Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSouthport Development 1986 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK AUGUST 1986 1 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS COVER SHEET FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK PROJECT LOCATION: Southold Suffolk County New York APPLICANT: Southport Development Corp. P.O. Box 616 Southold, New York 11971 LEAD AGENCY & CONTACT: Town of Southold Town Board 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Judith Terry (516 ) 765-1801 PREPARER: Henderson and Bodwell Consulting Engineers 120 Express Street Plainview, New York 11803 Steven L. Samet, P.E. (516 ) 935-8870 DATE OF PREPARATION: August, 1986 AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT: This document represents a Final Enviromental Impact Statement (FEIS) . Copies are available for public review and comment at the office of the Lead Agency. Comments on the Final EIS should be submitted to the Lead Agency listed above by to be included in the public record. 11 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS A combination of this document and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the applicant by the Land Use Company, N. Country Road, P.O. Box 361, Wading River, New York 11792, dated September 26, 1985 constitute the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for Southport Development, Southold, New York iii HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S-1 I. COMMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. o Notice of Receipt of Draft Environmental Statement. Town of Southold, Town Clerk, November 19, 1985. 1-1 o Letter from T.C. Hoffman Regional Traffice Engineer . N.Y.S. Department of Transportation December 6, 1985. 1-2 o Notice of Extension of Public Comment Town of Southold, Town Clerk December 17, 1985. 1-3 o Letter from William F. Barton Coastal Resources Specialist N.Y.S. Department of State December 27, 1985. 1-4 o Notice of Hearing Town of Southold, Town Clerk January 7, 1986. 1-6 o Letter from Christopher Kelley Twomey, Latham & Shea January 17, 1986. 1-7 o Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Submitted on behalf of Intervenors Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn January 17, 1986. 1-8 o Review and Analysis of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development Fredrick H. Reuter, AICP January 14, 1986 1-24 iv HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED PAGE o An analysis of the DEIS for a zoning change for Southport Development Larry Penny, Environmental Analyst January 15, 1986. 1-46 o Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development Szepatowski Associates, Inc. January 20, 1986 1-71 o Comments of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Southport Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council February 4, 1986. 1-76 o Transcript of Public Hearing, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development February 4, 1986. 1-78 o Letter from Anthony T. Conforti Conforti, Gordon, Reale & Shenn February 4, 1986. 1-85 o Letter from Joseph Fischetti, Jr . , P.E. February 12, 1986. 1-90 o Letter from Christopher Kelley Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley February 21, 1986. 1-92 II. ADDENDUM TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. o Letter from Joseph Fischetti , Jr. P.E. February 19, 1986. 2-1 o Addendum to Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development Land Use Company February 17, 1986. 2-2 V HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS CONINUED PAGE III. COMMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE SUBSEQUENT TO SUBMISSION OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. o Receipt of Addendum to Draft EIS Southport Development, Extension for Public Comment Town of Southold, Town Clerk February 25, 1986. 3-1 o Transcript of Reconvened Public Hearing Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development February 25, 1986. 3-2 o Letter from Paul Quarty Chief, Greenport Fire Department March 3, 1986. 3-4 o Letter from Dr. Martin H. Garrell Chairman, Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council March 5, 1986. 3-5 o Letter from F.M. Flynn March 12, 1986. 3-7 o Letter from Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner, Suffolk County Dept. of Planning March 17, 1986. 3-11 o Letter from Christopher Kelley Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley March 26, 1986. 3-12 o Comments on the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development, submitted on behalf of Intervenors Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn March 25, 1986. 3-13 Vi HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED PAGE o Comments of the Addendum of the Southport DEIS for developing Sage Cove Parcel in Southold Town Larry Penny, Environmental Consultant March 25, 1986. 3-19 o Comments on the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development Dated February 17, 1986 Fredrick H. Reuter , AICP March 25, 1986. 3-24 o Letter from William F. Barton Coastal Resources Specialist N.Y.S. Department of State March 25, 1986. 3-42 o Letter from Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk March 26, 1986. 3-44 o Dredge Spoil Analysis Southport Development The Land Use Company. 3-45 o Letter from Larry Enoch Environmental Analyst Coastal Management Program N.Y.S. Department of State April 1, 1986. 3-59 o Letter from Elizabeth A. Neville Deputy Town Clerk , Town of Southold April 8, 1986. 3-61 o Letter from Howard H. Zehner Young's Boatyard & Marina April 8, 1986. 3-62 o Transcript of Reconvened Public Hearing Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development. April 8, 1986. 3-65 Vii HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED PAGE o Letter from Christopher Kelley Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley April 11, 1986. 3-87 o Letter from Christopher Kelley Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley April 11, 1986. 3-91 o Review of Addendum to the DEIS for Southport Development Szepatowski Assoicates, Inc. April 15, 1986. 3-93 o Letter from Peter Wenczel President, Southold Town Baymen's Assn. , Inc. April 15, 1986. 3-100 o Letter from James H. Redman Marine Resources Specialist III N.Y.S. Dept of Environmental Conservation April 22, 1986. 3-101 o Resolution and determination of significance Southport Development Southold Town Board April 22, 1986. 3-102 o Letter from Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk April 23, 1986. 3-104 IV. DETERMINATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS. o Geology and Soils 4-1 o Topography 4-1 o Groundwater Hydrology 4-2 o Surface Water Hydrology 4-5 o Air Quality 4-12 o Vegetation 4-12 viii HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED PAGE o Fish and Wildlife 4-12 o Wetlands 4-14 o Traffic 4-14 o Land Use and Zoning 4-15 o Community Services 4-23 o Water Supply 4-24 o Sewage Disposal 4-24 o Solid Waste Disposal 4-26 o Electric Power 4-27 o Visual Resources 4-28 o Historic and Archaeological 4-29 Resources o Demography 4-29 o Noise 4-29 o Mitigating Measures 4-30 o Irreversible and irretrievable 4-30 commitment of resources o Effects on the use and conservation 4-31 of energy o Development alternatives 4-32 o Growth inducing aspects 4-32 ix HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED APPENDICES A. Flushing Observation Study and Supplement. B. Soil Boring Logs C. Technical Design of Stormwater Disposal System D. Assessment of the Natural Resources of the Southport Motel & Marina Site. x HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIST OF EXHBITS TITLE PAGE SOIL BORING LOCATION PLAN 4-3 SOIL PROFILE SECTION 4-4 STORM DRAINAGE PLAN 4-8 STORM DRAINAGE DISPOSAL DETAIL 4-9 SITE PLAN 4-16 SANITARY SEWER DISPOSAL PLAN 4-25 xi HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report represents a Final Envrionmental Impact Statement (F.E. I.S. ) for the proposed action described in the Draft Environmental Statement (D.E. I.S. ) for Southport Development - Southold, New York, prepared by the Land Use Company - Wading River, New York, which is to be considered part of this document . Section 1 contains comments and correspondance regarding the D.E. I.S. , Section 2 contains the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, while Section 3 contains comments and correspondance subsequent to submission of the Addendum to the D.E. I.S. Section 4 of the F.E. I.S. , entitled Determination and Recommendations includes discussion of all expected impacts of the proposed action, both significant and non-significant. potential significant impacts which seem to have caused the most concern and have been address in detail in the F.E. I.S, include the Storm Water Disposal System, Sanitary Sewer Disposal System, the Land Use and Zoning, the Flushing of the Basin as it relates to the marine resources therein, and the Visual Resources. The report demonstrates how these impacts can be mitigated to the extent possible and makes certain recommendations to be initiated prior to or during later stages in the approval process. The Appendices of this report contain supplemental studies and technical information that relate to the potential impacts of most concern. A Flushing Observation Study was performed to determine the existing conditions in the basin in terms of water exchange due to tidal action, and to predict what effects, if any, the proposed project will have on the flushing conditions in the Basin. A supplemental study on the vegetation, wildlife, and wetland aspects of the site was also undertaken in order to more accurately assess the impacts to these natural resources. In addition, soil boring logs have been provided for the additional subsurface S-1 i i HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS soil testing and groundwater elevation investigation, as well as a technicial discussion of the proposed Stormwater Disposal System. These sections of the F.E. I.S. all conclude that while the proposed action does in fact have numerous impacts on the site and surrounding area, these impacts can be mitigated satisfactorily to the point where no significant detrimental effects will result. S-2 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION I COMMENTS AND CORRESPONDANCE REGARDING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ,•���. i a- - t..�,x,�,,.�r--r��-a � .am_',=� 'eQ'y�??��"A� +�-kL�-- ,"��s w. � L� � - Sa.' �:oale i' 1 ?, HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS �ca�FF! .{%' : Town HAL 33095 Main Road ru.sort 726 Southold.New Yak 11971 JUDITIIT TERRY iEt�NOPR TOWN CLFRL t3ty 7r<itaDt USISM u a"FAL WAT"M OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOt)TWLD NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: November 19, 1985 APPLICANT: Southport Development ADDRESS: P. O. Box 616 Southold, New York 11971 PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND PETITION NUMBER: - Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-1" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Petitioner is desirous of having the toning status of the property changed to permit the development of a motel complex. PROJECT LOCATION: South of the Main (Stale Route 20 Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. SEQR DETERMINATION: A draft environmental impact statement has been prepared on this project and is on file. SEAR LEAD AGENCY: Southold Town Board. ASAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The draft environmental impact statment way be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project Aust be submitted to`the Contact Person indicated below no later than Deceiaber - 21, 1985. CONTACT PERSON; Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 (S16) 7GS-1801 a_ -.. . MW 2 51965 -��i�.. ;"t.'., g�' Er 1-•.` ���y; t.- � rq -t.r-_ - °r "' � aX vi WIN" ,t. a5r" .. , ,';'. ,3ri,-� '.f? .._ -y� MS'S&a^ .F' -- HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS �A r• Ife 9 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE N.Y. 11746 MICHALL J CUMV F11ANaLeM E WN1Ta R�a'°"'AL a �Oe eorNlaslows:e Decedber 6, 1985 buns Ensineerins, P.C. 66'!lata street iiestheaptou leach, " 11978 bear Mr. Dunes Southport Resort Sage lou evar , Southold Ys have discussed the subject project with you on Decenher 5, 1985. Sift* the site does Got have frostage on Route 25, its access will be froil Sage loulevard only. SIS do not believe that this developmot gill -61,961fleastly Upact traffic Li this area. UM& you for your cooperstlee concerning this natter. ''Tory truly roars, 3. go. ROF Resional Tr ie Engiaesr laijusis cite tows of Soutbold r- - 11144 Route 25, Southold ;a - •.a;.,- a'-wa.;F `A't. ra�Yo>,.ai�.`:-_ ,;;p; •-- ,.'-�-� _ - _ .. <se,1i.. a-Y.bs' . .{ ,4 ,}per t,t-f •-di S' 7 HENDERSON AND BODWFELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF EXTENSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public comment period has been extended to 4:00 P.M., Tuesday, January 21, 1985, with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport Development to the Southold Town Board with reference to their petition for a change' of Ione from "CO Light Industrial District to "M-1" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. SEQR Lead Agency is the Southold Town Board. Availability for Public Comment and Contact Person: The Draft Environ- mental impact Statement is on file in the office of Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Dated: December 17, 198S. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JANUARY 2, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWNHALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD., NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Buiidlr%iDepartment Town Clerk's. Bulletin Board Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany' Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services N:Y.S. Department of State Southport Development u •. 3t:_ -"Sir - '=��_ "civ ;,�". n7W'c M.•�•P. _ ..nc „rt. k,��' ';ry�y:.�P. ; �,,� � � ,rte.. ty a"�-- s.4h `3y 94'7'4•' .*.a. � a, "''l d^ .r- '�ti �g �nw"3"c i^. .,a :.. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS you 1W 'E•• "''''' STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY.N.Y.12231 c.-.S S-..,,. sic"•w,or December 27, 1985 Ns. Judith Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southuld, ;R 11571 Dear Ms. Terry: The Department of State, as the State's coastal management agency, appre- ciated the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental I a t Statement for the South ort Development prepared by he an a any. a DePartment 15 nterested n this pending action by the Town of Southold, for the zoning change described in the DEIS would affect over 12 acres of land which front on and lie beneath the waters of Southold Say. Although the proposed rezoning would facilitatq the siting and operation of water dependent and water enhanced uses in the State's coastal area, the Planed development does raise a few concerns about the utilization and pro- tection of coastal resources. Our comments on these concerns are as follows: 1. Since the marina will provide 120+ mooring spaces for seasonal and -transient use, special efforts should be taken to protect the quality of the Say's waters from pollution caused by the discharge of vessel wastes. Therefore, pumpout facilities should be provided for the safe disposal of such wastes. Further, signs should be posted advis- ing boat owners to use the available purpout facilities and not to discharge vessel wastes into coastal waters. 2. To minimize the impacts that the marina activities may have upon adja- cent property owners, all floats, piers, etc. should be set back a reasonable distance from the seaward extensions of the site's property lines. A setback distance of 15 feet is frequently used to reduce the effects of adjacent boat mooring activities. Due to the enclosed con- figuration of the water area and the proxte ty of the land area to the north of ,the marina, however, additional setbacks or realignment of the proposed piers may be warranted. 3. The need to dredge the marina basin to a depth of 10 feet below Mean Low Water is not fuller demonstrated in the DEIS. This need is further complicated by the fact that the existing channel which would serve a ��x,,r,�r�:, :'�•, 4 � ;,' :,w .i' �f ,� ,,�,�.�`. «'w ..mac - �:�;' ,".,".r� x�,+.,� Ss�..,F:i.s�.:*a,�•nca: .rc' Y,Z 'h.:.y'3 11F.t�ki, Z ..sx'. 4 SL 'h} i i i ' HENDERSON AND BODWELL rte_ CONSULTING ENGINEERS Ms. Judith Terry December 27, 1935 Page the marina has an authorized depth of -6 ML'W. This item requires &&I- tional explanation. 4. The adequacy of Sage Boulevard as a safe and convenient service road for the motel/restaurant/marina complex, existing uses and other planned developments seems questionalbe. For example, it is doubtful that tiro trucks (delivering supplies to the motel/marina complex) could pass each other in opposite directions without one of the vehicles going off the Paved surface. If other developments are planned along Sage Boulevard, this may be the appropriate time to consider the improvements necessary for this roadway. S. The GEIS identifies a number of State coastal policies that would be applicable to the proposed action anJ subsequent development. However, this section of the document does not adequately describe how the action would be consistent with those policies. The FEIS should contain further discussion on these coastal policy concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this GEIS. Should you or the preparer have any questions on the above comments, please contact me or Nr. Aram Terchunian at (518)474-3642. Sincerely, illiam F. Ba n Coastal Resources Specialist NFB:dib cc: A. Terchunian K. Cross j.. ��,.. ti`�;*'4 .LL�'•r'� S :",F`s'' �kiR ''�'d^' '"�- � s �.a:• :� � , r,`,r„_._i..,�."',�'' ''� '�C'F4yyrr*`+L' ' , �, �F,'"` .+. r T-;.i:'+^ """°<LL",M1'r. , .i , Ah'''�}' E'er. '^ >•ti^+,. *r t' ' r4?l`S .•j HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY T1VEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M.. Tuesday, February R, 1986. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted- by Southport Development, with respect to their petition for a Change of Zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-1" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Alain (State Route 2S) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.661 acres. Petitioner Is desirous of having the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of a motel complex. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environmental impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for Inspectin during regular business hours. DATED: January 7, 1986. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JANUARY 16, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK. v. TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: - The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Southold Town Planning Board d;. Board of Town Trustees Southport Development ..y., y _ rl ' - HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS _ T ff AN 2,416 TwoxEr.LATHAM d SHEA �TTOIIIItTf AT LAW TOM calf Sewhdd SECOND sTRceT TI14NAf 4 MOUCT.JR Rl"MIZAQ.-ZtY YORK hoot 4do".G WW&a 010 727-21" CHINOWNER 0.1 MUV !NOW"wlw S=M �* eN.wx wss - ,AMY i.TLRN�II /mm 1=.4•106D tAMI"W"N.$TO". "MmexiT• January 17, 1986 •MWe&Owrmweawl[ell�yr AW RAN" Ps. Judith Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall Rain Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Of Southport Develoomert Dear Ms. Terry: This firm represents Henry Weisman and Frank Flynn who live In close proximity to the Southport Development project. Enclosed please find an oriainal and five' copies of their comments on the -Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development for review and consideration. In light of the gross inadequacies of the DEIS and ita facial legal inadequacy, Py clients would request that the public bearing on the DEIS be adjourned. from Feb ruory e, 1486 until such time as the Draft is amended to correct the incorrect information found therein and to supply the necessary material thAt has been omitted. The enclosed comments set forth to detail the legal problems with the DEIS. Sins rely, Christopher ltelley CX/lcd cc: Supervisor Murphy 'p� Town Planner, David Emilita P, ` �,°^` ':,% `..5:ti,. =,ri, a6. -., v � f.!� z.'_»..- :'�'�*%.,'l'•jai F:: �;,;.,'r` �' `"` - � ;,•.�;.,,',.�'�+ ,�`_ ;; � .�: ° � '��'�'-.`�" ,; w,. 'Kit*s, � �". , `;fy - �• w'Ry",�:Ju=$rte• PF'yk" 3'p �e •r• '�,�� =4' _ I.r, �x .; HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ZV ,,.�+1�,.�•.,�:�<�•,}_�; �::•a•1, -tG,�.:-«':Vii.•.•-.'S.••i i:. ��:. :�:;jri" �.:••• :: F ~• •`• •.RitLIR G! i'•':'": ':4`:i�...7e'•ry �: .Jr••.'N., ..: .' :::':+! :+�. ..i:,,j:a,« .•.: 'j:-'• a' - •• - •..t�e•i Z-' •..", `::f L-' ••�:�r' •a. �r:a1:..... ::•..1 '-r.•: A ,•Y• 'r ..i•. h•... 5f•�.. , `Y i•S '... ... :.- .5:�.�n.'':A: . �a w. •�:• �, .w--:- t„ri.;=,•t• •j.:�'{ •S "(' ar}"t• ,��• •-�.•. .t• �••.�.� �`' 'y..er-y,-�.:. t.�, . :' 4;800 .�.+,i •r••'C ia1�:.. ,i S`,s'�S•y>"' ''./.. -al::;;! y `�r Zi2.. . •S.a- !:i'�-t ��>�:•:'+a• i y i'i:'l.•i"'::;I-"•F•fs•• wa+'.�'.,'�.:�:; •3 �: t ',�; .pw,..:•. a i1�r •`.y;. * r<" �•: j�-��' J'a:i �"1 �ry,t_"rS ova..::1- ��•YR• i":i_;ii•.�y_y a•jP.9,�'.�.i^�:.•.s v."!!t••i=_Y�'t�i*.:+•ra: .'�•. - :' .s:y.�:'7 .' ..•r.. r• �[ ��•+.i' •:sdMe ,' ;.__•""1G'i •�:• r:• ''pi.7.;, *rl'.�R.•:S ;' '.•.i''• .a•�ra y �%« > •n' s•2:'e.• t_• sr i y`t• ) S f''Nw •.i "' i•' :'wi: .+ 's... •;,"�' ''a�:s:F„�.s.••1-�' ..- t•:'i!' t,..','w.ts•e.',;,,' ,+.Tl �ii'Y�ir-• S'WA-. t•�•y,�•�:a•. ^*r....d E' ��r'r tii� " r�.i�:Y",.i, r.M'.VTa�L v. i1::r Y: `•l i 1 f•.i •'_1�. =; r• ♦:.S,t:r yr.:; 7� f :i.` 5,'>.. �.: jy,y�r.J�,,.'A':>`- y!-�::t:iir.� s N:I•ti.t.♦ •:R;..tl!y-- -4 ,:•!• :a' t.!•i, •'ty;j; , Ei:•«�•'S;.t. .i\.-ii '••)'.•r'1••�•ta'> ♦3Z�r" �s_;" FS•� M"��r�.s: 'BOARD of 1''• , ,�ra SOUTHOLD " :s.: ,k,�•, f 4.:f}.,•• tom'•!;,,: •• :�..►-a�•s.a•y��i ua%Z'•ttj•i•s*y,;;..,,i•.. ani ?mss', -•'i:w•. ..:r•i�•,yr1� ri '; aS'. vv".�i• ra i a+Y: r j•,f►"} ,� +`�y'ti !!' L 5 ti.?�:3 f9 v; $fi r-tt�� I•a5: y+Ni��r 1��M �� '�• w•♦•+•-,��.... 'y:n `}.ft3-.•i•• y, P.. •_�J. i••fs4i --,7'tt ♦r' r'••..r :.f•:'r':t-..r••r,-.tat? 3.ti��'. �''�>�•L'r� .r•. r� ►1 r A`thy! !latter;Ot•'Chi 11pp1icSt bt1. s •`e:�+ .s •; .a.„.� _ 1 141 -SOUTHPORT DEVELOPREl�17 '= •�}L:�"`d'?��5 � ,•��•:�ri 1�+�,. L j:�r �=�;: i'iG4vr _ •'zz.ZY.: ,��.i-...,:,-,�;a• ••--�Y••.y':'i>��C" 4 a�., e'��Ja Y+. .Yr � a _ `Y. �a}� :r••-.:---�-- -!N:�'•2 J�"'��td;�t r Jt w :,.�J',"'�Ci..7. -rL�","yt �f�w1►, +Rr-�1i. + : ••s�i�i�sC;•-_i3a•�:;`'X' 4,:�'i:v '•!yi:s-'�".•,• + , y�:h9•.r".' t Y• 'dll•-"�^_ N' 'i•. r. 'p(• .Y M CTi)i! +s•.t a�L- TJ.•� lf'�'���.�r•�.1=r, ��CC4!:�. �->T-'�ra �' r _ ;�^'�!'�... r�!�i'y�.±r3?f�•'. ,r'�'�'..i-i`-`e Y!C w. i. .>.�Y'',:"i.• .:, f 4 f3.�i�: ,:' t:a` t''{�k =i:A, ~ •S • 7'�',' :rtta•.0.r• r}i•;,'tr'!''•�w•h, tt r:f•2•. :S`L,. '�s•fit.-••�:Ta ry.�•.s 1t:: 1 il♦. • Yy,J. .;•.•L 'i >;;• �. 'a '1•i i,�r��rlel-t,!Z •'r t..'i•iYa, y •:y :?�• •.t•i ••j:.} j4jai•i:• �4+--. �;Z:,rr:: f•...t .4 ti' I o •. rlt .I,�i•, '.'r 7 t, {...a.i: +r. ! +' 3 tri �. 1::4�.If '�.•t:•; Y'•a:`.:r-.'t•'?�•:�''' ,,i: '"I:-?•::r.:'i�,i!-+"�t�•�'s��`'�'':±•':"�.`":..i,�td r..:s�i•D��..iyl'r .,t.f,•,j�;�- 4 a .4 _:'.j->:r Nt RFes::ti• .e :•iY ��.. z�y X1'7+t•: ,-x S."_�'.•:tea,, +!"• COMMENTS ON-THE;>SRfIt�T-ENVIRONIlBNTAL -_. !� ! ;r IMPACT STATEMENT �i1TBD SEPTEFIB ' w, BR Z6 1984:_ .. -.,. ;; SUBMII'TBD'CIl 6EMW OF It kT','1• r ;AND 'BRANIC' FLYNtT' '':: +•�••pr �r it � S• �L'3:.••.::j.i• u is-. 3:'•".., i•. 4.,4.:•7•t•`'-£yVl: �.'. r !r •i^C 7' 'r.., •t\•�i+ YA"yy �},,- �. ._I� �:si;.1 A.K e•. Yti.r:•f!4.r.w ki, ,� rrr fAv.,, ,•'Gir W kL..f,��+zY E•• .�,}. �iii•�,�A�' v...�.�^rt:` �^fix ,.��Y;3�y.�.' ,'}5�a7 >•� s :.•!Pj •u.4, .7 IRM 4'�45;+#3i .gKs i �c--;1e'':eZT{' .e•A L.S;'e,i• �•4.. rf•R �', �'_ �!• yT a,�,.,s,^t;. .iii '�:'••%a •'t` �'..�$,« .r s y.i 'R.:�.:•♦.:�..•:w r 'y. a...Za,l_ ��..:«.. � ••. s.�.y;�2� ,r;'_•��yy,,�r,-1.•.i•„:,r ="`�,�3��,_t:;i�r=.M�: 'L�a�:�.' �+".r�•,':'..d'+,y;�':.?-,�T,'!;+-.'.''.y�� ; �:.-'�-•l• , �.•,..•:� •� •ti•S ii . <N''!S ♦"• M.�Y,1.' I'�a,I• 'q-i 1T.3.''' �i }p�i�.� �. ••,•`.';a.' ,fi.4 �•S•.eY YC;.' .:�_ r.yl` z�"• 'ts .4'',�'•��.1'-.+�'-4T.ra;,.:'��. r��osi.'�i-.- c.:r4,ylN�lt•is•� (��,_'• y%�Sf ;e�.:.�'Y•9<t •�'�+,'�+L�""�+�'r+!?�. '�' t,_ t+•t'3�J4a' •.,�..:* :...2�..� .a>'''cr.•�'p'�,'ci.�f."'-1��^r.T mit+:-.i�'.'iii"'• i• �:t. ��i� ���•a s.j�:;.��'j'i..i ia.t }• T• -,Yo -'til►.' a .;,. �k'iC^;�l'x-ti' a 'x+ .�L+' ti .'•rM+ "• i K: � .7f' A✓iOiTj'•.1�.Li:�:,� ��. Tys`ld:lfC;:�a� T � tC r•«r aye' �c '+ .1��•.;,�- ;_�:?';!'i�o•^..,,-'• Try.,• ?I-� ;r. IV - }`s,,Ft'.3ie}�i••ys�i''t;s_=,':;Y'37t':C�rt`6Ct�•1Hl<�.."��•�i�Z�:{iti:f,i=,.4�g!w';r.4r.:'Y�:.-r••:_'':ie::t�:a•.�/�y'!•Y•hSi}7^•►•��•Y�{+ati;.".'i^y'-Yf•j^.1ua-r,.��i.7.•;._,�>+rr,•�• ,'•L..i: �.w+a'."�t>r�:.*•-."�fN.Zt .it1;k'O3's. 4 R .. 'Y+!^;.L�•'.771�cAYY'•.,�y.:'T•!l'.,iJ�:li;iti�4ar�,�••;'�fif3w'�ii�Y",,+�'iJ�.^••l,T;ti : *:� mrc 'iSji • "iAit; �t•'_,.' rn�:p♦•.• YR•a ., 'r.V f.�`;�_X•'.7a'• • �,:•.t�:3`.F�,,.i?�;;•r.-Y'y!' �i["'�yT:'� �3 :tai Janaaz . 17. !1986 t:s^ i_,, .,-... .;;:i�_ ti�' . _ +c>•iti•�air •, s• •�.*Mw -�•-!! ` XJ,1: �., y,ah"\ri �i•�tf U it'tr:_t•1::., r' - ��•�!-.,• ;"i:s. 7' "°'•'+.`.n_- .ri.•.:^y.t'�•�.•,�•,� �f%. 'i�`'`ta�3l1�t.T;�sA"lr� �"1� • s:�:4:` r� 'k�+y''�+� CIIAISTOPHER KELLEY -� : 1�>s,�1wr ,�y 4L' s'� '�•, f f Counsel •i':.:'_' �'"•w.:s :a' :.^a:, :l,x,.; .;st�..i�••' •J.t a'i:i 3 r4'��_ s 1. "'' '+.•.... •�'• i, •�,.+6i• rS�,•�Yi�a.a!ti'�i :�' • i•• y'y: .::•!1 �•Jc'�'--•J"�«F•.} .v♦,?� i:ti.';!!t;.:p.,i`•r•+�"te':y ''t:::i�L+wa�r�••jh��';r»-�•��.ya. f�t!"•�attyr��' - ��i1c`t��, ;1r *:.ai..i '!!::•::a_!+: t�:;is. j'se`s y :d,.Yr7�i.y£} w7�Yt,�►..ir�+1+3t ?�.� at•iij�eYwv. .r �"t'-rY'.'•,f,•��•''. •. ;: •:?i:� .• _.r .•.{,D a.i:�;:,?.:,^"�•Y:1i��,.•:d�,•�.i:«:f'Mvl�,�' �si: .`-•t�♦ _ r T..v, t .,1N'1 t •a:.( ^r•:.�: 'l•:Yy:Lr i i a �• it'w•. rte• !��: :C`•' i ,�t� `�,�fy[_ •• a.,..:fes:'». i.•w t:i• te-i 1'a- r�. ..'IC•+.: r•:..L;7. L �kiw+r f.. fir.• �s5.�.�. �'t�� `!•.'R 7.�.ra Y'` •t: ,'ii•::-•'' :•+��. ��':. �{�•t:.�sy.:�•,•„•Ttt:•Sl�t y� 4�`.��,�SfK '"•`'� •;�r�`..] '. ' ' .•,sy•� r..;y.;'.s.i•_ .s'!-••aj':i;: '..-� •:? .i;.. ': <-•�, �!f•.�t *�!"71r,- - ' ..�{'a-'i1:,.f..I-�}*__Y,;;; 'r +'t� '•�?�,.>•:Y:Y':i��...•1' . ` 7M.'in,�}4�.d••r.�c�•}aj•.�.E y.:�,w•��•y��ys�� s al�f'�."�, t1:3 A.�....•• �! •`'••�,:,.�:O;ti•._ •• :•i:�• 'iY.I v.� :N:w� A.. 1 J.•»ni.:'h tl� •f. i.� �1.Y,. ,�fiet Y.`f�V�.s;��•.d yw'i,'i:•.. ra` .�,,• ••t ,•tiij�i�.�:A,�rr•?ti.•���,�'��e;..�rL;w;"Ar, rid$*�{ >•1^i4'.• x�P{f� i - Yi « -0im. 3. Ti" i••L1f !i`. Y.;I!l•: .d• �y•� '�,d1 .Za<. 4.4, Ir i•'„y;�..: cli+' t: J• !I�':R•�•:•:..•t�.;R.+'•S'.i'•'a.••«w1 ��,q�.a."�Jr.M'! ' • rjiw ,r♦•,lK�-> it:. • :• �f ".« .• y•3�,.>..y'i�tae K: ♦ •i« .i�•. �.�„'•,',: `.�',i1fS .�a - mit. �t"r"Li.»•a:g• �'•f•.r:d w.•' O i LATnAm &' on"" •�'' •!• t' '�i�i'a 'R f to 4�?%• �.i�t'.. -.:.••, :.-f. s:f.�w Ri�y: iMIJIM"AT&A4 ''••. i) :1��•+ P' '=. `a L�+�.« � «.w _ !fj:',t'�.;.'•=r, :. `i•`r, wig'- •t. : _ . -:r'i•.-. ;`,:... . � ��,y, � •s• ,� ,%tr.`. ,w�; . �si wrs�Wolo*TAM � �;E i..•L,,.�L."dw. r ' .,,ei�a ,�!'!�:%=. . .'�• :.-j•; •'•.4 i. .s .:Y.icy a •�•r.r.V ar Zi 11901•"oda"1�.. :s, .w"•ilaKr r•. dt, _ _ :yrs•- .. .. .%�:'-its -.r'ri!'� ;•a(„'.-': �a•.• •" - _�c. •:a�. _ ;e•�;.,_i�, i`�.��_�..-,fit: - y .. - -Fy.�. �_ :�.5' T r .- - � ?�._yr''' `- - - •.y.r"t.�rY...':'wnt:4 rF`"'.?"s .. .v)4`l+s� ',.r `. ,�: �"Si{_ .y`y M *�'n 'F' V"- :; -ni�N!!�"?C.,�B•% -b r.� i .•. y r. }��'. .yi�L s„a - ,:tf_ , � -i �„'�.. y-fs"-s'`W,'^r' •iY.''