5 5
I
,
to
14
1
• -15
5
� 144
244 344 444 544 644 744
I HORZ GRID UNIT = 188 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
AUT = 1388 SF FILL = 8 SF ®®
STATION = 458,88
07 , 4 1
-5
14 ,
W
w 15
144 244 344 444 544 644 744
1 HORZ GRID UNIT = 188 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
GUT = 16?3 SF FILL = 8 SF
STRT I ON = 588.88
4
5 '
14 -14
-15
15
w '
144 244 344 444 544 644 744
1 NORZ GRID UNIT = 188 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = 8 SF FILL = 8 SF
STRTI4N = 518,88
REVISED MARINA BAY DREDGED AREA
/ATE: 01-26-1988
TIME: 21:44:59
EARTNNM VMW
K CUT FILL CUT FILL SUI CUT SISI FILL No
STATIN AREA AREA VOLUE vmK MORE V01.1AE SPINATE
(M.FT.) (SI.FT.) (CLYI.) (CLYI.) (CLYI.) (Cl.".) (CLYI.)
0.00 0 0 145
148 4 148 4
8.00 1000 25
1584 23 1732 27 1105
50.00 1036 5 32 3757
2057 5 3184
100.00 1186 06604
2646 0 6635 32
150.00 1889 0
4058 0 10694 32 10662
200.00 2494 0
5545 0 16289 32 16251
250.00 3546 0
4065 0 20354 32 20322
300.00 842 0
1438 0 21792 32 21760
350.00 712 0
1614 0 23406 32 23374
400.00 1031 025614
2240 0 25645 32
450.00 1388 0
2634 0 28474 32 28441
500.00 t673 0
310 0 28189 32 28757
510.OU 0 0
B.40
REVISEI MARINA BAY DREDGED AREA
--------------------------------
DATE: 01-26-19BB
TINE: 21:45:52
ORIGINAL SITE DATA HARDCOPY
+ = MINE OFFSET RIGHT (FT)
- = BASELINE OFFSET LEFT (FT)
STATION 0.00 STATIN 8.00 STATION 50.00 STATION 100.00
BL OFFSET ELEVATION Bl OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION --M�w BL OFFSET--- ELEVATION
220.00 1.00 220.00 0.00 235.00 2.90 265.00 0.00
250,00 -1.00 250.00 -1.00 250.00 0.50 300.00 -2.00
300.00 -2,20 300.00 i.00 300.00 -2.00 350.00 -4.00
400.00 -7.00350.00 -4.00 350.00 -4.00 350.00 -3.40 450.00 -8.10
400,00 -6.00 400.00 -6.00 400.00 -5.50
450.00 -8.00 450.00 -8.00 450.00 -7.40 500.00 -B.SO
475.00 -8.00 550.00 -9.00
500.00 -9.50 500.00 -9.50
525.00 -10.00 550.00 -10.00 550.00 -10.00 b00.00 -10.00
550,00 -10.50
600.00 -10.75
STATION 150.00 STATION 200.00
STATION 250.00 STATION 300.00
BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION - BL OFFSET---- -
FFSET----- ELEVATIO
265.00 1.00 265.00 1.00 285.00 6.00 285.00 5.9(
300.00 0.00 300.00 0.50 300.OU 6.00 300.00 5.9(
350.00 -2.80 350.00 -1.80 350.00 5.50 350.00 -8.0(
400.00 -5.30 400.00 -4.20 400.00 6.25 450.00 -8.9(
450.00 -7.80 450.00 -6.60 450.00 3.00
500.00 -8.60
500.00 6.00 500.00 2.00 500.00 -10.01
c 6.00 550.00 -8.00
..rC
00
530.00 6.00 550.00 -9.00 570.00 -10.
550.00 -10.00 570.00 -10.00
STATION 350.00 STATION 400.00 STATION 450.00
STATION 500.00
BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION -- -- BL-OFFSET
y--rELEVATI
280.00 -7.20 270.00 -7.50 265.00 -7.(
2125.00 -6.80 300.00 -6.0
300.00 -7.00 300.00 -7.20 300.00 -7.50
B.41
-7.30 350.00 -7.10 350.00
-r.M%
350.00 -1.00 350.00
400.00 -7.00 400.00 -6.60 400.00 -6.30 400.00 450.00 -6.00
450.00 -7.20 450.00 -7.00 450.00 -7.00
500.00 -7.00 500.00 -5.00 500.00 -4.50 500.00 -5.00
-6.50 550.00
550.00 -10.00 550.00 '1.00 60.00 -700 600.00 -7.00
.
600.00 -9.00 -7.50
650.00 -10•00 700.00 -9.00 700.00 650.00 -8.50
150.00 -10.00 750.00 -10.00
STATION 510.00
BL OFFSET ELEVATION
265.00 -5.00
300.00 -7.00
350.00 -5•ro
400.00 -4.90
450.00 -3.50
500.00 -4.80
550.00 -6.00
600.00 -7.20
650.00 -7.50
700.00 -6.50
750.00 -9.40
B.42
REVISED MARINA BAY DREDGED AREA
--------------------------------
DATE: 01-26-1988
TINE: 21:47:06
FINAL SITE DATA HARDCOPY
+ = BASELINE OFFSET RIGHT (FT)
= BASELINE OFFSET LEFT (FT)
STATION 0.00 STATION 8.00 STATION 50.00 STATION 100.00
BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATI01
220.00 1.00 220.00 -8.00 235.00 -8.00 265.00 -10.00
250.00 -1.00 450.00 -6.00 475.00 -8.00 600.00 -10.00
300.00 -2.10 550.00 -10.00 550.00 -10.00
350.00 -4.00
400.00 -6.00
450.00 -6.00
500.00 -9.50
525.00 -10.00
550.00 -10.50
STATION 150.00 STATION 200.00 STATION 250.00 STATION 300.00
BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATIOI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
265.00 -10.00 265.00 -10.00 285.00 -10.00 185.00 -10.00
550.00 -10.00 570.00 -10.00 570.00 -10.00 500.00 -10.00
STATION 350.00 STATION 400.00 STATION 450.00 STATION 500.00
BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATION BL OFFSET ELEVATIO)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
285.00 -10.00 280.00 -10.00 270.00 -10.00 265.00 -10.00
550.00 -10.00 650.00 -10.00 750.00 -10.00 750.00 -10.00
STATION 510.00
BL OFFSET ELEVATION
-------------------------
165.00 -5.00
B.43
30C.00 -7.00
350.00 -5.75
400.00 -4.90
450.00 -3.50
500.00 -4.60
550.00 -6.00
600.00 -7.20
650.00 -7.50
700.00 -6.50
750.00 -9.40
B.44
�.
4
14 -14
Ln
54 144 154 204 254 344 354 444 454 544 554
MML
1 HORZ GRID UNIT = 58 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = 1888 SF FILL = 25 SF
STATION = 8, 88
la
5 14
5, 5
0
0
14
10
50 140 154 240 250 344 354 444 450 504 554
1 HORZ &RI b UNIT = 58 FT i VERT GRID UNIT 5 FT
CUT = 1836 SF FILL = 5 SF
STATION = 58.88
1 1 1 \ 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1
41 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 I I I I
II
11
11
1111
111
111
11111
I�
11
1 �
1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1
1• 111
11
11
11111111
11111
111/11111\
111111111111
. 1111•
1111
14 11111111 -1
I I I 1 I
54 144 154 244 X54 344 354 444 454 544 554 644
1 HA GRID UNIT = 58 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = 1186 SF FILL = 8 SF
STATION = 1N,88
1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I
1■ , 1 1 1 , . 1 , , 1 1 I 1
1111:
51 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I . . , 1
1
4111," 4
111
'1111
,1,111
1111 I
1•,,11.111111111.11,,;
10 1 1 I -10
15 -15
54 144 154 244 254 344 354 444 454 544 554
1 HORZ GRID UNIT = 58 FT i VERT GRID UNIT = S FT
CUT = 1889 SF FILL = 8 SF
STATION = 158.88
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
1111.11 '5
5-
01.10.
}. 1.11.1 1 ' '
r.11 . / 1 1 . I
.1„11 ,
/../ 1 1
..„I I
/1 1
„/1 1 .
"1111
I
1„ •14
L\rf
-15
15
I
54 144 154 244 254 344 354 444 454 544 554
1 HORZ GRID UNIT = 58 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = 2494 SF FILL = l--SF
STATION = 2m.N
1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
5' 1 1.111111111
..1.I....11 t•1.1
1,..11.... .
. �1• 1 . . .
11,1
.......11,1
.11111
0 '
11
1
1
1
15- 5
11
1
la
-14
1 I 1
0
15 1 1 -15
50 140 154 240 250 300 354 444 454 544 554
1 HORZ GRID UNIT = 58 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
AUT = 3548 SF FILL = 8 SF
STATION = 858,88
1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 114
4
r
1
1
4. .I 4
11
r
5 I 5
1 . 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 .�
'� L
r
nnnnl
.nn
1114 -110
15 I 1 r r r 1 1 ,15
44 84 124 164 244 244 284 324 364 444 444 484
1 NORZ ORIO UNIT = 48 FT i VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT - 843 SF FILL = 8 SF
STATION = 388.88
-5
14 -14
15 -15
54 144 154 244 254 344 354 444 454 544 554
I
HORZ GRID UNIT = 58 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
AUT = 713 SF FILL = 8 SF
STATION = 358.88
4 # 4
5 -5
14
"' -14
-15 W .