�^+w 5 '4. � -- r g HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ---- In the Matter of the Application-x Of SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT ---------------------------------x The annexed comments of Land Use Planner, Frederick R2utar Arid Environmental Analyst, Laurence Penny. are submitted on behalf of Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn who reside on Tarpon Drive in close proximity to the proposed Southport Development Project in the Town of Southold. We have reviewed the proposed Draft EIS with our clients. That document, prepared by the applicant without any corrections or revisions by the Town Board. is legally inadequate. The Board should note that under the "State Environmental .Quality Review Act A Draft -21S is intended to be the source of information used by each involved agency to consider environmental concerns In making its decisions. The Draft EIS also serves as a public disclosure of a project's environmental affects. (New York State Department oVEnvironmsntal Conservation, SEQRA HandbookA page 8-29). As the SEQRA Regulations provide at 6 N.X.C.R.R. $617-.14(j), the body of all Drat t SIS's shall at least Vontain the following. NO HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTiNCI ENGINEERS (1) a concise description of the proposed action, its purpose and need; (2) a concise description of the environmental setting of the areas to be effected, sufficient to understand the effects of the proposed action and alternatives; (3) a statement of the important environmental impacts of the proposed action, including short- and long-kern effects and typical associated . environmental effects; (4) an identification and brief discussion of any adverse -environmental effects which cannot be avoided it the .proposed action is implemented, (5) a description and evaluation of reasonable alternatives to the action which would achieve, the same or similar objectives. (The description and evaluation should 'be at a level of detail sufficient to .permit a comparable assessment of the alternatives discussed. The no-action alternative must also be discussed and evaluated); (6) an identification of any irreversible and irretrievible commitments of resources which would be associated with the proposed action should it be implemented; (7)a description of mitigation measures to minimize the adverse environmental impacts; (S) a description of any growth inducing aspects of the proposed actions, where applicable and- significant; (9) .a discussion of the effects of the proposed action on the use and conservation of energy, xherd applicable and significant; (11) a list of any underlying studies, reports and other information obtained and considered 1,1 preparing the statement; As noted in the SEQRa handbook it is encumbent Upon the lead agency, in this case the Town Board, to determine the .adequacy and complptanuss of a proposed draft cis and to ensure that all relevant information is presented and anslyized• (Page a-36.). , -2- t �i HENDERSON AND BODWELL coNsuvnw MINEERS As will be discussed below and in the detailed comments attached, there arm a number of serious ' ommissions in the Southport Development dratt BIS. tt Is totally inadequate tor public review at this time. The dratt EIS snould be sent back to the applicant_tor inclusion of the critical information that has thus far been withheld. Forcing the public to comment on the inadequate draft at this time is unfair and is contrary to law. As the SEQRA Handbook states, the draft EIS is to sarva as a public disclosure for projects and environmental etfects. The public is entitled to ccmolete disclosure of a project's environmental Impacts in the DEIS. Applicants and agencies are not permitted to circulate inadequate dcatts and glen for the first time, compile the necessary information in a final EIS. As this Board is aware the public comment process an a DEIS is intended to insures that all potential impacts ata thoroughly examined and that the applicant meaningfully responds to the public's comments. An agency cannot legally withhold for tail to require submission at) critical intormation until the preparation of the final 6IS, thereby shielding it fro* pubic scrutiny: Moreover, such action by an agency -3- '- ., w u 1 .r n •.�1.�� `t.s '.•: y.i! ;pct,:X'. _ •'" 'jtJ - i �t,... HENDERSON AND 80DWELL Ll"N 3 ENGINEERS -�- would attectivzly immasculate the SEQRA process. Failure to return the EIS to the applicant now for completion and resubmission to the public for comment will undoubtedly result in a poorly focused and. inadequate environmental review; and perhaps litigation and delay. For many +years under the National Environmental Policy Act (the model for SEQRA). agancies prepared encylapedic .EIS's in an attempt to justify decisions already made. The documents were filled with voluminous recitations of generic intormation on soils, plant and animal life. However, the documents would be short on Sita specitic analysis and real disclosure of impacts and reasonable alternatives to a proposal. Unfortunately, the draft VIS on the Southport Development project is similar to the defective EIS'a filed under NEPA in that no real analysi-s is presented. However, it falls even farther short than the ,detective DEIS's filed under NEPA in that it does not even catalog relevant generic information on soils plant and animal ' life,-which would be helptui, if not required, to -properly assess the environmental impacts of the Prdject. A review of the DEIS indicates that it is devoid of genuine analysis and disclosure of critical -4- N" 4-i -�.,�_� .- - 't - 4. '^,s� - b•''� :cam :'.a .tea � N, :'- ��i' - Is -f "§r^j�`a"Irm,�+_ i °aft "��•'^'',as}!* r -'xvY `"'4h 4�d r r - _ xs - k-},+ r r..t.'r"fly_ ,w-..Wer,-,giY"°'�.-�•�''"�� �..W?di'� «�„r mw _ "-- HENDERSON AND SODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS issues. Some of The most glaring *mission* in, the DEIS are as follows 1. Tnes DEIS lacks analysis of the currant and proposed land use and toning policies which the site is subject to. The current land use and zoning policies effecting the project sit* are not fully described in the EIS. The parcel was apparently zoned 'C Light industrial', in 1971. Bowever apparently, this sone change affected only the upland portion of the parcel and not the 3.7 acres of privately owned underwater land. That land is presumably still zoned 'A Residential'. At the time of the change to the current 'C Light Industrial" zones on the upland portion of the promises, the premises was occupied by a pro-existing, ` non-conforming marina facility operating on• the, upland portion of the premises and extending out into the water. Upon information and belief, the pre- existing. non-conforming use of that marina has been illegally expanded, i.e., the number of boatslips has dramatically increased, without the benefit of a variance or special exception. Apparently, in 1976, the prior owner of the premises obtained a special exception from the Zoning Board of Appeals to use the upland iS'��•. -.+3,Y-- fir^ �`.��'„ta_.�� .. ,- ,,. -_ _ __ _J . i Y VJCt _ jYi �_ � ASt. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING 6NGINEEM Portion of the premises as a *private club" and constructed a pool and tennis courts thereon. Historically. the owner and/or prior owners of the premises have not been content with a single use of the premises but have attempted to jam as many uses onto the property as possible. First, there was a non.conforming marina in a "C. Light Industrial" zone, than a special exception for a "private club" was granted, the - combination of which was not anticipated -in the Zoning Code. Now, the applicant would like to add the additional uses of a high density motel and restaurant to the already existing uses on the site. However, by granting the requested zone change, the applicant can still not satisfy his desire for multiple uses of the property. The proposed "K-1" DesignatLoft for the premises does not allow marinas as a permitted use, nor does it allow motels or restaurants. Although, under the "a-1" District. one special exception use is "hotels and motels', and anothar is 'marinas', nowhere is there provided a "compound" or "triplicate" special exception use that would allow a marina, motel and restaurant. In fact, restaurants are nQt even contklned within th* special exception uses in this district., and would be forbidlen without a use variants. The r: - 1- _-" 3+c�` _ '•. .'.-• `.'� 'an a. Vii,:`. — �Gu�"ti�`�% •-€•„' '.'''sem .. '-„ r�,i„-few�'F%",3;:Y`'� y"+..-*'.��,'�T."s.�c��r. - 77-, ` HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS --- need for a use variance was omitted from Lite list of necassary approvals on page 13 of the DEIS. Such- variances are not easily obtained from the Zoning 9oard' Of Appeals. The simple fact is that the zone change applied for would not allow the project as proposed. The applicant is simply asking for a combination of uses which are not permitted in any district in the currant zoning scheme of the Town. In addition to proposing new non-conforming uses the applicant proposes a density of use of the parcel far in excess of anything anticipated by the Code. The applicant proposes an 82 unit motel complex. 5100-17 of the Code sets forth the unit density for hotels and motels. Since the proposed project would not benefit ` from a public sewer system, it is required that eadh motel unit *have Six Thousand, (6,000) square fest of land for each unit-. It is beyond belief that the applicant proposes to use in its calculation of density, the full 12.35 acres of the property, including 3.7 acres of underwater land. The absurdity of using underwater land in the calculation of density and not excluding the land occupied by the other uses, of 4 restaurant and marina are at a minimum contrary to all _ notions of good planning. -7- Ii' ' HENDERSON AND 840WELL coaSulTlNG ENf31NEE02 } As shown by Fred Reuter in the attached comments, assumming that motel units were approv*4 for the site And using conservative figures, the maximum density of motel units would only be 32. This would be the density - the Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Planning Board would have to start with before reducing it, based on environmental and aesthetic constraints. What is Apparent from the whole application is that this is a proposal to severely over develop, and too intensely develop the subject site. 2. Nowhere in the DEIS is the impact of Federal Flood Insurance Regulations discussed and the constraints they may place on this ,project. 3. No serious analysis of the need for the project s, or the economic impacts of the project is set forth, The DEIS states z= The proposed Southport bevelop�aent Project has been d¢signed to fill a growing demand for recreational facilities on Long Island's North Fork. (Page S.) No statistical analysis whatsoever is shown to _support thle underlying presumption that the Town and the North Fork is in 'need of yet another marina and restaurant. While the DEIS states that a transient gxyt31 is needed by the community the nature of the u M.v f 2 ' CONSULTING ENGINEERS HENDERSON AND BODWELL ' q ' project suggests that is eithdc currently contemplated fot, or 'will be easily converted to condominium use,. However, the need for motels oc condominiums is not discussed in any detail other than to make the unsupported conclusory statelaent set forth above. 4. Nowhere Voes the application discuss the cumulative impacts of this type of development on the surrounding surface waters or on the surrounding residential areas. The oomission of such a -discussion makes the document legally inadequate. S. Perhaps the most glaring inadequacy of the DEIS Is the lack of discussion or analysis of potential alternatives to the proposal, either under the existing or the proposed zoning. It has already been established that the applicants cannot gat the uses that they hope ' to get either under the existing or the proposed zoning. Mhat then can they get under the existing or proposed toning which fits into the environmental constraints, which the site provides? The la:r regires that when an impact statement is ptepared, it must include. among other thin+js, a description and evaluation of reasonable alternatives to the action which would achieve the same or similar objectives. (The description and '_ r•- - evaluation should be at a level of. -9- J. FAM F _ ;�k�, < .�s4ncz 'r-,, _ .!7 -y- .' ,.::.'•�. -; �. Ali' HENbERSON AND BObWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS - - detail sufficient to permit the _ C40arative assessment of the alterna- tives discussed)The •no action* alternative must be discussed and evaluated. (4 NYCRR As stated by the Court of Appeals in Webster Associates v. Town of Webster, 59 N.Y. 2d 220, 464 N.Y.S. 2d 431 (1983): to be meaningful such an assessment (of aiternativesl must be based on as awareness of all reasonable options other than the proposed action. The degree of detail with which each alternative must be discussed will, of course, vary with the circumstances of each proposal 464 N.Y.S. 2d at 434. Sea also E.D.F. v. Flacke, 96 A.D. 2d 862. 465 N.Y.S. 2d 759 (2d Dep' t. 1983). SEQRA does not require that every conceivable alternative must be considered before an E:S will be considered acceptable. Coalition Against Lincoln west v. City of Now York, 94 A.D. 2d 483, 463 N.Y.S. 2d 170 (1st Dept. 1983) at 176. Rather• the rule is one of reasonabiness and balance. Id. However, the no action alternative must be discussed and evaluated. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.14 (f) S. In addition, t.ho assessment of the alternatives must be "analytical" E.O.F., S,up_ra 46S y N.T.S. 2d at 763. So long as otticials and agencies have taken a "hard look* at environmental consequences, a Court All not seek to impose unreasonable extremes. ' r z 51 ,� '.T` .KS.' .Ta T•'x'�'LYL 7.0..r :Q.• hk k •":. ,y k� LS a-s - k t' _ ''y�'H,,,�I'f�y r" }�A. �`,t• d, — w P �tiP a3',r".`,• ' 'gct��j�w�'.` t Y,�.-rtr ' �+�. d .a; =y. a�s^��. -+�^ t,�` <,. t�rc :r•,a S,!s'�°rw,„ .<`�,�-3 a S:'��X'c..eai'�i �"� 1' t`ra"t 4 r•g ' ,�v. S+ts�a.;T� ��,+� ,. HENOERSON AND DWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Coalition against Lincoln west, Supra, 663 M.Y.S. 2d at 176. As stated by at least one legal .miter: The BIS requirement is intended to Institutionalize the consideration of •environmental factors' at the policy formulation stage of agency decision making. Environmental factors that must be considered involve not only the potential adverse impacts of the proposed action but all reasonable alternatives to the action that would result in lgss environmental degradation to the area involved. In fact, the Courts have recognized that the consideration of alternatives to the proposed action generally is the •linchpin• of the BIS. In order to guarantee that environmentally enhancing options are not ignored or unnecessarily foreclosed by project development, the EIS must compare all 'feasible* alternatives to the proposed project. Feasible alternatives necessarily Include the option of not proceeding with the project at all, the •no action• alternative, as well as the entire range of mitigation measures that could be used to minimize potential environmental impacts. Glitzenstein. Project Modification. Illigitimate Circumvention of the EIS Requirement or Desirable Means to Reduce Adverse Environmental Impacts? 10 Ecologj Law Quarterly. (1982) at 264. The discussion of alternatives at page 40 and 41 of the DEIS bare11 touches on the 'no action' alternative, which would consist in the continued use of the project as a pct-existing, non-conforming marina and 'private club". The vague and eonctusory stat_aent that •continued opecation as the facility currently exists is v i,« emca:s ' — HENDERSON AND BObWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS both unrealistic and not economicall (sic) feasible" is not supported by any economic analysis in the DEIS. In fact nowhere in the document is the current capacity of the marina, its yearly income, or the type and extent of the *private club' operations on the site discussed. Presumably the applicant's assessment of the "no action" alternative also consists in its vague suggestion that the property without the requested zone Change, could be used for some sort of intense heavy industrial use such as the handling of toxics or hazardous materials. This is plainly rediculous. First, the waterfront nature of the property would not be suitable for such a heavy industrial use, particularly given the location of the promises. Second, such a use would only be a spacial exception use, and any Zoning Board of Appeals with the public health in mind would severely limit such a use through the SEQRA process. and through conditions it would necessarily place on the project to protect the sensitive environmental features at the area, including sur:ace and groundwater. Third, the DEC in its regulation of the property would not permit such activity in such a sensitive location without the utmost of security in preventing -12- — -.X05;: ::$"�;z:. ..� 1's'...,,:- ,`'�_u :.`� "a<" .r +. ✓'. �'- '(a S z ��� ��q •.� .i i� -t•'i �2E.. i X19 y��.,i� �r'^ r t�'� ^ Y: .K .. HENDERSON AND BOOWELt CONSULTING ENGINEERS ��^�^�■ 4amis4ions of toxic chemicals. It is clear that the applicant, in an attempt to satisfy the requirement of an analysis of the "no action" alternative. has set up for itself a bizarre and improbable, if not impossible, strawman to knock down with a few vague generalities such as *the requested zoning appears justified by assessment of potential environmental impacts* page 40. Aside from the "toxic or hazardous material" scenario and its threat of "industrial discharges" the only single other alternative discussed is that of single tamily residential use. Again, a single -unsupported and vague generality that the development for residential use is "not an economically viable alternative" is grossly inadequate to satisfy the DEIS requirement of serious analysis. This document must be rejected as incomplete and inadequate. 6. The issue of legal access ',has not been addressed properly by the applicant. (Sea the comments Y of the Secretary of State -aanaxed _hereto.) As the application stands. given the provisions of f280A of town Law, the applicant would not be entitled to a bolding permit for lack of legal access on a public highway. The applicant proposes three intense uses of �•. - s �*; -.. .. - � ? _� �-�ice '- ..J�+t 4rt'1#-e�'r ro - .q i y' f" HENDERSON AND BODWELI CONSULTING ENGINEERS this property with oniyf a 16 toot right of way to provide access to a public road. A legal issue is raisad About the applicants ability to additionally burden that easement to the extant necessary to provide access for the project. A planning question is raised by whether such traffic on a right-of- way that size is advisable given the residential development proposed .for the Breezy Shores parcel over which the easement runs. 7. No discussion is given in the AIS of the .project's failure to meat the necassart setback raquir$ments from the lot lines for the docks. On the sketch plan submitted to the Town Board. dated August 8, 1985, the proposed docks in the marina facility would £ extend right up to the boundary lines of the premises v and not eonfoem to the requirad 20 foot set back in the =: 'X-1' -District. In addition, while the applicant says in its letter to the Town Board, datsld September 13, 198'3, that the marina will not be expanded the SIS at pale 1 -describes the project as a proposal to ti 'reconstruct and exaand the aforementioned marina facility to encompass 121 boat slips . . . . A question 411 raised as to whether the project is An expansion or `v whether it isn't an expansion of the marina, and if it to doesn't it contradict the condition a approval of 5 _ -14- �'•.__ `- ,5'.� r:nr`..'. 'amu::z °p PV " �- -- HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS the Suf talk County planning Commission that it will not be an expansion of the existing marina, CONLUSION The only conclusion that can bs reached atter review of the proposed Draft Environmental impact Statement is that it is legally inadaquate and must be revised substantially at the dratt stage, prior to circulation to the public for comment. The expert analysis of our land use planner and environmental analysis is annexed. Wa respectfully request that the Board return the draft BIS to the applicant for the changes and additional information outline herein. Respectfully Submitted, 1 Twomey, Latham, Shea. i galley Attorneys for Intervenors Address and Post Office Address 33 West Second Street P.O. Box 398 Riverhead, New" York .11901 Ph.: (516) 727-21S0 .i �bf r Wit— ( F;•:(-:_e`�.. _ ':4i• :s ,. Yk-jn`b.%�s',''�?'"y.. .r _ .u'v'.�- .,} '.: �: ?.i� PNS 'Ln _' d rs`s^,`yy' _ :p;,"."fir°'',, 4'1. �,� y¢y �>� p. x�.a �'� . . '"n �2", r k .� it � L•, N -a.;... '_ f''-.�:J.n_,. at•�:i' "' - a ." .,c .�'°p i Yl+tvh " y� re yy - HENDFRSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Town of Southold, New York REVIEW APO ANALYSIS of the DRAFT EPVIRMIESTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for SOUTHPORT DEVELOPME.YT SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK Dated September 26, 1985 January 14, 1986 Prepared by FREDERICK H. REUTER AICD Community Planning and Zoning Consultant �.y nk 1 t 3 v HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS -�-----= CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE OF A DEIS 1 2. III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 2 3. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - NATURAL RESOURCES 9 M. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - HUMAN RESOURCES 10 5. V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1# 6. VI. MITIGATION MEASURES - NATURAL RESOURCES 17 T. VI. MITIGATION MEASURES - HUMAN RESOURCES 18 8. VII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED 19 9. VIII. ALTERNATIVES 20 10. IX. IRREVARSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COIB'lIT qXi OF RESOURCES 20 11. X. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS 20 f - : iff 4 14"mm 'Y" uu.l�'i._ .P}x.�',- - .. f"��.���� ...'tkl:,".,r. _ 4..�'�'?'pc';,�+.••;..YY• "'� a zJ�� - Kik''. ��_,;,.,.,yy_.'y - ,;�.;- j( - - ,.,�:...�� ':o. «y��v W,�- "{r,•.•_ w�' ^«x�q - HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS PURPOSE of A DEIS slaving determined that the Southport Development action mai signs- ficantly affect the quality of the environment, the 'town of Southold has required that a Draft Environmental rapact statement (vas) be .prepared. It is their =3 that is the subject of-this review and analysis. 'The SEAR (landbook describes the intent and purpose of such a DEIS asfollows: - •It is intended to be the source of information used by each involved agency to consider environmental coacsMa In making its decisions. The Draft EIS also serves as a public disclosure of a project's environmental affects, "A close relationship exists between project planning and the Draft EIS for projects that have been planned with environmental goals as inteeral considerations. ibis concept of 'good planning' was one of the objectives can- the �__.. , templated by the legislature `it pawed SEq .' ltse process of scoping is a key element in 'good planning'.* (Emphasis supplied)( Page 9-49) 1 . The Southport Development scoping $e331on occurred on August 5,19$5. It-resclted in an outline of the necessary elements of the DEyS for the V Ooik ilattd action. The comments and questions raised in this+*part are prepared in the contest of that outline. The SECA Handbook and the DEIS tar the Southport Development,dated Septesbor 26, 1985. The captions of the following sections of this report an dsrly" fees the Scoping Session outline as reported by David $milita, the Tons. Banding Consultant. Those which are not the subject of comment or *W.Stson have been omitted. :4 ' 4 Sty.y; 11111 1 'c ,t''7 R t „y,.s xy s =ri c• �"-"�- l�l}r� y'M�gt' °^' _ 4f HtNOEI#SON AN1)B"9LL CONSUL'r1NG ENGINEERS 2. III. D C11J? ![• THE PROPOSED ACTION A. Public -Need tor, the Proiec i The DEIS does not report the "sunici- pal objectives based on adopted-40emunity development plaW. chat +ire those municipal objectives? With reference to public need,two unsupported, wide-rangierstatements. ars made: one is that; the •projact has been designed to fill a,6rowin demand for recreational facilities oa Loaas Island's I north fork", and the other is that `'This demand has increased dramatically In those areas associated with marine use and .tourise.e How do these related to the .Proposed project? J CoAsidering the project sponsor's objectives, neither of the above aieedt describes what type of boating creates the demand, vessel cberacteristics and shat kind of facility is needed; any quantification of the demand or its distribution between seasonal and transient use; or the validity Of assuming that a restaurant/note! complex is needed to augment such dockage. Further, no proof is offered that any such need if documonteq actually manifests itself at the subject Southport Development site. What are the specifics of the public need for this project and_tbe_ , t -specifics of bow the project sponsor's Objectives relate 'to thes0' aeeds Oftthesubject site? Art there any authoritative statements for such specific statements? g. Lo�ati,on: the DEIS offers We*, relatively simple, outline sips 9' With reference to the proposed location. They are: Figure 1, area flap, QhLcle locates the .towp on Long Island; Figure 8. Location flap. which locates the site :,= n with reference to the Canfdini point peninsula and Route 2S; and Figure 3. site liatp, which Is elbtratially a blown-4 segaent at Figure g. A yr Mr - e. }f -., `2$o^fir �` 0<;,��. „h i.}�.•' 'Vr.-.f,,,�,�-� � a,� - - - iiJL L' �l � S'r :_- x•�t:' -ti�'is-_ _•at -:r'a-... HENDERSON ANS? BODWELL CONSULTINQ ENGINEERS ----_-�+*--•-- The S¢OE�6�k, in discussing scoping, notes that one of its lire objectlyes is*to identify the pdtential poundaries of the project's Impacts"(page'1149). t'urther on. to discussing the location gad physical dimensions or ths_project it states: 'This is ,best accomplished by the use of a location nap (preferably USGS standard topographic maps, scale i . 1:2400q) and in many cases, a site plan showing parcel subdivisidni, streets, drainage, topography. laud use, stc, i>;ese caps may also be used as a basis for the de— ec:'iption of the environmental setting." Figures 1 through 3 are ,00 an adequate basis for a clear Understanding Of the Southport Development proposal and are certainly not the source or such information. If one seeking information extends his search to the zoning amendment application map, which is not mentioned in the DEM, he finds adjacent Property lines and owners (with the exception of Tax parcel 12.4 represent_ Ing the remaining Underwater land .in the,-embayment lying between the subject site and upland parcei0aW the haat and north) and the approximate location of buildings. We 00 does not show the entire 40baymebt. It aloes show seven existing buildings and the outline of existing docks. Mpther map, given passing.mention In the DEIS, is the conceptual .afte plan. It was apparently used by the sponsor In presenting bis s;ppliea;- tion for a change of zona ilistriet. .It is an illustrative sketo ,or ths, Proposed development. Ibwerer,At only shows very nominal information about the site's immediately adjacent neighbors and nothing about axist- Ing conditions on the .site. there are the boundaries 9f the projectse impacts? Who is the owseir,or -" t34e underwater land in t" embaygeak just outside the Southport Vevelopj Vhat ere the existing conditions within these areas, tetei . e3itriae access, build 444 and'environmental characteristics soca ` Atter tlti;tgs? 1 lr* AY iS; s ;Y HENDERSON AND BODWELL Cw"- LnmG ENti1NEERS Mith reference to the description of access to the site, the DEIS•gives no information in this element's text or mapping other than a nomiaal double line indicating the existence of Sage Boulevard. Its character— istics and the sponsor's right to its use should be clarified here In describing the project. Further, with referent* to marine access, there Is no information in the text or sapping of this -element showing where the channel is located or its general characteristics. As a description of access to the Site this element is inadequate. ' With reference tomexisting zoning, the site is in the C Light Industrial Viorict which, as the DEIS states, does not permit motels or hotels. Essentially every use in this district is a special exception use subject to the approval of the Board of Appeals and site plan approval by the Planning Board. Further, Just as with this proposal for the Southport Development, they would be subject to SEQB• review in appropriate cases. As a result the same environmental and planning considerations would tend to limit their development to an acceptable level. There is no.mention of Flood Plain Zoning in the DEIS. This regulation may be expected to have a significant Arrect on this site's development. The scoping outline for this element requires the sponsor to provide a description of the waterbodies. This has not been provided. C. Desisn and Layout: The scoping included all the outlined items in the The SEOR Handbook for this element. In teras of the total site area it may be deduced that, since 3.72 acres are underwater land, the upland area must be 8.63 acres to make up the total of 12.35 acres. However, there is ro Indication of the *prop**" Impervious surface are' (roofs, parking lots, roads)*. There ilea statement that the parking areas will have pervious surfaces even tbovgh there may be a question as to the degree of permeability or the surface soils in this area. The site was previously used as a brickyard because •• of the availability of clay soils in the vicinity. xith reference to - 4 . - 1-o 29 +�'j`f`;'M ys ..'' rfpU k..' :'fes'.�+_ .".l•i '�' ..-'i,' :, HENDERSON AND BODW­ELLCOMWLTOW ENGINEERS drainage, it is proposed to control run off "by a common storm water management system designed to eliminate any possible impacts to.Sround or surface waters". Since the Deily information with respect to soil conditions on this shoreline site is the Soil Survey of Suffolk County, which designates the surface soils as "made land% and since the bistorto ase was khat of a brickyard, the feasibility;ot providing such a coepion. storm water management system should be explored further in the DEIS and not simply assumed to be feasible. -. The DEIS does not describe the amount of land to be cleared or the muaber and area of buildings and facilities to be demolished. Also there is no report of the open space to be preser*Gd. With reference to structures the DEIS presents only one square footage, the-5,500 square foot area of the restaurant. The size and character Of the motel emits and their supplementary facilities are not made available nor are the square footages of marina buildings and facilities, If any. Nominal capacities of 125 diners for the restaurant and 82 units for the motel are provided. Are these seasonal uses? Is it poss- Me that the motel units will become condominiums? If so, will:tbey continue to be available for transients? dill the-motel, include such uses as a health club open to residents in the areal dill the restaurant Include o cocicuil lounge/bar or a night club? As in the case of the storm water management systei, there is no evidence that the "made land" surface soils-will accommodate the saw disposal. System proposed -without polluting the surrounding surface waters or creating problems on the upland ground surfaces. A third element in the utility services is the private well to be used for washing boats and irrigation. No offer Ss Made of the quantity of va:er to be pumped or its location on the site. Sow oat} its impact be assssse4? With reference to the marina facility, no mention is made of the denier lition of the existing docks, bulkheads and similar marine structures. �y LS 3 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGtNERS -yr - - This seems to be implied. Is this the ease? Does It involve a change In the shoreline and, if to, where? $ince the embayment is actually an abandoned clay.pit excavation, what is the character of the bottom material to be dredged? if it is unsuitable for .the creation or tidal wetland, can ws assume that it will be suitable for use on the land surface? There are some indications in this area that s fine clay silt an the land surface has led to some localized ponding sad ;poor suftire - permeability. W111 the spoil material aggrevate this eondition? Is the proposed egpanded marina capacity to be used seasonally? Will the-upland area be used for open storage of boats over the winter? Will the boat launching facility be available to local residents, day trippers or other transients looking for a launching ramp? if so, where will 'F " boat trailer storage be provided? Other than fuel, what services 41' the marina provide to resident and transient vessel owners? Will there be a ship's supply store and minor or major repair services? Will theft be utilities available at the dockside? Pump-out facilities? !Marina area lighting? Public address system? What will be the character of thost utilities and services ? In terms of zoning, relating these proposld uses to tbo,M-1 Cener4 Multiple-Residence Disrict regulations suggests thats4rsral issues meed - clarification, One is with references to the uses thesdelves. lleaitaui^- ante are not a permitted or special exception use in 1100-'I0, Open best ' storage and marine fuel sales and storage are not permitted or special exception uses either, although they now exist on the site. Are they to be considered nonconforming uses? To what degree will the sxpa"Ino of the capacity.of such uses be permitted once rezoned? 'tor instancy, the marina capacity is now only 91 berths, could it be expanded to 121 berths if the nonconforming aspects increased as a platter Of necessity! _ Considering that the site development proposal includes three"disti" •`, principal uses, what area of the site should be aaaigned.to each Of s them? tar instaned, it is a commonly accepted standard that the u lash aria Of a marina should be equal to that of the water area tell �fi ��epi- , r- ,� - •: ?,,. that would be 3.72 acres. This would leave 4.91 acres for the rottavrant +GFS' - _ - •'•''p `N�; ::krv: - -- A. y,k `t��a~•TM .��� "�£ g- =,�„v4 ..f' k ."• �"!�e'4'4 L _- amu• "s -itsfisxr�n 1 � " •" ------- HENDERSON AND QODWELL CONSULTING ENG1NEf911S !4 . and motel uses. Even s nominal area allowance for the restaurant would include its $,500 square root building coverage plus an equal amount for its immediate environment and parking for 25 automobiles for a total area or at least 0,45 acres. This leaves 6.46 acres rot- the arthe motel. The zoning regulations require 6,000 square fest or lot - area per motel unit where no public sewer system is available. 6s a result, the remaining land area would accommodate no more than 3z motel units. It seems apparent, even on its face, that the Sgutbport Development .proposal 1s a ease of over development of the site. Thies is without refaregce to any environmental conditions which in a shore- line area could result in additional constraints. Vith reference to the DIMS parking element, it is apparent that the prefect sponsor proposal to provide substantially more total opacea than the existing regulations require, very nearly the number that would be required under the newly proposed zoning standards. The minimus parking space area standard in the existing zoning regula- tion is 350 square feet. this indicates that the minimum parking area without accounting for any site plan specifics would total 2.13 acres., or 27 percent of the site's upland area: Visual inspection of the conceptual site plan eonrirms that parking and driveway will occupy a• wry substantial portion of the site. Bow pervious will these Surfaces really be? Will there be any storm water runoff management system and, If so, where? Will these areas be lighted? If so, what will be the fl character of the lighting? Since the proposal i; for commercial uses in a residential nei,ghboritood, the question of signage should be addressed. The 11-1 General Mutple-+ 1lesidenee District permits 'one (1) advertising sign, either ologi» op doublefaced, not more than fifty (50) square feet in area , . . efts '._.' upper edge of which shall not project more than fifteen (15) fa!t *I.* - ".' (6) inches .above tate ground. bill this generate a claim of bardaRiip for the proposed marina/restaurant/motel complex? Will they need wA Belk avariince? tht would be. considered in to res of �gnsglt -for-succi a business? ��., ," ire �,,;,: .....• . . ,. �:'t"i"'¢fi'.�'•�,s M �:a;Z+'-.iJ.i;r_'.��r,: ,,fr--{ '� .- .. • 'y-,'. -k ' w ^+,�•t" moi:y �;. `. '�i. a.�. `s ', 5„ „��:r'.,'� - :r., ;"s*.r?4 .. ;I `•i HENDERSON AND BOQWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS i - V. Construction and 00erat Pith reference to the construction period; the OM states that it will take a minimum of two years. Vhat is the maxim m construction period' Since it is noted on page 11 that the metal construction would be accomplished in tvo phases, when will they occur wring the overall construction period? With reference to maintgnanee dredging as the first activity, vill that depend on receipt of e.11 t1l necessary approvals or will it begin'ts xoom as possible based on the maintenance dredging permit? Hili the dredging be timed with reference to the seasonal calendar? Similarly, viii the demolition and debris removal occur prior to receipt of all the necessary approvals? if $o, will the site be rehabilitated in case the necessary approvals are not received ori the project delayed for some other reason? Vith reference to scheduling, when will the sponsor complete the ,planning and design phase? Assuming that the change of zone district is granted, when will the sponsor be ready to apply for all the other necessary approv- e_ ala? Start construction on each of the principal building types? Vhen the initial construction generally described in the conceptual site plaiet is completed, does 'Lie sponid iAt'idipate any potential future con- struction on the site? In terms of operation and maintenance, how many employees does the Sponsor" ex expect to pe engage for each of the principal urea by season and by time of the day? Doerr the sponsor propose to continue the maintenance dredging as needed and be ftsponslble for renewal of the maintenance dredging pelt rhea the existing permit expires? It Sage Boulevard Is improved as a private road, will'the project sponsor ply his share of the upkeep and maintenance, including such things as snow removal7F h1. Aocrovals: since the protect Sponsor seems to leave some details for later decision, it &I" seems likely that there will needto tilt a >: r' further 3E011 approval on the final pians. s: _' Nk $ - f�z.� HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEER 4 _ , 3. Iy. E`NIRON".£NTAL SETTING - MATURAL RESOURCES A. Ceoloaya Us DEIS's discussion of soils is extremely limited. Using the very brief generalized descriptions of "made land* and "cut and fill land" is hardly revealing when it is a known fact that the site and its surrounding area were historically a brickyard and its associated clay pit excavations. eMade land" in this context strongly Indicates an Impact from the brieWyard activity and the immediately adjacent clay pit excavations, one pf which now serves as the harbor/marina and the others which are the •cut and fill land" to the north of Sage Boulevard across from the subject site. The clay pit soil type is Candice silt loam. The soil survey description of this soil's limitations includes slow perzeability, seasonal high water .table at a depth of } to 1} feet and, 'r. in the case of sanitary land fill where leaching would be a tactor, hazard of water pollution. Vith reference to its engineering properties the soil survey reports that Candice silt loam would affect foundations for for buildings because of seasonal high water table, high compressibility and large settlement. The textural description also points out that "The soil must be artifically drained for successful production of commonly grown crops, but a lack of suitable outlets rakes artifical drainage difficult Topographic mapping and test hole data records prepared for the Breezy Point subdivision proposal surrounding the Southport Development site eogfira the aerial map notations of the soil survey with respect to the clay vit excavations in the "cut and fill land" area across the northern boundary of the subject site. The nearby test holes also found substan- tial clay strata remaining in this area. Amy discussion of soil conditions in this area should be considered in- adequate without a significant number of test holes and careful evaluation of the resultant data. Special note of The 3'-02 Handbook's recommendation that 'Ia general, alccurate sketches., photos, charts and tables should be used wherever possible to supplement and simplify narrative description" is appropriate: IRV iris _ } HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ":least importantly, graphics should be clear, legible and understandable L4 the I47man-0 This entire geology element of the DEIS is textural. There is not even a topographic map of the area to illustrate the Complexity of the terrain that resulted from the-brickyard activity and the potential extent of the impact of the proposed Southport Develop- went on the surrounding properties. Such a map might help locate the small sections of high and intertidal marsh found on the site and the existing structural controls "such as bulkheading and riprapw. 'B. Vater Resources; The DEIS report that *depth to around water on the subject site varies between 0 to 81, however, fluctuation of up to several feet can be expected due to percipitation damages" is apparent:y # tYpoVaphic error. The suggested test hole data would certainly help to establish the ground water elevation at a particular time and could be further modified by giving consideration to the fluctuation factor mentioned. The discussion of surface water is incomplete without noting the obvious fact that the marina is in an embayment off of Southold Bay. Further, because of its restricted opening into the Southold Say, tidal flushing max be limited and that, as a result, eleiMing of the embayment waters stay-bt limited. This raises the question of the impact of activity in the embayment on all- of the shorefront properties around the embayment. Yhat will that impact be? a t. III. £NVIRONPE'NTAL SETTING - Wm. *.l $:S0U tc!3 R. Transoortalon: The Deis presentation with respect to land transport- Is found in the attached Exhibit a. Much of this analysis is based on.personal, on-site field observations and supplementarymgauai tratrio counts. Since the North Folk is a seasonal resort community, it is important that the reader know when these observations and Counts ocouer• ed. "Siert they on summer weekends? That traftit-flow information gathered free the Xtw York State Department. � 10 - d k 8 { ZYX ,�i 16i �'tz«.• .. - - - _' ' a- �a,,• y' 2 �s .1 t -' „-k _ „T � k .+a ` - 4 4 �' s h 3 r g + 4th', ,•,r HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS of Transportation establishes the average daily traffic on Route 2$ as 7,450 vehicles and the peak weekday hours as 8;00-9:00 A.M. and 4:00-5:00 P.M., according to the text. Examination of that data, which " is included at the end of the report, reveals that it is a partial count for the week of June 23 through 29 in 1984. it records hourly direction- al counts for Monday afternoon through friday morning. it does not in- elude Friday afternoon through Monday morning, the most active traffic period on a summer weekend- through factoring these data the departaeat derived an annual average daily traffic volume of 7,445. The DEIS - apparently roundA this figure up to 7,450. Can the results of such a Partial count and derivation be considered reasonable as the sole source of information? The average weekday hour data In this sane data indicates that hourly traffic volume, with only infinitesimal exceptions, builds V from midnight straight through to 4:00-S:00 P.M. in the afternoon. In general the data for individual days bears this finding out as well. There is no customary morning peak commuter hour evident in these data. Since great emphasis is placed on the Saturday peak hour between 4:00-5:00 P.K., on what day of what year was that count taken? Was traffic dis- tribution by direction an Route 25A determined from this other count? When were the available gaps recorded? With reference to the trip generation analysis, it would be helpful to know more about the actual operation of the 8oµthport Development. For Instances Just what character will -the principal and supplemental land uses have? How many employees will they engage? What will be their hour# of operation and when will the employees be arriving and depart- ing? What sort of service vehicles might be expected? What about ~ oversized vehicles? There may be more of these it on site open boat Storage is not contemplated or if launching I romp operations are encour- aged. While it is true that overlapping uses on the site say lead to multiple purpose trips, there is no evidence in general experience to suggest that this is a significant factor in the ease of marinas, restaurants and resort-type motels on Long Island. -More specifically, la terms of trip generation rates, what are the rslatire rates for sarins, restaurants, resort motels and pool and 4 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS tennis clubs? Tf this material is to be evaluated with reference to Potential elements of the use that need to be reduced in capacity to decrease traffic generation,the analyst must know which use has which trip generation rate. ?here is no evidence presented with reference to the peak hour traffic generation for these uses. Are there different peak flours of traffic generation projected for these uses? What are they? What traffic will be generated by other development on Sage Boulevard? In analyzing directional distribution two of the guidelines are derived from the traffic counts. What was the anticipated origin and destination of the users data derived from? Th discussing site generated traffic impact on Sage Boulevard, the VETS describes Sags Boulevard as the *primary access" to the site. Aside from boats, what other access is there? Tf consideration is -given to the boat access which is exclusive of any land access, to what degree was this considered to be a factor? Now was this determined? Zzamination of access to the site itself indicates that there are now two access driveways but that the proposal will only have 'one major access Point off of Sage Boulevard". The conceptual site plan shows two access driveways much the same as the existing ones in terms of location. What is the difference? the discussion goes on to point out that the sight distance at this major access point is excellent. What about the sight distance at the other access driveway which is located within about 60 feet of the ninety degree change in alignment of Sage Boulevard to the east? Despite these acre detailed questions, there is one overriding question, what will be the impact of this commercial traffic on a local street is a developing low density residential area? Vill the residential *nvirom- went that existing and future property owners anticipate when they Purchase their homes deteriorate? What will be the impact on Breezy Shores? With reference to maria* access, the location of the channel is not shows 12 1-3T moo.r ;•mac ..,w- ... . ILL: HENDEAWN AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS on any map in the DE:S, where is it? Has there been any projection of marine traffic generated by Southport Development and by others fronting on the embayment:? This was a particular concern in the Scoping Session. 11. Land Lyse and Zoning: The Scoping Session expressed concern for land uses primarily on the Conkling Point peninsula. The DEIS falls to describe the existing and foreseeable residential development of almost all the remaining vacant land for=standard or clustered residential development. It also fails to distinguish between the Southport Development site and the Port of Eygpt site. The comment regarding the current •C* Light Industrial District is mob disputed. Fortunately, SEQR, the special exception use procedure and site plan approval provide some response to this concern.- A similar concern may also be expressed for the same reasons about any .intensive development. This does not seem to appear in the DEIS presentation. The reference to the •recently adopted !taster Plan" is 1n error. The MasterPlan is still subject to possible changes after the public hear— ings are completed. The Master Plan has not been adopted . - The proposed Master Plan does state that "Marine—related water-dependent uses are encouraged at appropriate locations on or near the coast and/or along creeks and bays where they do not negatively impact on rtsidentiai neighborhoods or the natural environment.• It also says that 'the Marine lecreation category is recommended for locations along ereeka that hove suitable harbor areas, but less tidal flushing than it possiblein bay— front or soundfront locations.* The fact that the Master Plan' does show the Southport Development site in the Marine Business categdr'-Is Contra- dictory to these findings and others expressed in the -goals of the Master Plan. It may be anticipated that this fact will be brought, %I#'at,tbo Public hearings which have yet to occur. with respect to 0te'low density 'residential category shown over most of the remainder of tlf CbeiWAe� , Point peninsula, the Master Plan states •lZitae low densities;dre pariia- ularly applicable to coastal areas to protect ground and surtsce vatera ' and environmentally sensitive portions of the Town Including wetlands, _ 13 - -_k - 1-38,w� t•f � ., Y, � `.r .4xr Z HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS beaches, bluffs and dunes.` Among the Master Plan Goals those associated with the environment include the following: "Promote a development pattern that is responsive to sensitive areas, exhibiting prime agricultural soils, poor drainage, high water table, high erosion hazard, sensitive coastal features, great scenic quality and woodlands. •Maintain and improve water surface quality. •!Maintain and protect finfishing and shell fishing habitats." Since the Master Plan has not been through its public hearings or adopted,and since the proposed zoning regulations are designed to Implement the Master Plan, it is premature to consider them in any detail at this time. 0. Demogaphy: The Scoping Session ftiund that,although this is s MUW item, some information should be provided about the users. With a commercial land use this would include employees as well as transient residents, diners and service personnel. Also with reference to .commercial developments, it is important to !stow the time periods during which such people are on the premises. ftne of this is provided. -t. Cultural Resources: the !caping Session notes include a presentatiod with respect to anise: existing and proposed uses and noise impact. Shore is none. Y. SIG.II:ICANT IstI 1010MI:RAL IMPACTS She following factors in the environmental settings have not been t# . H r 4 - �++. 'x-5 .�-- . TY 2'}ef.Y 4Y) ". __ Y i LV :.J\'fY .x ..JL. •+s•. .•'L:ie -ry _` _ , HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS adequately addressed: Setting Adverse Inoact Soils Ponding surface water due to Impermeability of soil Inadequate potential for structural solutions for storm water and sanitary sewage disposal system due to poor soil characteristics Fuel tank, structure and building settlement due to soil character- istics Disposition of poor quality dredge Spoils due to unsuitability for use as upland surface soil apple- sients dune enhancement or wetland resource material Topography Inadequate quantities of supplement- - ary soils for grading due to poor soil characteristics Groundwater Private well draw down of limited groundwater resource leading to Possible salt water intrusion (this was an element in the Scoping Session outline but not Included in the DEIST Pollution of resource as a result Of discharge from storm water and unitary sewage disposal systems Surface waters Lack of adequate tidal flushing of embayaent to accommodate in- creased activity and Larger vessels Doubtful potential for creating effectty* biological filtration ale _ - 'A ,�. ., ." �,.y.•;i�-tom.N' ,.. _ w , - I-44 3' t HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS systems due to character or dredging spoils and existing surface soils vegetation Potential permanent loss of 7,000 s.f. of HM and IM areas Wetlands Potential permanent loss of 7,000 s.f. of HM and IM areas Transportation Deterioration of residential eharacter of local road usage Increased trailered boats and oversize vehicle traffic and consequent Impact on residential local road Improvements Increased marine traffic and potential congestion in channel and embay- sent areas Zoning and land use Overintensive land utilization as a result of at least three principal uses in an environmentally sensitive residential neighborhood If constructed any one of these Principal uses might prove to be economically infeasible leading to pressure for a sore intaasivie and/or less attractive reuse in this residential neighborhood* Exposure of property isprovem"ts, Including utility systems,, to, flood hazards Need for zoning regulation amendment to permit 125 seat restaurant Pressure for zoning variances part- icularly to permit greater signage Outdoor area lighting on both Lad and crater * This case is made in this very DEIS wi%h reference to the existing use on the site - see Alternatives. X; 1-41 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING EMOINEM dompatibility of 268 parked cars and other vehicles in a residential neighborhood and across property, lines from residence sites. Community services Increased noise levels and nighttime and cultural Resouces activity on both land and water areas Increased need for police protection Increased need for"sionitoring sarins traffic, marine security and water quality Deterioration of existing and potential residential neighborhood environment and property values Disposal of demolition debris (this was an element In the Scoping Session outline but not included In the DEIS) Potential increased demand for seasonal employees and housing for thea rather than employment for year round residents Visual impact of commercial uses and activities and outdoor lighting 6. VI. MITIGATION MEASURES - NATURAL RESOURCES A- Geology: According to the Survey of Soils the Southport Development site's upland area is almost entirely "aade land". the DEIS describes the topography as "generally level with slopes descending towards the basin and bay" with average elevation of approximately 8 feet above mean sea level. Considering these factors and the need to observe flood plain zoning regulation, the potential for regrading to"ereate aesthetically ` pleasing land forms to screen undesirable views (_Ed. Not previously disclosed or located either on or off the site) and add interest, diversity, - 17 - `~— •�-�— HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEEAS and view on a presently monotonous site• certainly needs clarification and amplification. The conceptual site plan and missing topographic cap are no help in this matter. B. Water Resources: With respect to ground water, the mitigating measure merely recites the standards the sponsor will have to sect If conditions on the subject site actually permit them to be met. Tliers 12 no evidence presented in the DEIS to the effect that the subject mite conditions do in fact permit them to be not. Some sites cannot accommodate any and every use an -a result of technological modifications. This could well be one of them. 4 In connection with surface water, no mention is made of restricting carina activities in any fashion, nor is any mention made of.pump-q4t Station facilities. The question of storm vat*.