144 244 344 444 544 644
I HORZ GRID UNIT = 188 FT i UERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
GUT = 1831 SF FILL = 8 SF
STATION = 488.88
n
5 -5
14
ix
-15
15
1
144 244 344 444 544 644 744
1 HORZ GRID UNIT = M FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = 1388 SF FILL = 8 SF ®�
STATION = 458,M
0 1 1 4
5 -5
1 1
1,1 111
11111111111.11111 111, 1111111111
I• 11111111
1.111111 11111•
1111111111111 11111
111
111,1111111 -14
i4 1 '
-15
15
144 244 344 444 544 644 744
1 HORZ GRID UNIT = 188 FT 1 VERT GRID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = 1388 SF FILL = 8 SF
STATION = 458,88
C '
14
1 '
-15
5
144 244 344 - 444 544 644 760
I - I - II - I I h I I
1 N4RZ GRID UNIT = IN FT 1 VERT ARID UNIT = 5 FT
CUT = 1b73 SF FILL = I SF
STRTI4N = 58�.e8
N07E f/!/E FOOT SCREEN GENGTyS �✓/LC PERM/T /n/STi1GG AT/O.v > I yc~> y f$� ° \ 9 •• •i� �E/
/?EMOVI"(5 ORr MATER/AL US/NG SHEET/AIG BOX W/T�/ °SUCT/ON V,4
x PUMP OE}t/ATER/NG W/Ty {t/Ae- FO/NTS -JA/0 <STiQNOARO EXCf1✓AT/OAJ F/NAL GROUND 0 `` ��• �'� '•
AS A A L TERNA T/VZ. �SUR�ACE EL• f 9.O t I I ...uw r r,•1 .o r.c.ii prn wz ' `' s - T2T18
p>cfse u,..•r •'�• �•• ;' ': `.` all +o !�
T.S^75�.-r --77 q ' - MATfr>lON7 fLfCT,rK f ? •• �1ZQ�,• > PD •Ne•C
r CA•~'.+f>C i+9uu7ATi6Kf '♦ ♦ • •e r ••\\. •�•• T AVE
' h•Miu
Cutchogue
T. GROUNp - � e - �;o ,
\ SURFACE EG. ,�6.0 - x _l :�..+ p•(•' )33 7 C.
;
r _ ♦�.vtq�+wvo -•n2 \1 — iX - ••/Ovrv,..Gf °�•?' N •• •I•
utebo e~ u '• o
CCEAA/. 8ACKFYG4
. MATER/AL •••P.vc nr>cr,.uu, � - �� •\•\'• � r o 9 =^•�Rq/water �
- • / f0 �'
p S.WL. �; . . M32. •• �• "
Q -- •. ., �`. •• \� � �� C,
•' � •Cutrhue . + P e F h A
Cutchogueo
t
-1L7-,-)q SAA/0 IWELL GRA✓E�) o�•• i• .,��* ,�\ 5 Harbor "s
° ••` North Fork "' ° �s Hari we
N' 2 MDR/E EX/ST WATER 5 20 4( ly� Country CI \, y Marsh a Z
6URr4CE <MEAA/ M ;p'lf � �g •a Pt Cove �,M
e 0 W WATER-0"W.S•L) G"� SUBMERC/BCE �/n " - 'o
•3/lo c4.S• -+r ,1;0 _' I a +_
30 ?ZOT +JOHNSON — +•
-7.
-� LITTLE PECONIC BAY -
F b North Fork -' IF Cutchogue Harbor
EG• -5 M.S.L. Coun� Club la s
a
r
i ill _
G"¢ WELL CAS/NG • '��
LOA/(9) to
W!i O °
C9 M/ M/N• sO @W Old Cove
S a N
acht Club MARINA BAY CLUB
SECTION TROUGH HORIZONTAL A SCREENS /°
"- •t. ",:
Sur!