- and sanitary sewage disposal System adequacy also applies to this subject. T. VI. MITIGATION MEASURES - RUMAN RESOURCES A. Transition: Since the DEIS fails to find any adverse Impacts in this area, it does not propose any mitigating measures. This is inadequate Oft its face considering the questions of adverse impact raised in this analysis and also in the Scoping Session. 8.tend Use and Zoning: The mitigating measures proposed in this elft include a change in the existing plans for the Town of Southold based ot1 an as yet unadopted baster Plan which is only now reaching the publio hearing stage which would lead to adoption. Whereas the existing "C" Light Industrial District admittedly permits many undesirable uses ea its face, it is not admitted that all such uses at any intensity could survive the review and approval that must be endured. Specifically, it: should be noted that the existing comprehenslve toning plan has appermtlx led to the designation of for-profit marinas, boatyards and similar 44rAW 4303 as "C" Light Industrial Districts. Thus it screens out esientl4ty �a. 0 1-4a rr "'!0 HENDERSON AND BODWEL.L CONSULTING ENGINEERS all non-marine retail uses and requires all other uses except commercial agricultural operations and town owned and operated buildings, structures and uses to go through the three review and approval procedures as special exception uses. The p rcposed new uses include motel which is not permitted under the existing comprehensive toning plan. It may be noted here that there is no equivalent district to the proposed M-1 General 14ultiple-Residence District in the proposed zoning. It is assumed that the sponsor', faced with the proposed ordinance, would seek either the !farina 8ecrestion or ftriae Business District designation. Interestingly, neither of these districts, If adopted as proposed, permit motels or restaurants as a matter of rift. It would require the three step review and approval procedure as a special exception for either one. It must be concluded that these uses have critical characteristics in terms of the Town of Southold*s existing comprehensive toning plan and even of its as yet Unadopted plan. Any discussion of the state's 44 CZM policies and of area market demand can only provide a very general background when dealing with a specifie site. They cannot be considered persuasive where there is no suppartiie local CZM policy as yet nor any other adopted local plan. ,.z _ b. Cultural Resources: The mitigating measures offered relate to 3=0 ? good and some doubtful perceived beneficial impacts. There are no aeasurls .related to visual impact of commercial use 'wim si;nage amd outdoor area lighting, nighttime activity an both land and water areas, need for increase police protection, marine patrol and monitoring, the - potential increased demand for seasonal employees and housing for then contrasted to year round resident employment, the disposal of unsuitable soils and demolition debris, and the deterioration of existing and potential residential neighborhood environmental and property values. VII. ADv_3SS EyVIR01IME3TAL IWACTS THAT CASIW 9E AVOIDElZ n� fast of the adverse environmental impacts record" here as Umvoidable 1-44 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS -r kl: have not been discussed in the DEIS prior to this section. Further, the text does not consider dredging, which was listed in the Scoping Session outline, as unavoidable. Finally, even with a degree of mitigation of =at of its aspects, if the proposed over intensive commercial development Las to be injecte3 into this residential neighborhood, it must be considered to have an adverse Impact. 9. T1171. ALTERNATIVES This entire discussion of alternatives is obviously inadequate and Incomplete with reference to the requirements of the Scoping Session outline. It is clearly not in accordance with the standard that `Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a compara- tive assessment of costs, benefits and the environmental risks for each alternative" as described in The SEOR Handbook. 10. IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE CON41THM Of RESOURCES It should be recorded here that the community will also face further erosion of the neighborhood's residential character and deterizration of surface ;rater quality in the embayment. 11. X. GROWTH IODUCING ASPECT1% This section of the DE--S has not responded to any of the Scoping Session's items. In many ways the earlier lack of any demographic or detailed surrounding land use presentation makes it aLzost impossible to prepare a ccaplete Statement of this Southport Development project's growth inducing.aspects. - 20 - 1-45 _ y{Z HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AN ANALYSIS OF THE DEIS FOR A ZONING CHANGE FOR SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT, SOUTHOLD BAY, SOUTHOLD TOWN, NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS prepared: January i5, 1986 by: Larry Penny Environmental Analyst 450 NoyaC Road Sag Harbor, NY 11963 sa^ w�t 1-46 a ,w „sl ."..-" �' � I.� tom, `�"}`:: 44 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS INTRODUCTION I have reviewed the proposed facility - motel, restaurant, marina, and boat maintenance complex - requiring the zoning change sought by the Site's owners and carefully read and evaluated the Draft Environmental Impact StatemenC' (DEIS) written in support of such project and zoning change. My focus in this evaluation has been on environmental concerns, namely groundwater resources, site topography and stratigraphy, fisheries resources, surface waters. and alternatives. suffice it to say that there are other environmental concerns (air Pollution, etc..), but I have chose to treat only those Imminently impacted by the proposed action. The outstanding deficiency in the DEIS is its complete lack of critical information, or data base, on those paramount environmental parameters (water quality, fish stocks, habitat types, and the like), existing and to be applied, by which the magnitude of the impacts can be measured and risks to the environment evaluated. it is safe to say that any one of the principal uses proposed, taken separately, could substantially degrade the environment. Taken together# in the absence of meaningful and practical mitigation, they represent a -1- 1-47 �° Y HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS , I = grave throat. certainly, it can not at all be said, from a reading of this DEIS (p. 36), that Lastly, the zoning change will remove the potential threat of environmental pollution and improve the visual characteristics of the " - site, as will be pointed out in the sections that follow. SITE TOPOGRAPHY/STRATIGRAPHY A. Topography. The site is essentially an island, water off. of which drains down slope all around into adjacent surface waters and wetlands. Creator attention to topography is needed in light of coverage and runoff surface increases . - to be part and parcel of this project. This is particularly true because of severe site limitations (high water table, questionable soils and subsoils) as Ear as handling storawater. Inasmuch as only a fraction (ca. 1000 cubicards) of the y projected 17,000 cubic #_ yards of dredge materials can be incorporated (at scat) into the small marsh rebuilding project, it is presumed - ' that the remainder will need to be used on site. This 50, -2- S„ ti i, •ti,,' - �'vrj {�ax->�. t to }�;. • - to �`"•,•.' 4 - " 5 '<'« - 2-48, — of •( : d.W'1�.'`i* -F + ` HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS amounts to a pile of spoil 125 yards by 12S yards which would raise 37% of the upland portion of the site by one Yard in elevation, or the entire site by more than one foot tnot counting upland excavation materials to be added to this volume). NO need to see how the topography of the site will be so changed. Elevating this site in relation to others around the basin will effect flooding potential during storm tide conditions on lower lying sites. a. Stratigraphy. The specific nature of the made (eta) land and cut-and-fill soils and subsoils on the site must be elucidated before decisions on the appropriateness of this site for the proposed complex can be wisely made. There are no soil borings or soil and subsoil composition breakdowns provided. We have no depth to groundwater data (it has been estimated) available. The site's present substrates will be used to structurally and functionally interact with spoils to serve a variety of very important purposes (effluent percolation, storm drainage, vegetation management and the like), yet we know almost nothing about them. u�✓ '.,-"�.,;:��Y AFF;°.i,'tk''.Y'`-" . �� h� ; �• 1-49 > •. r •• r�Li r l4*`S�ydtK;' i:.x•"kM: 1•S'�il`' % ., HENDERSON AND BOOWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS S GROUNIMATER RESOURCES A. Nater Use. The DEIS seriously underestimates water use - 13,300 gallons per day (gpd) during peak. Using Greenport crater District figures (see Suffolk County Comprehensive water Resources Management plan Phase I. (Draft), Appendix E.) -of 110.8 gal. per. capita per day ° ih the Greenport water District, the projected water use (a conservative figure) for the proposed complex will be 27,250 gpd, or 2.S% of the Water District's summer pumpage, a significant single-source increase on a district that is already quality stressed, especially during the summer. On the basis Of motel water use considered separately, the 82 units will conservatively generate 225 gpd of usage per unit during peak times, 0c At least 18,500 gpd. When you add up all of the non-motel uses to the motel units' use, it is very passible that on the order of 30,000 gpd will be used by this project at full operation. in terms of resource cost to the water district, all of this use will be _ consumptive, the water will be lost to the potable water supPly from which account the district must draw. This r , net loss amounts to some 1.67 to 2.45 million gallons t d' 77 4. M'7-_7 77 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS during the ccitical 90 day period, June through August, when figured on motel use alone or total use. Obviously, the DEIS has not properly evaluated the project's impacts on the area's gcoundwatec resources. The proposed use of private well(s) to account for secondary water uses (boat washing and the like) does not take into account the strong probability of entraining contaminants from the site's aquifer which will become increasingly quality stressed from the complex's upland activities. There will be then the increased liklihood of facilitating the spread of this contamination into adjacent surface waters. Such pumping from on-site sources will also affect the groundwater flow regime which could exacerbate impacts vis-a-vis underflow into these surface waters. S. Subsurface Flow. The DEIS suggests that the subsurface flow of groundwater (and entrained effluent) on the site will be to the south and southeast (p.16) without providing any hydrogeological data, empirical or modelled, upon which to base this pconouncement. It is almost a certainty that part of the subsurface flow is to the basin, as well as the Southold Say. In either case effluent from the project entrained in this flow will move into 16. ;.,. i4Fa,. jx 1Yiic1 '. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS adjacent surface waters and will have an impact there (see FISHERIES BIOLOGY and SURFACE WATER sections, elsewhere in this report). We need to know much more about the parameters which shape sub-surface flow, ie., the composition of soil and subsoils, the elevations after completion, the situation of the leaching pools and leaching fields associated with the complex, the water use and. secondary recharge volumes and more. Mitigation can only be based on a complete knowledge of these parameters of which so little is actually made part of the DEIS. C. Effluents. The nature and volume of the effluent to be generated by this project and the kinds and amounts of other liquid wastes to be produced (pool wastes, boat wastes) has not been evaluated. The potential impacts on surface waters and fisheries resources evaluated elsewhere in this report are very great. We need to know the composition and amounts of these various waste water products. The outstanding contribution to liquid waste will be made by the motel and restaurant parts of the .project. we need to know more about how effective the proposed dentrification system will be in treating ,fc 77 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ----- such diverse wastes, especially in the case where the Ptak volumes anticipated will clearly exceed those Projected in the DEIS. It may well be that the denitrification system except for some nitrate removal, will be unable to adequately treat these volumes and waste stream components and that a larger system (e.g. tertiary treatment plant) will be needed. It would be an absolute catastrophe to nearby surface waters if the treatment facility is undersized, if it is not proper in * this situation and is placed near the water table where its products co-mingle with the groundwater. The Inefficient and only partial treatment of wastewater effluent will lead to the destruction of the fisheries resources in the vicinity of the project. This kind of Impact from poorly treated effluents has already been realized in several surface waters of Long Island and has been of great harm to recreational and commercial fisheries located therein. FISHERIES RESOURCES THe fisheries resources of the subject basin and Southold Bay stand to be impacted significantly by the proposed motel-restaurant-marina complex in a number of ways, none of which have been satisfactorily addressed -7- „ x°�_t �Y.•I�.w'-Y 3,yil'MSS' µ'V,ri..�� ' - 1-53 eha Vii.. �'- ; .{f•:Ar-' '.- , - -r�`.::W,t�.t.�.:_ '".,. ,iii':� - y°•h•..t. _ _ -s�.. ,'f .. _ .�-_ Y�'R=-.....:JY�N1�:'i31�:_,'•.-Y 'x:t�'{.�"•. R� .+`.'yA._ .T?V'_: :r, -.. 41� 7. i3 .. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS -- by the applicant. A- Shellfish Contamination The generation of wastewater viii- add considerably to contamination of the surface waters of -the basin and Southold say ove r .present levels. water use will probably exceed 25,oQ0 gallons per day during the summer peak period. Only a fraction of this w&ter will be generated on site. It is a well known fact that boat wastes from commercial and/or residential vessels are responsible for extensive surface water contamination. The increased contamination from operation of the complex is of two sources, microbial and chemical. 1. Microbial. Active marinas are always likely candidates for high levels of surface water microbes attributable to human causes. Colifo`r* counts in large-boat •marina waters so often exceed USFDA standards that the soon forthcoming wanual on shellfish sanitation, governing critexi-a upon which surface waters will be certified or decertified with respect to shellfish taking, will roddomend decertifying many marina waters. Atta.thed to this report, for example, are 1935 summer readings for marinas in Three Mile Harbor, Bast Hampton Town, which r, eq 1-04 � �;ywi•1 -,rsp. -. .. .�F.f�tr�'vNa:£ � ., „r.7(`""�°'�F---,i tea,r~` ��'`i�3a3 y..�.., e•rt r�,�" s HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS grossly exceed colifocm standards and which have coved the Now York State OEC to close considecable waters in that harbor to shelifishing. in practice the provision for pump-out stations has not led to the effective diminution of such microbial contamination. Moreover, the microbes from such hot spots of contamination can spread to peripheral waters leading to their closure, as well. in the long term, as a result of chronically high coliform levels generated by a string of coastal nodes, a long stretch of coastal waters can be contaminated to the point where they are decertified. This is precisely what has happened in Three Mile Harbor recently and in Great South Say and numerous other Long Island waters in the past. very few waters once decertified are recertifiedt the long-term trend is evident, on long Islandkand elsewhere along the Atlantic Coast, more and score coastal waters are closed to shellfishing. Certainly, not all of the enhanced microbial levels In the subject coastal waters will be attributable to boat watt*$. There is a gathering body of evidence that runoff and septic outflow will also contribute considerably to these levels. in terms of effluent contributions, the proposed project ,,?�' ;t_ `.!�rs�,Y� rya..�,`•'. '. 1-5S 17 _— ^.y;, .,a - ,.�,,r.. .�..M.'tin .y-,'.+}.,';e::' - x� •.ti,. R;.. _w'a= ,,Nrs^p� f . ,=nrr�: er`.'st 2 _,`2. f rt.h..', ` _ ,.j('S„5;1+,tir:1':4:, .s.'- :Sr'} p,�';.'.t' a --• ' - ;f,�� Y ��'��” .,r�1��r.�?s, =�i� .fin x• �� �'. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS will generate more than 20,000 gpd of effluent during the peak summer months. Because of the questionable nature of the leachina soils, the high water table and- the proximity of the upland uses of the site to surface waters, the probability for movement of microbes into basin waters and Southold Bay waters is high. This pTehahility is, of course, highest for viral particles, which are considerably smaller than bacteria and thus much *ore Pobile in subsurface substrates. The nitication measures to be arovided in the form Of pump-out stations, storm water runoff system, Denitrification system, and other lesser Peasures (e.q. recreation of wetlands) will not necessarily provide the -itioative relief proposed or required. The runoff system is dependent on the availability Of proper soils and subsoils - to date we beve no actual boring records to analyze, no soil samples to evaluate, the storm water syste- is aaroly conceptual at this point in time. Catchment capacity so close to the surface waters of Southold gay is a very big if factor, the small ar!ount of marsh to be created 1-0 too thin and too sloced to be of ouch use in filterinq out sheet flow to evanate from the site as a result of 1-56 $ .��i 'b. roti ..1.'w.-r v � • ':fix-- Ys"r�'-.:z '`•= 3 - A r . ,i �'�' ^^. - .».c :<< '''; 1`'As.��ae',1F�g"s"'2-sJr�a � t�s'•;'cY%'. "'''." ,v}��,��,• HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS rains and irrigation. The denitrification system propos*d may remove nitrates, but it is not designed to kill or remove viruses and many bacteria. The effectiveness of puma-out stations in limitinq boat wastAs. impacts reriains to he demonstrated. 2. Chemical. The sare water uses attendant to such an ambitious croiect that will generate considerable microbial contamination, will also produce P great amount of chemical wastes: fro- boats, motel grounds, swimming pool, restaurant and boat maintenance facilities. Of the chemical contaminants to be generated by such a mix of diverse activities and uses, some may be oartially contained by the so-called storm drainage systea, the denitrification system, and pump-out system. As the storm drain system and percolating soils load up they will leach more and nor* of these temporarily impounded chemicals into adjacent surface waters. The Aeritrification system will not only pass through several chemicals but will add sulphurous and other chemicals associated with the denitrification treatment. Many motel maintenance chemicals and restaurant chemicals tcleaninq agents, pesticiAes, r 1_67 jXt✓d`Y'- ,4""���i4o',1sa ��' r,' 4.;�,fA .,,...:=,g„+,-„l:�E. �'`'°-� r ,�; � � �f����ava r'"S�v.�4'q �v 'S • HENDERSON AND ®ODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS floor conditioners, and the like) will find their way into adjacent surface waters, as will chemicals from the boat maintenance part of the complex. These chemical contaminants add up. Many of them are extremely harmful to fisheries species, especially to the spawn of shellfish and finfish. Others lead to excessive phytoplankton production because they stimulate growth or favor contaminant- tolerant species (e.g. , blue-green algae) to intolerant ones. Because the complex of proposed activities and uses associated with the project under consideration will synergize during the summer months, the contamination by microbes and chemicals is sure to be greater at that time, ironically, coincident with the period of maximum shellfish and tinfish reproduction. As .in the case of some environmental actions (e.g. dredging) which have time windows which are safer than others (winter over summer) no such safe time window is possible with the long term activity of the project, in fact, just the -opposite is true. The window operative, summer months, will be the worst possible one for the surface water enviranment. The GEIS fails .to properly address these impacts. There is no breakdown of fisheries resources, there is -12- 14 14 —— -'i�yy • e * aaf• _ ..Y .. '. .r S `" 1• S N f _ T. r2 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS no elaboration of the products emanating from the treatment system, there is no analysis of site soils and subsoils with respect to drainage and subsurface flow, water use projections are wrong and ad on. It is totally inadequate in this regard and attempts to cover up this inadequacy with the offering of mitigation schemes many of which won't work here or "N are untested in such situations. I think we would find that any one of the proposed uses, practised intensely (as projected) is capable of serious degrading of the environment with respect to fisheries resources. The effective mitigation of one may be Possible, of all, highly unlikely. s. Habitat 1. Dredging.. The dredging of the subject basin to accomodate the expanded marina will surely have an impact on the fisheries resources -using the basin. ghat this impact will be, we gave no idea, Certainly the comment (Ho. e) made-on-page 37 of the DEIS, no significant effects are. anticipated for local finfish and shellfish populations. harvesting of said resourcesmay ,lncr*ase in direct proportion to the number of vessels utilising the area with the availabili vessels ty of more berths for said • - -13- -, .. ,: -- �. fes` T,1 ' ',T;.-.t..' '/rte• 3.. y,¢I K-,.:*yri v�4^ - ' - HENDERWN AND BQDWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS has no basis in tact whatsoever and may be indicative of the author's inexpertise (see resume at and of DEIS) with fisheries biology. we have no analysis of the habitat of the basin, we know nothing of the stocks it supports, its primary productivity represented in aquatic vegetation, its bottom types and so on. The removal of 17,000 cubic yards of substrate is no small sattars conversely, a large project, which will remove habitat, deepen considerably the basin and *hang* bottom topography dramatically. It well may be that the and result of this dredging will be the loss of habitat, the creation of a sink hole for rotting, accumulating vegetation and other debris, the creation of a sone of bottom anoxia inimical to shellfish and finfish stemming from rotting vegetation and debris, th* •d*veiopment of a 'dark sone• inhibiting submerged aquatic vegetation because of turbidity, shading from boats and piers, depth to bottom and increased planktonic growth. The *valuation of the dredge part of the proposed project -along these lines of investigation is needed in order to pceclud* .serious habitat °-- degradation in the future. -ls- k. • }.�..'.:'Iyy^S,^Sr�glfi'V.,i• ;i i�..;`!.(:.ti:.i. ,,.fiat y •- s_ .;.a:5 ?t'ih"M17a=�. ��G- ,. --�yyy„, .fir"�""�^'- +,}jknc- •' u 'i; ?-f.!.a•,sjr ,.Esq.`a'SP„' y ": �.i Y HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2. Slinn. The deninn and ennntreirtinn of the boat becthing facilities should be presented in greater detail. The location of piles and docks, especially with respect to basin circulation is of extreme importance here. Circulation in the basin hinqes upon bottom topography, basin shape, tidal channel position and the amount of resistance to flow (boats, docks, piles, etc.) manifested in the marina facility layout anA volure. Again, it should be pointed out that surface water and habitat degradation result+na from reduced circulation is most pccA able in the summer months when water temperatures are high, fisheries production is hgih ane!, coincidentally, marina and human activity is the highest. SnRFACE WATERS The DEIS pru••ides no baseline data or reports on the surface water quality in the basin. We need to know what the prosept quality is, particularly, in teras of vicrobes. it is stated that the waters of adjacent Southold Bav are "satisfactory" for the taking of shellfish. Ne need to see the DEC data upon which this figs _ 1-61 HENDERSON AND BODWEIL CONSULTING ENGINEERS statement is based, whether it is recent, and whether serial testing over the years indicates deteriorating water quality. Armed with such test results we would be able to project the probable degree and time course of further degradation, to result mainly from this project, but also from the development of adjacent upland areas. We are esepcially concerned here with increases in fecal and total colfform counts over time as well as degradation vis-a-vis chemical inputs from effluents and runoff (see FISHERIES RESOURCES section, above, for additional remarks on this subject). ALTERNATIVES. In addition to the "no-action" alternative, or development under the 'C Light Industrial- zoning, presented in the OSIS, the only other alternative given concerns itself with single-family residential use, " which alternative is preemptorily dismissed as being* economically unviable. Certainly this last finding, without evidence, is dubious. In teams of satisfying SEQRA provisions with respect to providing meaningful alternatives, this section is wholly inadequate. In terms of the statement on page 6 that, -16- 1-62 _ �Sa _ .fix-;.iy',+'r-?:.,: ,r v'.YT'..-.:t b1r: .,.Y.•-� HENDERSON AND BO.DWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS -- the zoning change will remove the potential threat of environmental pollution and improve the visual characteristics of the site, there are other alternatives that will offer a much smaller potential threat of environmental pollution and as much if not more visual relief. In fact, except for heavy industry or denser multiresidential uses, the proposed project compared to several other viable land j uses in Southold Town in certainly one of the most significant with respect to potential threatening impacts. Not only are important alternatives missing, there Is no environmental analysis of alternatives which is needed to pcoperly evaluate them. This analysis should pay close attention to the critical environmental parameters, impacts on water use, surface waters, fisheries resources, wildlife, flooding, basin bottom, drainageandunderfloor, and site topogra2hy and stratigraphy. The DEIS has not demonstrated that a well designed •C' use without the excessive watec consumption and effluent flow generated by the subject proposal is not envtr*nmentally safer. -17- HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS i CONCLUSION. The LEIS as submitted does not provide adequate information upon which can be based informed decisions on the environmental significance of this project. The DEIS should be returned to the applicant for correction and inclusion of the data heretofore omitted. .I 1-64 _i a „i d '„tY+R,��c �-',bYSsii y'.•Lb''L"TK,'N+''a•.ycrr"5�' t/i-. - .. !!'F° °� ^f" 8•.o- �'''.�i .. °;,;mak+ ;,e.•„ �} ,:. +Ga•�`.:��sa dy - t �`��. :{^`�,. 77 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Bacteriological Water Quality Three Nile Harbor Shellfish land Number 1S 1985 Data Prepared: September 1985 State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation Building Number 40, State.0niversity of-New York Campus Stony Brook, New York 11794 C- .- Jx,' - •xv��14b - x 1_65 r HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Introduction It was the intent of this study to evaluate bacteriological Nater quality in Three Mile Harbor. Notes I. Precipitation data were obtained-from this agency's Meteorology Unit for 4 rain gauge located in Bridgehamton. 2. Using a three tube MPH test. bacteriological water quality at a station is acceptable if the median total coliform MPH/loom! is 70 or less and no more than los of the samiples exceed a total coliform HP44/100m1 of 330; OR if the median fecal coliform MPH/100ml is 14 or less and no more than M of the samples exceed a fecal coliform MPN/100ml of 49. Conments 1. Although the winter data are 1 mpt wen compared to the summer data, there is a suggestion that water quality is influenced by the season. Mater quality wasgodd during March 1985 even after a 1.31 inch rainstorm. However, during August and September 1985, water quality was unacceptable from Station S south and in the vicinity of several of the eastern shore marinas. Hands Creek is also unacceptable. 2. Portions of Three Mile Harbor must be designated as uncertified at least during the period April 1 through Dece!nber 14. If boat waste discharges were the only recoghized problem. a closure from May 15 through October 31 might be adequate but it is not known if the unacceptable water is the result of human activity along the shoreline during the warm months. Z. .It is recommended that water quality be restudied from December through March to insure that water quality is acceptable during the cold months. 1-66 X. AV :9 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Ij ox art 11 , L-bding =s meac `� ,,� t� �� � ��'. _ir� i�.y�•�'� :"'�. �i•••,eft°• .' f yt } • a got � s�':/`��'! '• •+�♦ tri � ��`:cS•+y�►•,�_,,, �•�.r .�' �• - `'`%:. IT HR EE MILE I �. , 0.9 H A R B O R �,r,'� x11AATT - : of -moo _may,., J1 ,- r• I: lot �o ' � "\ , �� •� ..� ,�� ` �, •.. `+�:�d •may. /. � .�f •• e � • ���ri• � � ���.',, rN' r � _ ;�•�—/ _�=:gip MM jot Wir 64�•,' +sears acceatable bacteriologically �� �' ?'°► •� f !' 1431111 unacceptable bacteriologically sit.! fit• •,•• _ UPei11s !ho• 1,1144fhse foot es•401+ .. i. „�„ •+"w '�. -_ :,•;l. '„�'�`C4;'r:a. t""-h�r;-i:_ >..i- "i.'"? ` 1 r r - `' •�1�._€ 89f4 .......... NO A- -4?4ew<Jot' 1 461 ....... ----- .... WAV-.4011 Rol 14el tu ge rX U t kit lot V A I I I I I I Orla;7 .6- 1.71 ce, t I.-W I E`t pi .7-3,1 77 gfis, el? a 6-411 4Fe FE> I 42�Fy I A-lolel 44 W FBI%tow 14PAV IPVZ.- or .0011 • SV33MIDN3 Dmi.LinsNw 113M008 CINV NMU3GN3H HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ' IJ sal& ,La%G�%• s;=�/11�aL=`r. AfAf 41.<3 M s 1 k. . i I -t a I c3• t I �1 -! lec tc ) 1t 1.�► etc 14is Zf 1 = 1--el. esI 191 # # t 1 t I 301 1 11 I fi 21- 241- 364 1-24 364 1 ` V I 284 1 ) 31 / / _ z. / I � 1/ t/A. RF .92I i i t 1 „ ';�" R: rye�:�Y_,•, 1.69 ' NENDERSDN AND 80DWELL SITING UnWEEM �.• �:.. Lir; �� ! i 7 it Uwe '7''' ,.. s1-e -I f f .'� �" I t.etir i i fir' ! ► .r } t Lev I!.f- •I I d3 -1 t- Arm 12 - I $1 • I. • Fes' I` :1 1 �. - 1a I . �3° •I i ,W11000 roy i - i - � I I I 1 . 20� 211 1 Z2 1 1 I I I 1 231 -+1 253 I I i 11 I i I l t . :�►� I t I I + i ! I t � t 27 ' ,n= 20I I I I 1 I I I I I I - t sly - ��,1,�r�^x� �,� i �� I�� IAB t �� _.r �.��+�.s;� r�► r t , f x_ >42 36 1 1'?7. '.SO ice. /' /' 109 3:i 1_70 _— ��u:�:.�: YET"'� _9,.t�d's+,t r� o_ - 9i . a ii'i 4?�,+_,�'Pc5'atif� �'-.vh.`+t�rar�'�;�7:i�-.• `dNPy��. :t - HENDERSON AND ®ODWELL (RWtt►s a MWEE14 ' A, SE lA�ESIN , EMMONMfNTAI CONSUL. TS tot Southold Town Board at: Southport Development [1 :: Ssepatowski lissociates, Inc. "'TE: January 30, 1086 (loon axe atov;kl Associates, Ines. review of the Draft SftV*X6nmenta3 impact-Statement for Southport Development, Southold, pr*pated by LaRW B)se Company, Vading River, Nye, the following concerns and discrepancies were taised. !be sajor points are: I Bropoaed Development conflicts with: Change of sone requested and the proposed 9040 on Town Sonia% map. : $age boulevard is not a publ-ie road, therefore, possible problet with access, road vldth, and improv0nts are apparept. 3. There are- problems with the Retina expansion, specifical.Ty what I* to be done with boat pump out; suitability ot- d'r0dg* s0,i1 f Intended purpotess and providing boat slips for '"less than luau: boats (less than 30 ft.). Lack of Schematic sketch plan to demonstrate -Location of Hotel, Restaurant -Snvironmental impacts -B.itigation measures Adverse Impacts A meeting was held on January 13 to discuss the above concerns and t: follouing detailed tocmnents. The proposed response has been Indicated. 1. The change of sone requested (General tlultiple Residence) al.lowE for docking facilities for haft-commercial boat, and hotels, and motels both with special exception by the Zoning Board. Restaurants are not listed under this zone. The Proposed zoning Marine Business) on town zoning &a0s allok:_ ' for mArinas, fuel sale, twit:-ming pools, tennis aourtzv -and Coat ` yard (storage) all under permitted uses. Rest urant3 are permitted by special erception. (totals are not limited under the zone. As just pointed out, the propoc:ed development conflict:; with act the cnange of zone raquaLtcd and the proposed zone on the Tovn Zoning. trap. The Pi4nntng'Coari ha:; reca.„endca tea-rxhei-�Rocreat:c for this site and the applicant ha-. agrceci to cor.,Piy v1t.A that District. Tisa proposed Zoning trap neeus to be ac.,cndod. 4.1 rr' Wit.."k 9L• ,f.�Ni a;; yV! .., _. 1-71 HENDERSON AND 8ODWELL CONSUt71NG ENGMEEM 2. As a general cou:.ent, the DCIS cont:in�; Lan;: typogcaphie:l *trot and unfinish*n centences which chouad have ;can detected with Proof reaming before submission. Tiaey detract from the gnaaity and credibility of the document. 3. Page 1 - to regard for fresh water use impact on. cceenpoct Water district was given. The utility will be asked to verify It can provide peak flow. 4. Page 2-3 - boatyard (repair) facilities are proposed. however, the use is not permitted in the sone requested. The zoning Proposed by the Town for the site, •tlarine. Business', does not _ allow motels as currently drafted. The Planning Board has recommended 'Etarine-A*creation- (:i--Dec) as appropriate for this site, but this sone does not permit boat yards. A resolution o_ then* conflicts is needed by eliminating repair to boats not Looted at the marina. S. Page 3 - Sanitary effluent will be subject to denitrification system'. This eliminates only 300, of nitrogen from effluent. There will effluent be discharged? It is not clear f=om the teport, but was revealed at the meeting to be to a gravel bed o the northwest corner of the site. The site plan needs to show the system. 6. Page 4 - A public need for the project is referred to, but surveys or other evidence is not offered. An intention to tery residents is stazod. This intention needs to be tranclated int fact as the propocal is developed. The statement is made ttat there will be no increased demand for public services, yet puml water is needed. - Police and fire protection are also needed. statement from the Village is needed on water su;ply and from t Police an Fire Departments as well. A municipal cost impact would be helpful. 7. page 6 - Sage Boulevard is apparently a private road with ito: abu:tors having sole control over attest and 'improvementO ttie on. Since improvementc to Sage i3ouleverd by others cannot be ` assumed, i:hat right do the a.=licsnta. clam to alter (improve) Sage Boulevard? Thi- is esceatizl for projQct tp,�toval cines exizting access is noc ctcizr.zxcurr for Luc hropoced project tc be 4 prove. Toe guest:on of maintainln3 S"ae boulevard iz not adoressed. Saye Boulevard will zn:.ve to oc iiproved jointly. L. Lgreet.tent on sar:e will be nzc.;s::szry Cor cite pi:.n a;.provai. .. ..:� Er:�iER�wtr a•,��c�pit,�.� . .• 1-72 '�• (°I�IY tA"" '. -- HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS --- - ;2, } - 1. Pace 7 A supposition Is fade as co potential negative impacts from spills of industrial cowpoundc which trignt be x .;:.,.. .; used by industries under the current zoning. it appears ti.c_ an impression is trying to be created ti.at somerow this jrou;d Oct be possible under the proposed use. Eowever, it is s known fact that even the existing use na.: such cot.[,oundz on y site and that there already exists a threat to the, environment. This Tact it Luca core pertinent, but is notson 9. Page 9 - Dredge spoil analysis fust be done to determine fl`" suitability of spoil for i+roposed u..es (wetlands creations.„ s `' y •,^;` if contaminants are found What will be done with spoil so ss � public health Octcot to create a p n hazard? Upland grading as , stated in DEIS would not be poesiale. Dredging method, tics, upland dewatering, and runoff control method must all be addressed. -4 10. Page 10 - Concern with regards to boat slip length. All are s^ over 321 inslength. This does not allow for •less than lunry boats. 'ha`w16 the public need in the area for •elite boating? .....11 boating needs to be addressed. The fuel facility neteds to be described and located, as does the boat pumpout and puc;POut disposal retnod. 12. Page 11 - tract I= Pervious material used for 233 apace pLr»inc lot? Inconziutr.ncc,• on page 11 as to wheti,er parking lot wil: be "pervious• or •icgervious•, or •sezi-pervious•. A nice plan with all drainage patterns, grading plan::, holding, ponds and their capacity etc. must be shown along wita drainage calculations. A •0• ,tunoff must be maintained so as not to impact -surrounding wetert. 12. Page 11-12 - Since no cite plan has been included in tae DCIS, r it cannot be commented uon whether the prr.zina stated Is adequate. The reutaurznt has given no capacity and no eentio;. is Gado or ecoloyee par4ing. Unt;u9S:tQnt1 .LeU statements arc made retarding •catiLiving zoning reauir:r_ent;,•, runofc generated iron icperviouL to soai-jierv1GdL turfLce:,. Thi-. section needs to be cup•)ler..enteu. 13. Pzge 12 - Ido calcuiatior:; ofSLA:: wr.tor use ana 'r-tiLve iiG= ars given to jo veririau. 1-- an ca-Lita tell c:pcale of cu:i,2ying the Crater nereucu iOr most Wu_-;in, r.:ctl irr2g:.tlon t:i.:.euc acing :cline durzn•I i,ea;. If not, Grccnpert r:u:: u. uauz aw..re Lnu utility cc.:rot:iru:c...en: is nccdtu. tllPliON•klt�.11tilil���: . IN�. 1-73 HENDERSON AND 80DWELL ooNSvLrwo E A"FEIIS 1•1. Page 12-13 - mat is r»e_nt o} rue tt:.:e:aent. •Suaroia ccas:. will be ConJucsess to de-tttr.in..* etc ara It ::u.: caerizl... ' -and "proper design critatic...• o-u. •ptopar erosion .. s,.."` conn-sac....• Ti.i_ is w draft environs:catal .i».Pacz ttste:.ent =;.� ?::::r.- and tLic inforrttion is . -c-;ed to eco crlg evaluate the Impactc and to clarify the vague statement= "cc. Suppia»ental inforcution is necessary. I3. Page 15 - Soit botingt, since they will be necessary anyway, ,. �o,,,.y •;^:. {� should be included in the DEI£. Unknoun subsurface conditions •" r-> },. ;, may affect the project and its environmental ir..pacts. 16. page 16 The last sentence is missing at least to words so that the meaning of the sentence cannot De concluded. n: .Y" i,. 17Page 17 - Undocumented "Agency cbservationa• are held to conclude satisfactory water quaiity in close pro::iaity to the subject. This statement needs conclusory evidence. ` a, 13. Page 17-18 - Does the •representatioaal species list• represent actual observation? If so, why call it •representrtionai•? Vo shellfish survey oZ any kind unc none or cited. A study of this kind sieould oe done in ties= area uo potential impact can be discusses:, along vich my Citigation measures. 19. Page 19 - Why .aren't the oird ana fish cpecie:; actually sites naaed? Cn what daze:; were observations trade? This is supposed to be an inventory. =Q. Page 20 - Referents is made to r. US!= maintenance dredging par:ait. Is it in forma or pending? A copy uhoula Toe inciueed _ in the DCIS. A low water depth of 6' is r.encioneo, vniie on Pase 9 a depth of 7' to at is mencioned. Cr.n this oe done witain the scope of the MACE perrait? t'rjo hoids tre per=.it ano Gao will do the cieannel rjaintenancc dreaging (aside ftc= bazin dreuging)? Tao need to dredge to tr.iL deptn hie not been fu.ity dezons;trated in the If t:ai:: ac,.ta of dredging is dee.ocr taan the entrance cn:.nnel, tha rec.son for doing am• dredgin.: is mizzing. t:hrre vii, tree it-:-tial spoil ` ano tai L. intenanc: oreuging spoil ae d.:e::ited? A t.oaiiiczzion to cna dri i•ling iz nee.icu ai. veil at =-are de::.i: :.na a =oundinG= pian.. 1-74 �4y ..y�4=�4 ..il�•� y-S•fq n. 11kh�1w-f.- fi k :-� - �"':� HENDERSON AND 066WELL COMMOO BA NEM Wl- 23. Page 27-29 - The significant environaenccl i:..pacts discussion on soils, topography, groundwatoc, surface water_, Vagetatio _ ' wildlife, And wetiaods cannot be comfiented upon without a ted: ." detailed environmental inventory and at scat: a sch*ratTc �'KP~ca pliee to demonstrate before and after conditions. ^are Impacts listed are con3Qctural and not eonelusory.has" on evidence contained in the DCIS. This section needs to be rewritten. 24. Page 30 - A statement is made that mitigation erasures Could : be made a part of a proposed project. Specific 'mitigition ". measure, even though general at the change of zone- level, should be identified as being an Integra-1 part of the ' '•,k scolect. For example, regrading and aodifioation- of existinc, r. drainage patterns to achieve certain results are both mentioned: as mitigation seasures but since the extent of the: Impact being mitigated is not defined, the need or extent of ;a the mitigating measure cannot be defined. 25. Pass 31 - What is the design of catch basins, as described, • :;,< which will contain storm water runoff and where will they occur considering slope on site is totatd water. ll site grstsing plan is needed. 25. Page 33 - My will tae phragmites be removed and why is it really a nuisance rpecieL? This needs to be detailed. 27. Page 34 - Tho creation of a natural Wetland along the entire basin shorelines is proposed. The DCIS does not snow this. ; better rendition is needed. 23. Page 35 - `f.ittle demand' ignores freshwater use for the entire ex-pan"on proposed. . S 29. Page 37 - The discussion of un voidtble adverse impacts a&n: be completed without an analysis oc the e::i-ting vottoc to c dredged. 33. Pcge 41 - Document econo.ic infeasihili:_:. ::i.at does t,t.zz rm.n? k 1-R.1�tt'1�ki %%kOt t►11% `- ♦e� q `, 1-75 HENDERSON AND $00WELL 0010ULlrmc 6160WEERS To"MAI.53,M Il+i.14.d xrt cn�uw P:O.ss 1179 fsu►tstaut '���� sacroli,N�.Y«t 1ll►71 SOUMOLD To" CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL ' COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMMAL IMPACT STATEii&�iT(DEIS)— so DH ) . { OUTHPORT : By The Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council - •„T.e�,'° Dr. Martin H. Garrell, Chairman Searing at Southold Town Hall, Southold, New York February 4, 1986 stV1' 41 serious flaws and omissions in this DEIS render it inadequate and aAsibiy illegal- In fact, it resembles the rambling; general impact ateiaeata which were so often rejected by the courts in the 1910a 'at the beginning of NEPA. Disclosures were incomplete and information in the DEIS was sketchy at best, and the document needs to be completed and resubmitted. Practically all of the information was general and did not site specifics, maps were poor, catloging of impacts Was and the treatment of soils, plant, and animal life was given ince dbed short shrift. Economic Justification, which is important for a proJeet. Iike Southport was almost non-existant. 0NUMTS ON "ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS” pages 27 ff. Loadings to the Bay from such a development ought to be calculated and compared with current loading. Fish and shellfish will undoubtedly be affected as well as wildlife habitat. Fertilization can be estimated as well as nutrient loading. Now can 82-units and 121 docks not have a substantial impact on Routip 25 traffic patterns? Better go back and recalculate this, especially #or peak iteSurely the users fatcruisers rstonthe waterand last off the werlike commercial goingtobe Why do you assume that deterioration of Peconic Bay waterfront is inevitable if Southport were not permitted? Alternatives to the devolcq>- 410"t of thesite surely exist. EIS documents must address alta-relatives, i•. a reasonable fashion. What do you have in mind for a storm runoff sl•stem and fur a duni'trift-- cat-100 ss•atem? It's hard to believe that water demands can bc- met-bk i, 360 gpd for 82 units and a restaurant. I 'd figure at least 16000 gpd- for a fully occupied motel alone. (Chat will be consequi'nt demand on local groundwater? Al 1-76}l Y,. ISA•' - y, ;�.. 7 ' - '- .., .:k! Ij -^'may-.`-�a�.•...,: .. , �x '..r* ' ,�;:� y'��- y,:wl�'4:,ry� r.:,i,.d,'>'Z�F3 HENDERSON AND BODWELL COMULTING ENGINEERS Lot's so* a detai. b description of bolding t-d'k facilities for a carina of this size. There are no maps submitted with the plan which adequately illustrate tha arena for turf and parking. I believe any sketches mould betray pto�oct which uses up an extraordinary amount of land relative _ lxo the *its. Why do you insist on talking about 12.35 A? The ideal size is only 8.63 acres, or do you intend to reconstruct Atlantis underwater? 'q►l"II£a cow"S P. # Public need for a marina never justified economically. P.13 Oo you really believe you can get the approvals from these agencies in 2 years? P-14-17 Where are maps showing land use, soil samples, vegetation Y types? PAS What are "limited popularities of upland wildfife species"? The species with most limited popularity are not the animals at all p.20 By your own admission, your traffic will add 14 per cent to the gaps on the road, yet you claim virtually no impact. Is the LIRR really the only means of public transportation, or haven't you heard of the S-92 coach? Of the sunrise coaches to NYC daily? p.33 Where are you planning to dredge? Show this and discuss effects F on Bay, effects on shellfish, please. p.34 How is wildlife habitat for nesting and shelter compatible with an 82-unit motel? What about noise levels, periodic disturbance of all surrounding wetlands? p.36 How will a zoning change "remove the potential threat" of environmental pollution? What will you do to the area if you are not given the,zoning change? See discussion above of need to discuss alternatives. p.37 No significant effects anticipated for shellfish populations? Better map out dredge areas and nearby shellfish beds first! p.41 If the current facility and its operation are "unrealistic" and "not economically feasible", hoe can you ,justify your own Operations? Is there some magic calculation used here? You must show this with dollar signs. 3MA RY T . coaclude that the DEIS is in need of so much revision that it mu}."be a waste of tine to go to a FEIS. The applicant nc:e:ds to rawtite: praetically the entire document bt-[„re resubmitting tt. = : 44 y,:"f 1-77 IfM HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ------ PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD February 11, 1986 8:00 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEME14T_OF "SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PETITION FORA CHANGE OF ZONE FROM "C" TO •M-1" AT SAGE BOULEVARD, GREENPORT. Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councilman James A. Schondebare Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran Councilman George L. Penny IV Town Clerk Judith T. Terry SUPERVISOR MURPHY: It is now 8:00 o'clock and we have a scheduled public !Waring on the Environmental Impact Statement by Southport Development. Councilman Schondebare will do the official reading. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: 'Notice is hereby given that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 8:00 P.M.. Tuesday, February i. 1986, at the Southold Town Hail, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport Development, with respect to their petition for a change of sone from •C• Light Industrial District to •M-i" General Multiple Residence, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 2S) Road, ont he westerly side of Sage Boulevard. Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. Petitioner is desirous of having _ the zoning status of the property changed to permit the development of a motel complex. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road. Southold, New York, and is available for inspection durlog re'gutor business. hours. Dated: January 7, 1986. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." 1 have an affidavit of publication of that notice on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board by the Town Clerk Judith Terry. 1 have an affidavit of publication of the said notice In The Long Island Traveler-Watchman, and an affidavit of publication of said notice in The Suffolk Times. I have in the file a copy of the Draft Environ- =anal Impact Statement for Southport Development, Southold. New York. 1 have in the file comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated January 17, 1986 submitted on behalf of the interventors Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn. I have in the file the comments by our Town Planner Stepatowski Associates lac., which in reality is Dave Emilita, the Town Planner. I have a letter in the file also from Conforti, Gordon, Reale b Shenn. Attorneys, dated Pebruary 4, 1986 with reference to Southport Development Draft Environmental ;impact Statement. This is dated today so 1 think I should read this one.. It's five --, pages long. 1-78 >.. - ' 41.. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENOINEll" + Pace 2 - Southport 0 tk. Aent DEIS SUPERVISOR MURPHY. Maybe just the comment. Jay, about the time they need to reply. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: They would like two weeks from today to reply. No" you seen this? Mr. Flynn, do you know anything about it? NR. FRANK FLYNN: No. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: I'm going to read it to you then. "pear Members of the Board:" Unless we make copies. Do you want me to teed it nowt If 1 *ode copies and gave it to you now. rather than my reading it here. Maybe you won't catch something that I'm saying? MR. FLYNN: 1 should like to have ample time to study this five page letter rather than have it read to me and 1'd tike ample time to respond' to the letter if necessary, h consider this a bit of an ambush to present this letter at this time when all cgmmitnts were supposed to have cone in approximately two weeks ago. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: 1 think, speaking to the Supervisor, and with the donsent of the other Board members, what we will do, is recess the public !leering after the public comment tonight and then reconvene it for comments at a later trate. That way you'll have a chance to look at it and see it. MR. FLYNN: That will not preclude me from making comments this evening? COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: No. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Nell probably recess to our next Town Board meeting in three weeks, and it's an afternoon sleeting. MR. FLYNN: 1 defer to advice of counsel. MR. HENRY WEISMANN: We'll have an opportunity to respond to any supplemental material. SUPERVISOR•MURPHY: And the Town Clerk will make this available for you. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: The remainder In the file pertains to the change of sone and not the SEAR process which is what we're discussing here tonight. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, we've heard the official reading of the notice of this meeting and the comments that were made. Is there anyone here would like to represent the applicant? ANTHONY CONFORTi: 'I'm the author of that letter. I'm from the first.of Conforti, Cordon, Reale and Shenn. 1 have to look at the letter because we'vo just formed our firm very recently. I'm not going to give a presentation tonight, The.purpose of that letter was to urge members of the Board to conduct this public hearing, which you are doing. It is our Intention to respond to the detailed requests_made. by the Planning consultant and to file at some point in time after all public comment "has been heard, after we have gotten feedback from the Town as to what-you consider essential to be addressed, we will file our final environmental impact statement. We = are here tonight to hear comments from the public and at a later time, if Ft's appropriat. and if it is mandated by this Board, we will certainly respond. Thank you, 1-79 Ii" 'i :+Y•p ,tip• HENDERSON AND SODMIELL 00" uLTINti 9000111111111 . 3 • Southport Or a.,.rent DEIS SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Is there anyone else here would like to speak on behalf Of the applicant? INo response.) Anyone Ilks to speak in opposition to the applicant? Sir. HENRY WEISMANN: 1 would just like to know that after the petitioner submits their final, or their corrected and completed Craft Environmental 10pact StatemNiemt that interested'citizens will have the opportunity thereafter to submit comments directed toward it, as provided by the SEQR procedures? Is that the purpose of the adjourn- ment? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: No, as long as we keep the public hearing--lis long. as we don't close this public hearing. MR. WEISMANN: You will give us an opportunity after the filing of the corrected and completed impact statement, to have our people submit comments with regard to It writing? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Our Town Attorney is sick tonight, so I can't give you a legal interpretation. Dave, can you comment on that? DAVID EMILITA, Town Planning Consultant: On the question of the submission of additional data, I think the gaps In the data are sufficient enough to render the additional submission as a supplement to the draft, rather than as a final impact statement. MR. WEISMANN: That obviously leaves us in a position where we can comment on it after the supplement. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Mr. Flynn? MR. FRANK M. FLYNN, Tarpon Drive, Southold: I'd tike to make some statements with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport Development and although they may be rather blunt, I think they may be of assistance to the Board, certainly of interest to the Board, and possibly may save some taxpayers money. What we have here, if 1 may consult my notes---we have had what was supposedly a Draft Environmental Study submitted on the part of Southport Develop- meant, which apparently Is going to be surplanted by an entirely neer organization. This doesn't surprise me. The original statement'submitted is, in my opinion, a cynical travesty, replete with errors and arising from ignorance_or desire to mislead and misinform. I have a point by point rebuttal of the original Draft Environmental Impact Study in my bag. 1 shan't take the time or the Town Board to go down it point by point, because in a way Mr. Emilita has at least partially done to already. In the statement every basic premise is incorrect and Nm prepared to provide it from the public, record, but 1 would like to say also that this is not my personal opinion. This is not my unsupported opinion. If the public and the media were to Inspect the Town's records, there are, within the records, a detailed report by distinguished Planner Mr. Fred Reuter and a Naturalist Lawrence Penny, on file In opposition. Perhaps more persuasive the Board has the belated report, and I say belated report, filed with the Town by Szepatowski Associates, Identified as Mr. Emilita's firm. I criticize that report in a sense as being somewhat vague as to what prompted the report. There's a reference to a meeting a3 of January 13th, . but l would like eventually to find out where the meeting was held,. who-'Was present. and generally what the background of the meeting was. However, Mr. Emilita's report I must admit, makes devastating comments on the report prepared for Southport Development by the Land Use Company, Mr. Bowman, and it questions its quality, its durability and cites critical lack of supporting evidence. Now this, in my opinion, `{(-•� } I:F; 4:,1'x'6; ` .ry i 1-80 HENDERSON AND MODWELL CONSULTING D°INKERS p i Southport C -slQp-~t DEIS IS sufficient of a report Ilk* this is trifling with the time of the Town board and VW taxpayer's stoney. But to go further, there Is support to artkular aspect :df Mr. Wilts's report that i don't think anybody has called to the attention of Aho Town ¢bard. notably, that there has been a recent serious cit spin Fil the ares' of tf Aroi>ttrty and it is certainty dilaterious to the environment., 'Cher* has been no.sdntkwt made of that. Didn't 1 not know better 1 would *r the arrogance end the m_" complacency of Southport In submitting such a-cursory and legally 'bwdequate statement`as evidence that could possibly lead or& ok 10elieve that the it cant was assured that th* DEIS was a preforms thing and that the approval of his-stiptipetton was c0rtain. This, of course. I cWt b*ilove'in the Town of "Ahok! because It will be a denial of due process or deny the pub Ila the right W e64u1ent in detail one this sort of thing. However, th* smug.assurance with which.this report, this this choradt was Projected to the Town board:certainly .ves rise questions that should be answtrad.. , ftQs► f believe and i sial"p"repared to<cite the evidence for it, that the basic promise-all the way through of Southport's report, aspres entad by Mr. bowman. is incorrect*d. sly examination of the public recoils'Cat- Riverhead, cry examination of the records' in' Town Heli. end cry queries of Tonin Hall laid no to believe' that the existing-acarine, in large part, is art. iriegsl, *ration. 1'In prepared t- recite chapter end verse'and provide,you with any deed tiranss'alon on this party, the chronology of the whole thing: Now, should this be Ow,case. any petition or application such as this. find any application to maintenance dr±edgr an area that is illegal to begirt with. Is realfy futift. Now., 1 request the - coinst vied authorities of this Town to investigate this as a vtry serious question. Now,, other than that we have other things of interest. Even were this not the case Mr. bowman stated on Page ! of his,report'. which is available to everybody, and i would encourage anybody interested in this to consult it, that the existing marine operation encompasses the majority of the site. Now, the existing marina "ration is reputed_ to have 81 slips. If the Indefinite expansion referred to in different numbers on different pages were to be in the -vicinity of 130 slips, it would be an,approximate Sol increase in the marina operation, and consequently from sty knowledge of marina operations, would require the entire upland evert were It legal. Now, to presume that it Is possible to fill, aZ motel units on excess land Over and above that required for the marina operation, when by definition tate entire upland is required for the marina operation, isF Contempt of me, It's contempt of"the citizenry of this town and certainly it's contempt a; far a=s the town G3 and is concerned. I would say that if the Town Board really desires to treat this matter in a.fairminded manner and act in good conscience. In viers of the serious questions raised as to the-suitability of the site for the purposes for which application was made and which would also be. included in the Master Pian, any action on the Master Flan for this area be deferred until the serious questions herein raised are answered. 'What You have on the part-of Bowman, and what you have on the part of Emilita are an indictment of the background-studies done for the Master Plan. The Master 4 Plan is. inadequate. The Master Plan has not considered the serious affect on the environment and the economy arising from this proposed use, and were this thing to be stampeded through--and when 1 say this thing t refer to the Master Plan the and result would be to destroy the economy of an area and the environment of an area. At this point 1 think i've said sufficient to give you some food for thought+ Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else? Marty? MARTiN CARRELL, Chairman, Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council: I felt that on projects of this sort that we would weigh in with some kind of a CAC opinion. Also, because part of my work, my research as an energy and environmental problem ys axe'" ,F�;�,'�4' -Yi-. _ - . •"'" 1-81 s,. HENDERSON AND ®DDWELL COlriut.TING Ei GWEERS ""--�-�--- tle s - South Part r swpment DEIS wohrer, if you will, a consultant at Brookhaven Lab 1 do this kind of thing liar aliving and I've worked for a long time with environmental k4mict statemints, both EIS's that I've written and Eis's that live read, to I've sort of been on both ends of It. Pat looking at this time. I had a number of-general comments and i had Specific Comments, but since I'm going to submit their in.writing "QMy.th h Unds Cooper, just give you same general thoughts on this an+d that ve it.with hidy.. My general comments-were as follows: 1 really vett the serious flows and omissions in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement render it.Inadequate andpossibly illegal. in fact, it �ewbles a lot of the ramblinngg and goner' 'hepact state- ants which were often ted by the courts in the 19it'0's at theInn; C the National Environmental policy Act. The suits of the Envir� vital on Fund and the National Resources Defence Council were quite successful i°n W101out a of of Such'Impact.statements. The disclosures in this particular imps' stltom ent Were incomplete-and the Information in the Draft Enviroltiitentai Impact Stat#mgnt was at best sketchy,.and the document needs to. be Completed'and retoubmitted. Practically101 of the Information was general and not site specific, slaps were poor.- Catek"ing of the impacts was ragged and the treatment of soils, plant and animal life'**& givenwary short shrift. Alternatives were not suitably addressed and the i�eomic fustifiption, which is important far a project' like Southport certainly was *toast hent-existent. Our comments on--to be a little bit dare specific, a flew of Our main comments were that the loadings- to the Bay from such a development: shou+td be calcul ted'carefutly and compared with current loadings. Fish and "Iflah are un- 40tedty affected, as well as wildlife habitat. And you can estimate the fertilisation loading as well as the nutrient loading. Any good environmental plan or.any goon .environmental consultant should be able to write a report that does that. How, can E2 units and additional docks not have a substantial impact on Route 26 traffic patterns? yett've got to go back and recalculate this, expecially for peak times and you surely can't assume that the users of all foot cruisers are not going to be--the risers of 4A cruisers, are going to be the first ant he water and the last off the water like oommercia fishermen. They're going to use the waterfront facilities at peak times for the toads. The assumption that the deterioration of Peconic Bay waterfront is inevitable if South- part Is not permitted certainly doesn't seem justified, and the alternatives to the development of the site certainly exist and must be addressed In a document'of this u. sort. EIS documOnts by law must address alternatives. We don't sae what'tE in atloid In this report for storst-Nhoff system and for a denitrification system. And INS hard to 'believe that the water demands can be met by 13,300 gallons a day 'tar lea units and 0 restaurant. t wouldr figure at least 16.000 gallons per day'alone fore filly occupied motet, and whether that's a motel or even condominiums you've got to specify which you're actually looking at, permanent residency, or are you looking at- ,emporary residency. And even more important what will be the consequent demands• on k ijiCl groundwater? That must be addressed. There must be a detailed description of holding tank facilities for a marina of this size and there are no maps submitted'with the plan to illustrate the areas for parking. There should be detailed amps withosis and any sketches, any maps at all- should show a project which u#es up an extraordinary amount of land relative to the site. 1 can't quite understand'why' the pian insists on talking about 12.3S acres, because the actual size of the land is 6.63 acres, or are we talking about underwater construction? The last comment 'l had had to do with economic impacts, which are a part of the DEIS. If the current facility and its operation are supposedly unrealistic and not economically feasiblit flow can you justify., this operation as it's proposed. Are there some magic calculations used ' here? If there are .you've got to show them rwith dollar signs. That pretty much slays it generally, but my conclusion, or our conclusion, speaking for the CAC, is that this Draft Environmental Impact Statement is in need of so much revision that it might even at. this point be a waste of time to go to a Final Environmental Impact Statement. The applicant needs to rewrite practically the entire document and get a. good enviornmental planner and a good environmental consultant before resubmitting it. Thank you. 1-82 -_ ...� vi�i'•'��'Yi � . i i- ^^ ` Pt $t'; r�ts,_p -ri-�'_.:y{�Xr� Jve-f:.�,-, '�y ' HENDERSON AND 80DWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS S - Southport I jkepment DEIS SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Henry? TOWN TRUSTEE PRESIDENT-HENRY SMITH: I'm just going to make comments on the Trustee portions and the problems the Trustees had. The only thing we would 00 tai have something definitely would be holding tanks in the awrine If it 10 built, lied beats that would be mored there permanently. 1 don't mean transient boats. goats that Would be woored there permanently would have holding tanks in them. That would have to be something weld put In the covenants or what have you. And the Only other thing we have is the Mvigation. There will be no restriction of Anvige0on to the people behind to get In and out of the creek. We do recognize the Town does need marina space. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Henry. Is there anyone else? Ruth? RUTH OLIVA, President, North Fork Environmental Council: We read the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and we would agree with the Conservation Advisory Council. We found it wholly Inadequate. We felt there should be soil cores taken Iwtlad of just taking It from a map. -Taken by the Suffolk County Soil and Water Con"rvet1on people. to show both. the .gravel area, the composition of It where they pyo a to put their denitrification system, and also in the clay area where they propose to put some sort of drainage system for runoff. ate just don't feel that they can meet these runoff standards. with this enormous clay layer underneath, that It is going to-run out into the"Day. There was no benthic study as far as the bottom of the proposed inlet, both for the dredging and the placement of spoil. We would like to see that. They had some sort of a wildlife summary which we found was totally inadequate. It was done in the fall. People that have lived in the area say there are nesting wildfowl in the area. We would like to see a study done this spring of that. We would like to know the affect on the extension or additional amounts of water from the Greenport Water System, what affect it would have on that. We would like to see a letter of recommendation, not approval, but from the Suffolk County Board of Health that this denitrification system which runs asulphur limestone bed works. We found there were no viable alternatives, just residential housing. There was nothing to just enlarge the marina, to have the marina plus the motel, or the marina plus a restaurant. Also we found the traffic study to me was totally inadequate. They did it at a time of year that there is not such traffic. We would like•:to see It done say In the summertime when there is a tremendous amount of traffic on Route 25. Also I do not see how a 16 ft. right-of- way is going to carry what they propose 2000 trips a day down to the marina, let alone down to the proposed cluster housing in the Sage development. Thank you. We hope that this would be completely rewritten. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. is there anyone else who would like to address the Town Board? (No response.) Anyone like to make any comments at all? Sir? - MR. CONFORTI: Very brleny, Mr. Supervisor. The comments that I've heard tonight in opposition, though in earnest and very meaningful. I think, are misplaced. At this point before this Board is an application for a rezoning, not an application for a site plan approval, not an application for a special permit. According to the Town. Code the authority to give those approvals is vested in other boards, more specifically the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. For that reason the Environmental Impact Statement that was submitted was in fact not more detailed. If in fact my clients are successful in this stage of the application we are faced with subsequent applications to other boards and those other boards are going to mandate 1-83 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CMULTING ENGINEERS do 7 • Southport Dr w. sent DEIS very, very detailed study encompassing such of the material sought orsuggested tonight by people in opposition. 1 would like to again remind the Board, have pointed out In this letter, of what your true function is and again of the limited scope of this hearing. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY. Thank you. Is there anyone also would like to address Ow TWM Board? (No response-) Any Town Board members Ilke to sake a comment at this time? (No Amponse.) If not I would like to Make a motion to recess this Public hearing until 3:30 P.M. on February 25th--Tuesday, February 25th. MR. FLYNN: Mr. Supervisor, may I make a comment? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Yes. MR. FLYNN: Is it not possible to hold that in the evening rasher than the afternoon eo that more people Interested in this may attend? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: We unfortunate an the time. You want to move along. This Is a three week spread because of this Association of Towns meeting. MR. FLYNN: I'm merely saying that it precludes the attendance of a lot of Interested parties if you hold it In the afternoon. CQUNCILMAN.SCHONDEBARE: Well we're here now. This is the evening. Are there any interested parties that are here now that can't come back, as far as interested parties? Is there someone who can't come back? MR. FLYNN: 1 prefer not to. It's rather costly for me. It's costly for my wife to come back In the mid-afternoon at the convenience of the applicant, really. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARf: No, We the convenience of the Town Board. That's when we have the meeting. Everyone-can come back. Moved by Supervisor Murphy, seconded by Councilman Schondebare, it was RESOLVED that this public hearing be recessed to 3:30 P.M., Tuesday, February 2$, f986, Southold Town Halt, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the. Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Penny, Councilwoman Cochran, Council- an Schandeloare, Councilman Stoutenburgh, justice Edwards, Supervisor Murphy. This resolution was declared duty ADOPTED. )))Judah T. Terry Southold Town Clerk -84 t.M<;. �:'•yL Irl v r r . -v.. C: rjL�t 1 r. r -°^ I r tt ""— HENDERM AND 80DWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS C 14FORTI, GoFtDON, REALE 6 L,1ENN ATIOMM AT LAW I"� ON I119suit Rwe�d. Nea w Vorb 11901 DRwd NrM 9516))7V4107 K*Aesn F MOP-ra February 6, 1956 Town board I-Oft Of Southold !Iain *4a Southold, Now York 11971 *a: Southport Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Members of the board: This office is counsel to Joseph Fischetti, Jr., doing business as Southport Development, contract purchaser of Young's Marina on Sage Boulevard, Southold. Pending before this $card is Southport's application for a change of sone of that 12.35 acre site from the current 'C Light Industrial District* to an •N-1 General Multiple-Residence District*. Tonight the Board will conduct a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS•) submitted - Draft by Southport at the Towns request. As part of the s'tatutosy, proses& outlined in the State Environmental Quality Xevi*w Act ("SBOAh"), the Town, through its environmental consult- tent met with the applicant on January 13 and issued its Comments on- the DEIS on January 20. By agreement between Southport and the environmental consultant, those Comments will, be addressed by the applicant within the next taro Weeeks so that both the comments and the responses can be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement ('FEI0) is required by SEORA law and regulation. Despite assertions to the contrary, this procedure is entirely within the letter and intent of the environmental review process as mandated by SEORA. There are essentially five steps to the SEORA process. The first three - the question of whether SEORA applies to the action, the design*- tionof a lead agency, and the classification of the- fiction as Type 1, II or unlisted - have been completed for this project. The Town Board's review of the Southport project is now in the fourth step of the process - the preparation of a — HENDERSON AND SODWELL iOsuLnNa ROMMENS the 0213. The fifth and final step is, of Course, the prspa- ration of a final Bevironmental Impact atotsmwt with full identification of the impacts and their possible litigation. In reviewing the aropirements for the axis and the VXI8, It is &parent why this envirowsental review is 001w4olly referred to as a `progese. After the applicant bits propered the ftlS following. th�c qju*d*liftts itea4ised in 4#VCZR $817.16 tol through, (f), the.draft must be.submitted fat public coo- ment ins riquired by $617".10. Thr SEQR71 Eandbe ,. by the Now York -ftate Department of Snviro mentil aiion (the agency that prow1gated the 090PA regulations) states: "Commenting oat the Draft EIS is a vaivable way for agencies sod the public to have .direct input into the,decisionIng, process. tuhlic input is Particularly- r�pful is astormini�iq*whether the "Pacts of. „ liunity sorvioes and .human resources b*ve been s+legoatialy seldressed....• ISEQRA Handbook page 0-36). Obviously, to assert that the public hearing, which is part Of the public comment process, should be adjourned because a MIS is allegedly inadequate defeats the stated purpose of the public cement phase of the process and makes clear that such a suggestion is made solely for the purpose of delay. Although the applicant welcomes the public hearing as an aid to refining its final plan, it should be understood that the public is invited to the hearing at the di cretion of the lead agency, such public hearings not being required SEQRA (SEQRA Handbook, page 8-67). Let us turn from the mechanics of a public hearing, to the e;ontent of the PSIS. Southport has Made application to this board merely for a- change of sone- that anticipatet the complchange in use proposed for this site by the recently et-ed Town Matter Plain. Since, by definition, the Mbster Plan indicates the community's intentions for the project site and the surrounding area, it *eliminates the need to develop extensive data in the E19 process'. (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SE01A 8andbook, Page 8-30) . it is of critical importance to note that a master an ' is the cornerstone of all zoning. Our courts have required [ that municipal governing bodies zone in accordance with- 4 , u. t land use policy which is in the interest of the overall 1 ��ppyy - PP h a,: ...� :, ,. 1-86 - v` n''SL OR NENDERGD N AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEEFS colamunity. In fact, this is the basis upon which the United states supreme Courtoriginally sustained the validity of toning in general. h1illo f 8uclid V. sr It o. 272 98 36S '1199'0$10 T048, �requ raiment s so aiMlo�t It has been .codified in Now 'fork State (NY Town Law $263). Therefore, the oaoprehensive studies conducted" by the *wn•s planning o.onsuitant In preparing the Master Plan gpdate obviates_ the limed for extensive data in this pmirtioalar ZIS process since the proposed project is consistent with the Intent of the Master Plan. Por example, if the Borth Carolina planning consultant Who ariticised the D.21 bad been sent the Master Plan Opdate background:Studies,, nest of the questions be his rinsed would have been answered. In the Background Studies i4m6randa, the Twn•s Planning consultant has done extensive, flys#s- of the lan4 use needs and patterns of the Town of Soutbold. The Master Plan update crakes specific findings that tourism initd recreation is a-*major coorponent Of- Southold•a econoaie base• and that Oin Spite of the number of marinas, !bare are current shortages of boat slips; docking spaces and moorings, Particularly for large boats". Moreover, SEQRA provides that an EIS "should not contain more detail than is appropriate considering the nature and magnitude of the proposed actions W.Y. Environ. Cons. Law $8-0109 [21). This section also provides that `agencies shall make their own independent judgment of the scope, con- tents.and adequacy of the EIS• (SS-0109[3)). Clearly, as the only issue currently before the town board is a request for a change of sone, the BIS need not approach encyclopedic pro- portions. In fact, the authoritative SEQRA Handbook Prepared by the DEC takes the position that a broadly-focused Generic -- Snvironmmental Impact Statement would be appropriate* in con- "etion with a local government rezoning of land at the request of an applicant (SEQRA Handbook, page 8-45) . In further discussion on this issue, the SEQRA Handbook suggests that this option should be considered "'when a subsFe- qu*nt site-specific project involves one or more discretion- ary approvals". (Hank, p. 3-46) . As the Board is aware, the Southport Development proposal must be reviewed by a Town Planning Board having broad discretion in approving and Placing conditions upon the final plan. In addition, if the sone change is approved, the applicant must meet all of the criteria in the Zoning Code for the special exception uses proposed for this project before obtaining Zoning Board of Appeals approval for the proposed uses. 3 pn 1-87 NENDERWN AND BODWELL CONsuLrNG ENMEER: It is submitted that the Town's Master Plan alone is sufficient to slake the environmental determination necessary to decide the issue now before the Board. Quite clearly, the Master Plan taken together with the DEIS public comments and respaases is ample information •considering the nature and maginitude of the proposed actions. Although most of the comments received from the Townes environmental Consultant will be responded to by the appli- cant within the next twoweeks, some of these items need not, ca nor indeed m they be, addressed until many of the specific engineering details of the project are formulated. As a contract purchaser.of the property, the applicant has already "Aa to considerablese in spit of the necessary .approvals. um ili , if me none Change is approved, this project will be subject to close scrutiny, and possibly many changes, it is unnecessary and unreasonable to require such detail at this time. Again, the DEE, through the $9*2A Handbook, has taken the position that where an •applicant is aanable or ta:nwilling to risk the financial outlays for a project which requires rezoning: unless the rezoning: question is resolved" a broad Generic EIS is sufficient environmental review (SEQRA Handbook, page 8-45) . A reasonable reading of the SEAM law and regulations makes it clear that the DEIS is intended to be concise and carefully analytic and not an encyclopedia of the flora and fauna of the region. The SEQRA statute provides that: "the purpose of the draft environmental statement is to relate environmental considerations to the incep- tion of the planning process, to inform the public and other public agencies as early as possible about pro- Posed actions that may significantly affect the quality of the environment and to solicit comments which will assist the agency in the decision making process...Ox.Y. Environ. Cons. L 58-0109(4). Thus, the purpose of preparing a draft EIS is to circulate the document and to invite agency aina public comment so that this input can be considered, addressed and included in the Final EIS upon which the Board shall base its determination. The applicant has, thus far, complied with every requirement of SEQRA. If, in the Town Board's judgment, Public comment raises issues that must be addressed, the SEQRA 'process* provides a mechanism for inclusion of the public comments and responses thereto in the Final EIS. 16 4 Y h.. YZ v,lY 1-88 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEEIN M.Y.C.R.R. $617.16Ih)). There is no -.reason or requirement that the public bearing on this Otis should be postponed or that the environmental review process be unnecessarily delayed. Yours very truly. MONY COMFORTjr ATC/bah 1 F 1-89 "xa SL4a `" yet y'"s 3°m d., HENDERSON AND BODWELL COMLTING ENGINEERS � ,•M.N I y,.w N,�t,N1NIN I N MOeANT ROAD eOUT,aoLo.NEW voPx 11771 516-7*%-ieS4 February 12, 19 86 -Southold Town board 'down Hall Karo Road Southold, Now York 11971 Res (taster plan - Marine Business and Marine Recreation Districts Dear Supervisor Murphy and board Members: This letter, I hope, will clarify an inconsistency between the intent of the Master Plan and the current proposed toning Map and proposed Zoning Code as they pertain to transient motels in general and Young's Marina (Southport Development) in particular. When Southport Development was first proposed to the planning Board in May, 1.985, it was consistent with the then draft Proposed Zoning Regulations, Bated rpril, 1985, prepared by - $aymand, Parrish, Pine and Weiner. )0.t that tire, both the Marine Business and Marine Recreation districts allowed transient motels and restaurants. The Planning Board was in favor of the project and recommended the toning change to the Town Board. During the scoping session on the Enviromental Impact State- ment for Southport Development, the Town Board notified us that Mr. Tasker, the Town Attorney, was make possible revisions to the Zoning Code at the Town Board's request, and that we should contact him to inquire whether Southport Development was still consistent with the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. In discussions with Mr. Tasker, we were advised that the Msrine Business and Marine Recreation districts were, in fact, being revised. Transient motels would be permitted only in the Marine Recreation district, while in the Marine Business district this use was being reiroved from the Code. 1-90 �'—'— HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS E Southold Te .Board February 12. 