(NO SCALE) ..- • _ .._ ' Y
•• owl S• • _`" • AVE
'•• - 51 /9
� .•.. ,, • • e lAtKSOM
Kim6gener �=
as Pt
1 • /8 2
•
a S
KING . STREET </o' LONG) 2
~ a 0 U T H 0 D
� WEGL SCREEN a3 L 13
- - - 73
13
1
LOCATION MAP
} SCALE: 1" = 2000'
G E CH/
�O S
aFC/1- IN SECTION THROUGH
I
fiF�P
WELL SUPPLY (SALTY)
"0,- 2 STY.
(NO SCALE)
F/CC TERED R. O.
i FF. /o.00 REJECT !✓ATE',Q
Q O
TO WATER
O/STR/BUT/O Al,
Y \\ PROP JA7-6-4.1 � AOD/T/OA/AL _ yt-F�OM �
' `--� REF. /0' oNT NJE'CTipN PO/NT '�
HYDRO RAW W14 TER G//V 6-S FRO A4 / R STAURA T
111' p LEACH/A/G TANKWELDS SCReelv''
_ I•' POOLS T/4EATME�I/7' - B 1� P. V.C•
5D /'4/MP•4 L'S) / SAN. SEWER
4 — TREATED CAL/ST/C,
FRESH HYPOC/,'lOR/TTRAT/ON
WATER OESCftGER UA/!T•S. Z"0
70 ,0/FFC/V5'ERs
r
' SCREEN "C' M/
GREASE , �R/MARY O O �UM�SO�
Z'30' .5 ECT/ONES OF CLA/RF/E/PS O
EQUAZ
L/ f1 T/ON t
<STORA G E
L�NGTHS¢3!� TANK
,
ss
3D •.SCO T W/TH 2
GATE YAG✓ES �` BOTCE r 1
AND ¢
I BENos As REo'o. WELL OB" FLOAT. PGA T.
PRE3 S URE
AERATOR
-ALC/TE `WASTEWATER TREATMENT
F/C TERS n�.c.C. R O O CJI
G Ff WELLv '�` h DEN/TE CCt•AR- -'o WASTEWATER
W RUMP `GRADE F/LTER WEGL - EFFLUENT LEACh'
5�i \ J R.B.D. �ooc s
't' r
W 4 EACH/
I— W A" � FOoL STORAGE ENG/A/E C4-AT L
o
o yp 4 TANK /+�/ERS AERoB/C
EgcHilvc \�✓ ��e v WATER SUPPLY ` a/GESTE,e
�' Poops Pps� 0� °a►- w� h o TREATMENT -ROOM
O V
LEACH/ G � M.C.C.
s SA V. 40
M.H, IIJ
O 0
' -MAIN ;,STREET
so' so'
\ FLOOR PLAN OF TREATMENT FACILITIES
FLOAT, PLATFORM
WASTEWATER ° - � SCALE: 1 " = 10'
C EACH/NG
\ �aoos C UT C.H O G U E
o LEPOO/•s
G O O O HARBOR
2
N O
----.- 7---.P o ;�\�. O �P R
k —
O !O D/FFU.SERS @
C/)
W T N
0 ED 7. @'
11 0
i-� :�r+PL+u. s� FLOAT/�!G PLATED M
(�O J� �..��• ��5 Designed 8y. Project No:
Z'� P.Y. �/,,Z"oP�C. �, �P�C• 3,�'�P��• scM wsTw 86-02 MARINE ASSOCIATES INC.
Drawn JAM G rawiP No:M
I oECfC Z
TREATMENT FACILITIES f/GTERED R.O S Checked By. scale:
I REJECT Wfl TE'R w
PROP. BOAT sTORiiGE BG DG RevSlewe^� . DateP AS SHOWN MARIA BAY CLUE
FF. lo.00 ' Lf," JUNE 1988 ` �+
o � t ' r
AUG. 29, 1988iSIGENERAL REV. NEW SUF OLK, SOUTHOLD ToWr\l
o SEPT. 12,1988 1#
"
O GEAC FUEL/A/G sT�T SUFFOLK COUNTY, KIEW YORK
SEA O /P/G PoaL
516-756-8000 C7
7-
516-727-348o ElPLAN ' ;` ;'y =. 201-575-5400 11
,GROUP
SCALE. 1 " = 40
e
".o: Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C.
N f _ CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS - SCIENTISTS SURVEYORS
MELVILLE, N.Y. RIVERHEAD, N.Y. FAIRFIELD, N.J.
i n t, iv .. t :". ,,
M Sheet
N , „ • , rt,R s..• WATER AND WASTEWATER PLAN
Ab°�? �:' Sheet Title:
-ALTERATiDN"OF TWS 1506'WENT,EXCEPT BY A 10F
UCENSED PROFESSIONAL•IS JLLECAL- \J
Z
Z •
C