1986 Page 2 We then Contacted the Planning Board, through Mr. tmilita, and were advised of the changes in the code. it was our Understanding that the toning Maps were being revised to reflect the changes the Tonin Board- was requesting, and that the Town Board, in support of the Master Plan, in- tended to transfer certain properties, including South- port Development, into the Marine Recreation district. It seems, however, that the maps were released to the Town Board prior to those changes being Stade. The Zoning 'Maps as, they stand now-will not allow transient motels on sites designated as Marine Business, such as Port of Egypt and Young's Marina, but would allow motels in Marine lfacreation sites, such as Goldsmith's Marine at the end of ltobart Road in Southold. I therefore request that the Town Board revise the toning Maps to show Young's Marina in the Marine Recreation district to better reflect the intent of the Master Plan in regard to transient motel use. it is our feeling, and the planning Board's feeling, that the Young's Marina site is one of the most suitable for transient resort motels. Very truly yours, Joseph Fischetti, Jr., F.F. Jf s mdh cc: Southold Town planning Board bcc: Howard Zehner Lynne F. Gordon, Esq. 1-91 z' r1 ^"- HENDERSON AND 80DWELL ooNsuLrRa Um"EERs a- 2 FES 2 4 W TWOMET, LATHAM. SHE.% 1{C KELLEY / ATTORNtrO AT uw 9s WIt"9ECON9 STREET P O sox»9 +Hell"&TwarCT-0 RMiCi IMM X W1 VOWC 11901 s�ie.11a«.e uTNAII _ eMSA w •w0""NAM sTnEET CWWftPMW a sEua N0.7E7•Et90 9AW MAMP"M.My 11037_ �-� 9N•024•1=00 4WM l TYMIER' tUY+iW60m a OT"". Mii111�#N T 41.dONE •ALYb A9IRTTEs w Comacnew Aia.ae�w. February 21, 1986 The Town Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Res Southport Development -- Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Board: I write this letter on behalf of Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn in response to certain statements made by the attorney for Joseph Fishetti, Jr., in his letter to you of February 4, 1986. At page 2, counsel states that Southport has made application to the Board "merely for a change of zone that anticipates the change in use proposed for this site by the recently completed town master plan*. He concludes that given the contents of the proposed master plan the need for the applicant to develop extensive data in the EIS process is eliminated. This conclusion is wrong for several reasons. First, the master plan proposal to date and as presented at the Hamlet Meeting would have the proposed Southport site designated for marine business use. This use does not include motels or hotels as either a permitted use or a special exception use. This was pointed out by the Town's planning consultant in his comments on. the DEIS. The request for a change to the gone of general multiple residence in the current zoning code would permit boats, hotels and motels with special eI ception, but would not permit restaurants. Thus, the proposal neither conforms to the requirements of a zone ''.j'trrs taw - •--• -,.�- 1-72 - El A6fi'i '41@n�3i+ea`tr='.°fal` r nay+� .••{Lli a -1 • .rte., HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONsut'nNG ENGINEERS --�— The Town Board Town of Southold February 21, 1986 Page Two existing in the current zoning code nor the proposed zoning for the site under the new master plan. Therefore, contrary to counsel's opinion, it cannot be said that the master plan data supports this proposal eliminating: the need for the applicant to provide such extensive data in the DEIS. Second, even assuming, arguendo, that the Southport proposal was permitted by the existing or proposed Boning, the applicant would not be relieved from justifying the proposal from an environmental and economic point of view in the DEIS. Our consultants, Frederick Reuter and Larry Penny, have concluded that there are serious flaws with the DEIS, in fact so serious, that to allow the DEIS to proceed through public comments to the FEIS without being rewritten and substantially revised, would substantially undermine the SEQRA process. The same conclusion is reached by the Town's Conservation Advisory Counsel, which in its February 4, 1986 memo to the Town Board states •the serious flaws and ommiss.ions in the DEIS render it inadequate and possibly illegal". Third, counsel's argument that a generic EIS is appropriate for this project is totally without merit. As the SEQRA handbook states at page 946, with regards to "Rezoning and SEgRA`s Where are many situations where a specific : project and rezoning. Issue are so tightly interwoven that is is impractical to treat the generic land use oriented concerns separately. Then it is useful to consider the rezoning as though it is one of the approvals necessary for the project. It is clear in this instance that the developer is not proposing a change of zone to allow any number of a variety of different projects. The developer has a specific Proiect in mind which would involve nunerous 93 tier; � �r� 1 1.,� ..• , ,ref �� MENDERMN AND 80DWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS The Town Board Town of -Southold February 21, 1986 Page Three intesive uses on a single site. He knows specifically how many motel units, how large a restaurant and how many boat slips he wishes for his new facility. tinder SEQRA, a generic impact statement is simply not appropriate. At page 3 of his letter, counsel quotes page 845 of the SEQRA handbook in support of his argument that a generic statement would be appropriate. However, counsel fails to quote the circumstances favoring such treatment. The number one circumstance listed which would favor such treatment is when 'the applicant has no specific project planned" (SEQRA Handbook page 845). Here, that is simply not the case and a generic statement is insufficient. At page 3 of his letter, counsel states, referring to intervenors' consultant, Frederick Reuter, *if the Horth Carolina planning consultant who criticized the DEIS had been sent the master plan update background studies, most of the questions he has raised would have been answered.* In the first instance, Mr. Reuter had before him the background studies, the proposed master plan, and the proposed zoning code. All his comments were made in the context of those documents. Further, as can be seen from a review of Mr. Reuter's comments on the master plan and proposed zoning for the site that were submitted to the Board at the Hamlet meeting on February 14, 1986, the background studies and master plan do not support the subject proposal being located in a 134 dens y residential area on such a small embayment with significant environmental constraints. Perhaps counsel should review those background studies again himself. Second, to the extent that counsel implies that Mr. Reuter is not familiar with Long Island and in particular east end zoning, planning and environmental issues, he might review Mr. Reuter's protessional resume attached to both his comments on the DEIS and his comments on the proposed master plan. If he did he would find that Mr. Reuter has been involved in planning issues on Long Island for thirty-six years and -94 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS The Town Board Town of Southold february 21, 1986 Page Four has worked to devolop planning analyes, master plans, zoning codes, subdivision regulations and other studies for the Long Island municipalities of puogue, Riverhead, Garden City, Huntington, Islip, Lindenhurst Village, Village of Port Washington, Town of East Hampton, and in fact, he was the drafter of the original easter plan for the Town of Southampton, where counsel resides. The applicant's late attempts to rationalize the inadequacies of the DEIS submitted must not be Accepted by this Board. If, as the applicant suggests, he will not be responding to certain comments on the DEIS, he runs the risk as does this Board of any subsequent zoning action being litigated for failure to comply with the requirements of SEQRA. This would certainly not be in the Board's, the community's, or the applicant's best interests. Intervenors would prefer and would submit that it would be in the Board's best interest to have a full and complete environmental review of the project at this early date, so that all issues with regard to this project can be aired simultaneously with the review of the proposed zoning and master plan for the community. Sincerely, ,�, /1Z Christopher Kelley CK/mp 1-95 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION II ADDENDUM TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS HOBART FCAD SO,T• CLD NEW TOtar u February 19, 1986 Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Att: Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Re: Southport Development Dear Mrs. Terry: We are transmitting herewith the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development, requested by the Town Board at the public hearing on February 4, 1986. 15 copies of said document are enclosed. This Addendum contains answers to questions developed by Szepatowski Associates, Inc., consultants to the Town Board, in their memorandum dated January 20, 1986. We hope this additional information will be helpful to the Town Board in making an affirmative decision on this matter at our meeting of February 25, 1986. If there are any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly. yours, J seph Fischetti, Jr., P.E. JF:mdh Fncs. 2-1 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ArDFNDUM TO DF.AFT ENVIRONME111AL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHPOFT DEVELCPMFNT PREPARED BY: LAND USE COMPANY WADING RIVED, NEW YORK DPTE: FEBP.CARY 17, 1996 2-2 t HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK This addendum document has been prepared for submission to the lead agency, the Town of Southold. Said agency has re- quested additional information, data analysis and clarification of sections contained within the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted on November 19, 1985. This document seeks to answer the comments received from the Town Board through Szepatowski Associates, Inc. by way of a memorandum dated January 20, 1986. It should be noted that Szepatowski Associates, Inc. has been retained by the Town of Southold to review the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This submission is being provided for the Town Board's review at its meeting of February 25, 1986, which is a continuation of the public hearing held on February 4, 1986. Land Use Company North Country Road - Box 361 Wading River, N.Y. 11792 (516) 929-3575 2-3 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIST OF EXHIBITS A - Topographic Kap Showing Existing Site. B - Site Plan of Proposed Motel and Marina. C - Site Plan Locating Sewage Treatment System D - Suffolk County Department of Health Services Specifications and Details for Denitrification Sewage Treatment System. E - Resolution by Village of Greenport Showing Allocation of Water for Young's Marina Project. F - 1) Corps of Engineers - Maintenance Permit for Young's Marina 2) Corps of Engineers - Maintenance Permit for Southold Shores/Tarpon Drive. G - Core Sample Map. H - Shellfish Survey Map. I - Soil Type Map. J - Test Boring Map and Analysis. K - Suffolk County Department of Health Services - Design Disposal Systems/Water Usage. L - Letter from Arthur Foster on Pump-out disposal. M - Letter from Southold Police Department. N - Letter from Joseph Fischetti, Jr. to Southold Town Board. 0 - Letter from S2epatowski Associates, Inc. to Southold Town Board. 2-4 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT COMMENT 'The change of sone requested (General NO. 1: Multiple Residence) allows for docking facilities for non-commercial boats and hotels, and motels both with special exception by the Zoning Board. Restaurants are not listed under this zone. The Proposed zoning (Marine Business) on town zoning maps allows for marinas, fuel sale, swimming pools, tennis courts, and boat yard (storage) all under permitted uses. Restaurants are permitted by special exception. Motels are not listed under this zone. As just pointed out, the proposed development conflicts with both the change of zone requested and the proposed zone on the Town Zoning Map. The Planning Board has recommended Marine- Recreation for this site and the applicant has agreed to comply with that District. The proposed Zoning Map needs to be amended." RESPONSE: The applicant fully understands the permitted uses and those by special exception within the existing General Multiple Residence District. -1- 2-5 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Further, the applicant recognizes that in order to secure a restaurant use as part of the program, it must apply for a use variance to the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. Concerning Southport Development's requested zoning change being consistent with the Proposed Zoning Ordinance, it should be noted that the applicant was, at the time the application was made, June 6, 1985, consistent with the Southold Town Planning Board's Proposed Zoning Ordinance, dated April, 1985. At that time, both the Marine Business and Marine Recreation districts permitted marinas, transient motels, restaurants and supporting facilities. Further, the Planning Board, in response to the Town Board's request, reviewed the Southport Development application and recommended its approval by resolution dated July 29, 1985. During the Town Board's scoping session with the applicant, the Board requested the appli- cant to consult with the Town Attornev con- cerning proposed modifications within the marine districts to determine consistencv between the -2- 2-6 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Southport Development application and a modified Proposed toning Ordinance. We were accordingly advised by the Town Attorney that transient motels would be permitted only within the Marine Recreation district. It was our understanding that the Town Board intends to transfer certain properties, now within the Marine Business district, including the Southport Development property, to the Marine Recreation district in order to permit the introduction of motels and restaurants in support of the Master Plan. The applicant wishes to note, from the Master Plan Update Summary, Town of Southold, dated April, 1985: "Marine related water dependent uses are encouraged at appropriate locations on or near the coast and/or along creeks and bays ... Marine commercial areas could also include some water enhanced uses such as restaurants, resort hotels or motels and marine oriented retail stores or museums. This catagory is generally used for properties that front on the bays where there is extensive tidal flushing.' Southport Development, it should be noted, is, in fact, on Southold Bay and, further, this particular area has -3- 2-7 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS extensive tidal flushing, as noted within other sections of this Addendum. Further, the Master Plan Update Summary states, "Proposed sites for marine commercial uses primarily reflect sites that are currently utilized for boat mooring and marine commercial properties. In addition, marine-related areas in the vacinity of Bud's Pond and Sage Boulevard have been proposed for expansion to help in meeting future water-related needs." (Emphasis added.) As noted from the above information, it is clear that Southport Development is fully consistent with the Master Plan marine district goals. Please refer to the letter from Joseph Fischetti, Jr., to the Southold Town Board, dated February 14, 1986, contained in the supplemental exhibits. -4- 2-8 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - SUMMARY COP9✓IENT "No regard for fresh water use impact on NO. 3: Greenport water district was given. The utility will be asked to verify if it can provide peak flow." RESPONSE: The project sponsor has contacted the Greenport Water Authority in order to ascertain the avail- ability of public water supply. Said Authority, by resolution dated April 13, 1985, allocated sufficient reserves to serve the subject de- velopment and authorized same to begin negotia- tions with the applicant. A copy of said resolution is included in the supplemental exhibits. -5- 2-9 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS COMMENT 'Boatyard (repair) facilities are proposed. NO. 4: However, the use is not permitted in the zone requested. The zoning proposed by the Town for the site, "Marine Business", does not allow motels as currently drafted. The Planning Board has recommended 'Marine-Fecreation" (M-Rec) as appropriate for this site, but this zone does not permit boat yards. A resolution of these conflicts is needed by eliminating repair to boats not moored at the marina." RESPONSE: The proposed marina facility will incorporate only provisions for emergency repair situations. No boatyard operations are anticipated. An existing travel-lift will be utilized for potential winter storage and the occurances requiring emergency haulage. -6- 2-10 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS COMMENT "Sanitary effluent will be subject to NO. 5: denitrification system. This eliminates only 30• of nitrogen from effluent. where will effluent be discharged? It is not clear from the report, but was revealed at the meeting to be to a gravel bed on the northwest corner of the site. The site plan needs to show the system." RESPONSE: The anticipated commercial sanitary effluent will be recharged to the groundwater via a Suffolk County Department of Health Services approved subsurface denitrification system located at the northern section of the subject property. This installation will eliminate the present standard leaching pools which currently handle approximately 3,500 gallons per day without denitrification treatment. A complete set of Suffolk County Department of Health Services criteria are contained in the supple- mental addenda. These specifications are to be utilizied when the Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article V-B, Section 2(c) , is exceeded and the total project design flow is 15,000 gallons per day or less. Actual co-struction -7- 2-11 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS designs must be submitted to said agency prior to project initiation. These approvals will be obtained during the site plan review process and are not a function of a rezoning application. However, proposed effluent generated is calculated as follows: Motel - 56 units x 100 gpd/unit 5,600 gpd•. - 26 efficiency units x 150 gpd/unit 3,900 gpd. Restaurant, including lavatories: 125 seats x 30 gpd/seat 3,750 gpd. Bar - 10 seats x 15 gpd/seat 150 gpd. Pool - 5 gpd per capita x 100 500 gpd. Service Building - 2 lavatories x 150 gpd 300 gpd. Laundry facilities - 2 washing machines x 400 gpd. 800 gpd. TOTAL LOAD: 15,000 gpd. NOTF: Said minimum design flow criteria are provided by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (copy included in supplemental addenda) . Said design will provide for total effluent nitrogen concentrations to fall well below the existing New York State standard of 10 MG/L. -8- 2-12 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - PUBLIC NEED FOR PROJECT COMMENT •A public need for the project is referred to, NO. 6: but surveys or other evidence is not offered. An intention to serve residents is stated. This intention needs to be translated into fact as the proposal is developed. The state- ment is made that there will be no increased demand for public services, yet public water is needed. Police and fire protection are also needed. A statement from the Village is needed on water supply and from the Police and Fire Departments as well. A municipal cost impact would be helpful." RESPONSE: The growing demand for recreational facilities within the Town of Southold has been acknowledged by the Town of Southold Planning Consultants, Raymond, Parrish, Pine and Weiner, Inc. They state in the Master Plan Update Background Studies that, "There is a recognized future need for additional slips, but at this time consensus appears to be in favor of supplying this resource through the private sector, i.e. through expansion of existinc cori-,ercial marinas (enphasis added) or creation of new• commercial marinas. Addi- tional eccnr.ic stimulus off site is also -9- 2-13 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS supported in the same document: "A recent University of Rhode Island study determined that'for every $1.00 in boat and marine sales, another $1.20 is generated elsewhere." The project sponsors' analysis of the marine market demand also is supported by said con- sultants: "In spite of the number of marinas, there are current shortages of boat slips, docking spaces and moorings, particularly for large boats." (Emphasis added.) Increased demand for public services will be limited to an augmentation of the peak water supply quantities provided by the Greenport Water District. Said increase is estimated at 13,500 gallons per day over the existing draw of 3,500 gallons per day. As mentioned previously, reserves have already geen allocated by the Water District for this as well as many other proposed projects. (See resolution of Greenport Water Authority.) A letter contained within the supplemental addenda of this document confirms that no additional police protection is required and a recent conversation with the Greenport Fire Chief indicated that no -10- 2-14 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS additional equipment or manpower would be needed as a result of the project development. It should also be noted that the Towyn of Southold Assessors' Office has estimated that the project, as proposed, will generate approximately :60,000.00 additional tax dollars over those provided by the current use. It is evident to the most casual observer that during the spring, summer and fall seasons within the general area of Southold, there is a major influx of tourists. To further confirm this, the applicant interviewed Mr. William Behr, a director of the Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce, to discuss this matter more fully. Mr. Behr confirmed that the Chamber of Commerce has monitored tourism in general and, more specifically, the need for a greater number of motel accommodations. It was noted, for instance, that there has not been a transient motel built in this area within the last 20 years. Further, and more importantly, during the summer season, not only are most units 100 percent occupied, but large numbers of tourists are turned away by lack of accommodations. -11- 2-15 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS It is clear that, from a public need point of view, the Southold area would be greatly enhanced by having more transient motel accommodations since the tourist who is staying overnight statistically spends considerably more of his discretionary income on items such as restaurants, tourist attractions, gasoline and automobile service. Further evidence of this is outlined in more detail in the last response section of this report, entitled "Section - No Action." It should be noted that the economic impact described later in this report amounts to something in excess of $8,000,000. -12- 2-1 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - LOCATION COMMENT "Sage Boulevard is apparently a private road NO. 7: with its abuttors having some control over access and 'improvements' thereon. Since improvements to Sage Boulevard by others cannot be assumed, what right do the appli- cants claim to alter (improve) Sage Boulevard? This is essential for project approval since existing access is not satisfactory for the proposed project to be approved. The question of maintaining Sage Boulevard is not addressed. Sage Boulevard will have to be improved jointly. An agreement on same will be neces- sary for site plan approval." RESPONSE: The applicant has closely studied the existing 16' right-of-way and, further, has retained the services of Dunn Engineering, PC, a pro- fessional trafic engineering firm, to evaluate current conditions at Sage Boulevard. To summarize Dunn Engineering's findings: With the proposed improvements currently within the jurisdiction of Southport Development, namely repaving, establishing road center lines, clearing of side vegetation and posting of speed limits, the existing right-of-wav will -13- 2-17 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS adequately and safely serve Southport Development as well as the adjacent owners using this right-of-way. In addition, the applicant agrees to fully cooperate with the municipality in the planning and further improvements of Sage Boulevard in conjunction with the owners of the property that control Sage Boulevard. It should be noted that these owners currently have an application before the Planning Board. To summarize the Southport Development position, the current Sage Boulevard will adequately serve Southport Development with minor improvements, and, in addition, Southport Development pledges to the municipality to take part in additional improvements of Sage Boulevard as required by the municipality of the current owners of Sage Boulevard. -14- 2-18 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS COMMENT OA supposition is made as to potential NO. 8: negative impacts from spills of industrial compounds which might be used by industries under the current zoning. It appears that an impression is trying to be created that somehow this would not be possible under the proposed use. However, it is a known fact that even the existing use has such compounds on site and that there already exists a threat to the environment: This fact is much more pertinent, but is not mentioned." RESPONSE: It should be noted that the proposed marine facilities will not include boat repair operations. Therefore, the statement in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is supported that said proposal will eliminate the potential hazards currently existing for industrial/commercial pollution caused by compounds utilized in the current as well as the permitted uses of the site. As the present operations include repair and maintenance uses, site inspection reveals potentially hazardous materials cor,.mon to a boatyard facility. These compounds include, -15- 2-19 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS among others, paints, varnish, resins, solvents and degreasing agents. -16- 2-20 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION, - MARINA CONSTRUCTION COMMENT •Dredge spoil analysis must be done to NO. 9 determine suitability of spoil for proposed uses (wetlands creation) . If contaminants are found, what will be done with spoil so as not to create a public health hazard? Upland grading as stated in DEIS would not be possible. Dredging method, time, upland dewatering, and runoff control must all be addressed." RESPONSE: Project revisions have resulted in a request to maintenance dredge the boat basin area in order to provide a depth of 6 feet at mean low water. This depth will conform to the existing USDOA permit depth covering the channel entrance as well as the permits issued for the private canal located at Tarpon Drive. A copy of said permits are included in the supplemental addenda. This reduction in proposed depth will result in approximately 9,000 cubic yards of material being removed during the dredging operation. Sail operation will be scheduled to occur between Fovem er 1st and April 1st in order -17- 2-21 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS to reduce impacts to the surrounding waterways. Core samples were taken within the proposed dredge area and sent to ECO-Test Labs, Inc. for analysis to determine if said material contains any hazardous or toxic materials. The results of said analysis will be for- warded to the lead agency upon their receipt. A map indicating the sample locations is included in the supplemental addenda. The said cores revealed that the majority of the basin bottom is comprised of grey clay with a 6 inch to 1 foot silt/sand covering. Construction debris (bricks) were found throughout the area and were also docu- mented during the shellfish survey conducted in the basin vacinity. If contaminants are found within the spoil material, the dredging proposal will be eliminated from the project development, although none is expected. Dredging will be accomplished utilizing a hydraulic dredge or crane with dragline, depending on contractor cost estimates. Spoil will be placed behind upland earthen berms for de-watering and runoff controlled utilizing PMXCO or N£TLON erosion control -18- 2-22 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS blankets. once dry, material will be utilized. in site grading operations, trucked to an off-site disposal area, or used in the wetlands creating program. _19- 2- 23 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS COMMENT "Concern with regards to boat slip length. NO. 10: All are over 32' in length. This does not allow for "less than luxury boats." What is the public need in the area for "elite boating?" Small boating needs to be addressed. The fuel facility needs to be described and located, as does the boat pumpout and pumpout disposal method." RESPONSE: This berthing schedule is based on the project sponsor's survey of area marinas and is supported by the Master Plan Back- ground Study previously mentioned. It should be noted that 32' vessels are not considered to be "elite" or "luxury" beats. In fact, demand for larger slips is directly related to the buying trends of recreational boaters. This trend of "trading up" has resulted in an increase in larger vessels within the small boat market. As the present project incorporates the use of float docks, their configuration can easily be changed if market conditions warrant an increase or decrease in boat size. As proposed, the fuel dock facility will be located at one of the outboard docks and serviced via the existing -20- 2-24 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2,000 gallon underground tank. Said facility will conform to all applicable state and county regulations relating to marine fueling. Tank construction, line placement and auto- matic shutoff systems will all be detailed in the site plan approval phase. Additionally, a pump-out facility will also be added to the expanded marina infra-structure. This installa- tion will utilize a holding tank with collected effluent to be transported to the Greenport Sewage Treatment plant for processing. Said pump-out facility will be located away from the fuel dock in order to limit conjestior.. Construction details will also be outlined in the site plan approval phase. A letter from A. P. Foster, President of Custom Cesspools, Inc., indicates sufficient capacity to service said station during its peak use. -21- 2-25 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - UPIAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENT "What is pervious material used for 288 space NO. 11: parking lot? Inconsistency on page 11 as to whether parking lot will be 'pervious' or 'impervious', or 'semi-pervious'. A site plan with all drainage patterns, grading plans, holding ponds and their capacity etc. must be shown along with drainage calculations. A "O" runoff must be maintained so as not to impact surrounding waters. RESPONSE: It is intended that the parking facilities incorporated in the development plan be con- structed of a pervious material such as crushed stone in order to reduce storm water runoff. As stated previously, all runoff will be con- trolled via a common storm water management system designed to eliminate any possible impacts to ground or surface waters. Details of said system will be provided during the site plan approval phase. However, it should be noted that "O" runoff will be maintained as to prevent property damage and impact to sur- rounding surface waters. This adherence to a "0" runoff installation also conforms -22- 2-26 '-- HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS to the policies suggested by the New York Statement Department of Environmental Conservation under their administration of Article 25 and Article 15 of the Fnviron- mental Conservation Law. -23- 2-27 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS COMMENT "Since no site plan has been included in the NO. 12: DEIS, it cannot be commented upon whether the parking stated is adequate. The restaurant has given no capacity and no mention is made of employee parking. Un- substantiated statements are made regarding 'satisfying zoning requirements', runoff generated from impervious to semi-pervious surfaces. This section needs to be supplemented." RESPONSE: A conceptual site plan is included in the supplemental addenda as well as a topographic survey showing existing site conditions. Motel yield was calculated as follows: Total upland acreage - 380,713 sq. ft. Parking requirements for marina - 1 space per slip x 121 slips x 350 sq. ft. per parking space (per Town Code) : 42,350 sq. ft. Total acreage available for motel: 338,364 sq. ft. Permitted Density - 4,000 sq. ft. per unit (with approved sewage disposal system and public water) ; 338,364 sq. ft. divided by 4,000 sq. ft. = 84.59 units -24- 2-28 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Parking requirements were calculated according to current Southold Town Code to include employee parking as well as marina and restaurant use. Said computa- tions are as follows: Motel - 82 units x 1 space/unit: 82 spaces Employees - 20 x 1 space/employee: 20 spaces Marina - 121 slips x 1 space/slip: 121 spaces Restaurant - 125 seats x 1 space/5 seats: 25 spaces Bar - 10 seats x 1 space/5 seats: 2 spaces TOTAL PARYING REQUIREMENTS: 250 spaces -25- 2-29 { HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS COMMENT •No calculations of peak water use and NO. 13: sewage flows are given to be verified. Is an on-site well capable of supplying the water needed for boat washing and irrigation without going saline during peak season? If not, Greenport must be made aware and utility acknowledgement is needed.• RESPONSE: Computations of peak water usage are as follows: Motel - 56 units x 100 gpd 5,600 gpd. 26 efficiency units x 150 gpd. 3,900 gpd. Restaurant, including lavatories 125 seats x 30 gpd/seat 3,750 gpd. Bar - 10 seats x 15 gpd/seat 150 gpd. Accessory lavatories - 4 x 150 gpd. 600 gpd. Laundry facilities - 2 x 400 gpd. 800 gpd. Boat washing - 121 slips x 258 use factor x 100 gallons/hour x 1 hour usage: 3,025 gpd. PEAK DAILY DDAND: 17,825 gpd. (Computations based on Suffolk County Department of Health Services standards as shown in the supplemental addenda.) -26- 2-30 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS As stated previously, allocations for this project have been approved by the Greenport Water Authority. Boat washing requirements may be served by an on-site shallow well in order to lessen Water District demands. Said use will be dependent on test well results and, therefore, at this point in the development process, we will assume that water demands will be satisfied solely through the Greenport Water Authority. -27- 2-31 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - CONS'TRUCTION AND OPERATION COKMFNT "What is meant by the statement, 'Subsoil NO. 14: testing will be conducted to determine' etc. and "If such material .. .' and 'proper design criteria . .. ' and 'proper erosion contract . . . � This is a draft environmental impact statement and this information is needed to properly evaluate the impacts and to clarify the vague statements made. Supplemental information is necessary." RESPONSE: At the time the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared, results frorr. upland test borings had not yet been received from Slacke Test Boring, Inc. . Said results are now included in, the supplemental addenda as well as locations of the boring samrles. A cor.:plete analysis of the soil conditions are found within the Natural Resource "soils" section. Lastiv, proper erosion control techniques to be utilized during the con- struction phase will include the use of haylale=_ and/or A."XC0 Blankets. These measures will erasure that no siltation of the wetlands will occur during the project installation. -28- 2-32 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, NATURAL RESOURCES, SOILS COMMENT •Soil borings, since they will be necessary any- NO. 15: way, should be included in the DEIS. Unknown subsurface conditions may affect the project and its environmental impacts." RESPONSE: Actual soil data as well as information ex- tracted from the "Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York" would indicate that the majority of the property falls under the "Ma" (Made Land) and "Cu" (Cut and Fill) soil classifications. A complete review of said findings are as follows: CUT AND FILL LAND This is made up of areas that have altered in grading operations for most non-farm uses such as housing developments, shopping centers, or as in this case an old brick factory. The initial grading generally consisted of cutting and filling for streets or parking lots. Usually during this phase topsoil is put aside, stockpiled, for later use in topdres=_ing and final grading. Areas such as this usually -29- 2-33 -' HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS contain deep cuts in or near the sandy sub- stream of the soil or sandy fills of 28" or more. With this the cuts are usually so deep or fills so thick that identification of soils by series is not possible. The following is a breakdown of the soil material that is found in the upper 40" of this unit: Twelve inches of sandy loam, loam or silt loam, with the remaining 28" of loamy fine sand or coarser textured material. Cut and fill land is generally associated with Carver and Plymouth soils. The surplus soil remaining after the final grading is of lower moisture capacity, is droughty and is low to very low in natural fertility, as can be seen on the enclosed map. This type of soil is found along the boat launching ramp, entrance road, Sage Boulevard, and the existing parking lot located between the existing building and boat basin. In the sane areas mentioned above, also found is Cut and Fill land gently sloping. This unit is rade up of leve'_ to gentle -30- 2-34 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS sloping areas that have been cut and filled for non-farm uses. The slopes in this type of area range from 1 percent to 8 percent, and because of final grading are usually complex, approximately 75 percent of cut and fill soils. The texture is dominantly loamy fine sand or coarser textured material. The remaining 25 percent consists of soils of Carver, Haven, Plymouth, or Riverhead series. Included in this type of land in mapping are small areas of Riverhead and Haven soils, graded, 0-8 percent slopes, and small areas that have more than 12 inches of sandy loam, or silt loam in the upper 40 inches. This land has few, if any, limitations to use as a building site. Capability unit and woodland suitability unit are not assigned. NkDE LAND (Ma) This type consists of areas that are mostly covered with debris such as pieces of concrete, bricks, trash, wire, metal and -31- 2-35 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS other non-soil materials. some areas are found on the surface of the original soil, others in large holes dug for disposal purposes, and still others are in old gravel pits converted to this use. Upon examination of the upland and the bottom of the boat basin, it can clearly be seen that bricks from the old brick factory plus amounts of concrete were disposed of for quite some time on various sections of the proposed project site. Included with this unit during mapping are sanitary landfills that have been excavated and subsequently filled with trash and garbage. After these areas are then filled, they are usually covered with several feet of soil material. This does not appear to be the case at the Froposed site. Capability unit and woodland suitability group not assigned. As stated previously, soil boring results, locations and soils map are contained in the supplemental addenda. Said results indicate medius*, brown soil and medium to fine gravel to a depth of 16 feet. Grey cla•: is encountered at 16 feet to 53 feet -32- 2-36 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS with coarse to fine light brown sand and gravel below the clay layer. -33- 2-37 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - GROUNDWATER COMMENT 'The last sentence is missing at least two NO. 16: words so that the meaning of the sentence cannot be concluded.' RESPONSE: Groundwater analysis as stated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement would indicate that groundwater beneath the subject parcel generally flows southward and eastward towards the basin area and Southold Bay. -34- 2-38 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - SURFACE WATERS COMMENT "undocumented 'Agency observations' are NO. 17: held to conclude satisfactory water quality in close proximity to the subject. This statement needs conclusory evidence." RESPONSE: Statements made in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were based on New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) observations of water quality in the Southold Bay area. Samples have recently been taken by said agency from the subject "basin area" and the results will be provided as soon as they are received from the NYSDEC Bureau of Shellfisheries. However, it should be noted that conversations with Mr. James Redman, Marine Resources Specialist III with the NYSDEC, would indicate that it is highly unlikely that water quality within this area would ever be found "unsatisfactory" for shellfishing purposes. This statement is based on the "high velocity of tidal exchange (flushing) that is found within the project vicinitv." Said velocities are produced by the constriction encountered by tidal waters between Conklincs Point (Southold) and Jenninas -35- 2-39 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Point (Shelter Island) . This constriction augments the ebb and flood of tidal waters into-and out of the subject basin, thus preventing the concentration of pollutants such as coliform and nitrates. As no alteration of the existing channel entrance is anticipated, this high rate of tidal exchange will continue after project com- pletion and will assure satisfactory water quality within the basin. -36- 2-40 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - VEGETATION - WILDLIFE COMMENT 'Does the 'representational species list' NO. 18: represent actual observation? If so, why call it 'representation'? No shellfish survey of any kind was done or cited. A study of this kind should be done in this area so potential impact can be discussed, along with any mitigation measures." RESPONSE: A vegetation inventory of the site was con- aucted and those species observed were listed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. As stated, most are herbacious roadside weed species able to withstand poor site conditions. It should be noted that vegetational cover presently exists on only 10 percent of the subject property. At the request of the lead agency, a shellfish survey was undertaken in order to determine the composition and extent of the shellfish populations within the project boundaries. Said survey was conducted on February 1, 1986 by Land Use Company staff. The location of sample points are shown on a map included in -37- 2-41 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS the supplemental exhibits . Survey results are as fcllows by species : SHELLFISH SUPVEY On February 1, 1986, Land Use Company staff conducted a shellfish survey within the project boundaries. During said survey, it was noted that in areas "A", "B" and "D" (see map in supplemental exhibits) that the bottom appeared to be made up of black silt, clay and small stones (1-1/2 to 2 inches in diameter) . In the re-.aining area "C", the bottom consisted of clay and sand with numerous rocks, bricks and pieces of brick. While raking in this area, the rake continually filled up with this dehris even after covering only a foot or two of bottom. It was also noted that there appears to be an almost complete lack of vegetation on the bottom in all four areas. Minute quantities of Sea Lettuce (Ulva lactuca) and Codium (Codium Fragile) were found during the shellfish survey. Greater amounts were found growing on all the existing float docks. -38- 2-42 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS The following equipment was employed during the shellfish survey: Clam rake, 28-inch opening, tooth length 2-1/2 inches; Tongs, 18-inch opening, tooth length 2 inches; Scallop dredge; 14-foot workboat, 25 horsepower motor. Hermit Crab - Pavurus Pollicaris - An extremely common species which prefers shallower water. They use shells of Periwinkles, Mudsnails, Whelks and Moons as their 'homes.' None found during either survey or inspection. Blue Clawed Cra: - Callinectes Sapidus - Inhabits muddy shores and is common in bays and mouths of estuaries. Move into deeper water in winter. Although no living or dead specimens were found, this species is surely an inhabitant of the area. Calico Crab - Ovalipes Ocellatus - Prefers sandy bottoms. None found during inspection or survey. Fiddler Crab - Cca Pugnax - Prefers the dryer parts of sandy beaches and salt marshes. Feeds -39- 2-43 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS on organic material in the sand. None found during inspection. Absence is probably due to the topographic characteristics of the site. Spider Crabs - Libinia Dubia - Prefer kelp beds and tidal pools. No dead or living members of the species found at site. Blood Ark - Anadara Ovalis - A species native to the region, commonly found on shallow sandy bottoms. They are regularly caught by baymen as an incidental catch. None found in project area. Blue Mussel - Mytilus Fdulis - A very commcn local species, found attached to rocks and pilings. It is highly valued as tablefare. Durina the shellfish survey, a small population was found existing on pilings in the dock area. Atlantic Ribbed Mussel - Modiolus Demissus - Another species common to the region, it is not edible but sometimes utilized as bait or chum. Found in the marsh banks within the intertidal zone. Topographic characteristics of the site limit the population of this species. -40- 2-44 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Atlantic Bay Scallop - Aeouipecteh Irradians Probably one of the region's most important shellfish species. They prefer shallow bay bottoms, creeks, etc. They are often found among beds of Codium (Codium Fragile) or Eelgrass (Zostera Marina) . No living specimens were encountered during the survey and only less than 45 shells were found during both the survey and inspection. Therefore, no standing crop of adult-sized scallops is present, nor have there been any in recent times. Razor Clam - Ensis Directus - This species is found in sand bars and shallow sand banks within the intertidal zone. Not believed to be a locally important coranercial species, they are prized by some as tablefare. None were found during the shellfish survey or site inspection, but during the course of conversation with local residents, a small population was recognized in an area located on the opposite (westerly) side of the basin. Soft-shell Clam - Vva Arenaria - They prefer shallow, muddy, intertidal zones. No evidence of any standing adult stock was found. -41- 2-45 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Topographic characteristics of the site attribute to their absence. Channeled Welk - Busycon Canaliculatum - This is a much sought-after species by both commercial baymen and people gathering them for their own consumption. This species is usuallv found on harder sandy bottoms. They are carnivores and scavengers, usually feeding on bivalves. None were found during the inspection or survey. Eastern Oyster - Crassostiea Virginica - This species is found attached to rocks, roots and shells. They are highly valued as tablefare. During the shellfish survey, one adult oyster was found. Upon a site inspection along the existing rock •dock" area, a small adult population was observed. During both the shellfish survey and the site inspection, the absence of any appreciable amounts of oyster shells would indicate that in recent times there has been no sizable standing crop of adult oysters. -42- 2-46 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Hard-shell Clan - Mercenaria Mercenaria - This species is found in different habitats: One is in shallow muddy areas near the low tide mark in estuaries, etc.; another is in the sandy stations found in open, deeper bays or ocean bottom. They are highly valued as tablefare. On first thought, when inspecting the site, it sppeared that this species would be abundent; however, on actual inspection of the flats by boat, wading and walking, it was evident that the minute amount of dead shells indicates that in recent times there has been no standing crop of adult-sized members of this species. This conclusion is supported by the results of the shellfish survey, which showed only three hard clams caught within the survey area. -43- 2-47 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - VEGETATION - WILDLIFE COMMENT "Why aren't the bird and fish species actually NO. 19: cited named? On what dates were observations made? This is supposed to be an inventory." RESPONSE: The following represents a list of waterfowl actually observed on February 1, 1986. This list is submitted in addition to the representational species list contained within the Draft Enviromental Impact Statement. Common Mallard - Anas Platyrhynchos Platyrhynchos By population, this is the foremost duck in the United States. 15 to 20 were observed in the area of the boat launching ramp and were not wary of humans. It is believed that they are used to being fed at the site. Mallards are catholic in their selection of nest sites. They prefer upland to marsh, but the distance from the water varies greatly with the habitat. Sites on levees, small islands, or where potholes are numerous often limit maximum distances from water to a few feet or a few yards. Most studies indicate that nests are located within 100 yards of water (Bellrose, 1980) . -44- 2-48 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Black Duck - Anas Rubripes - Regarded by sportsmen as one of the most prized members of their bag due to this species' wariness. Black ducks nest in a variety of habitats, depending upon the cover available. On the east shore of Chesapeake Bay, 65 percent nested in upland areas, 17 percent in marshes and 19 percent in old duck blinds. Most of the nests in the upland areas were in wooded tracts (Bellrose, 1980) . Three members of this species were noted. Mute Swan - Cygnus Olor - Four members of this species were found. They are thought to be permanent residents of the site. Oldsquaw - Clangula Hyemalis - This species prefers open, deep waters. They do not nest locally. One member of this species was observed. FINFISH A more detailed representational list of finfish resources in the area is as follows: -45- 2-49 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Winter Flounder - Pseudopleurnoectes Americanus - Probably found in some of the deeper, muddier areas. None were found during the shellfish survey even though they are commonly caught while shellfishing. They prefer a soft, muddy bottom (commonly where there are patches of eel grass) to a moderately hard one. Note: during shellfish survey, no eel grass was found. Hogchocker - Trinectes Maculatus - This species is probably found in the area, even though none were found during shellfish survey. From past experience, they are commonly caught in clam rakes and scallop dredges, prefer immediate vicinity of the coast, and are most common in bays and estuaries, where water is more or less brackish. They sometimes run into wholly fresh waters. They are of no commercial value due to their small size, but are said to be a delicious-tasting fish. Windowpane Flounder or sundail - Scophthalmus Aquosus - None were found during the shellfish survey. Again, this is a species often caught -46- 2-50 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS accidently while shellfishing. Prefers a shallow water area or a sandy bottom. Fluke or Summer Flounder - Paralichthys Dentatus - Mentioned as a probable inhabitant of the area. In reality, they are usually caught at 10 to 18 fathoms by commercial draggers. This species comes into shallower water on sandy or muddy bottoms in summer and tends to actively feed in moving waters where they will actually chase bait. They might stray into the boat basin on occasion but not in an area where an angler would seek them. Winter Skate - Raja Ocellata - Commonly found while angling for winter founder. It is thought to confine itself to sandy or gravelly bottoms in shoal water. None are actually believed to inhabit subject area. American Eel - Anguilla Rostiata - Definitely thought to inhabit the subject area, since this species is found over muddy bottoms and wherever food can be found. -47- 2-51 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS American Shad - Alosa Sapidissima - This species might enter the subject area on rare occasions. P.ndronous, they enter fresh water only to spawn. Menhaden or Bunker - Brevoortia Tyrannus - Frequently found at or near surface, they are plankton feeders. They may be driven into the subject area by feeding bluefish, weakfish or striped bass. Oyster Toadfish - Opsanus Tau - This species could possibly be found in the subject area. They prefer shoal water, usually over sandy or muddy bottom where they hide among eel grass or stones waiting for prey. Mummichog - Fundulus Heteroclitus - Found chiefly in shallow brackish water and fresh- water, they prefer muddy bottoms. This species can probably be found in the subject area. Spotfin Killifish - Fundulus Luciae - This species is probably found in the subject area, as they prefer coastal areas, living in brackish waters. -48- 2-52 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Shiner or Tidewater Silverside - Menidia Beryllina - They are surely found in the subject area, and are most common in brackish water. Northern Pipefish - Svngnathus Fuscus - This species is probably found in the subject area. They are found more often over smooth hard grounds than over mud or rocks. Striped Searobin - Prionotus Evolans - They are probably found in the subject area. Longhorn Sculpin - Myoxocephalus Octodecemspinosus This species is found in the subject area. They inhabit coastal waters, moving into deeper water in colder weather then returning in spring. White Perch - Morone Americana - They are found most frequently in brackish waters and are generally close to shore in saltwater, rarely in deep water. If found in the subject area, they are surely only a rare visitor. -49- 2-53 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Striped bass - Monroe Saxatilus - They are not thought to be normally found in subject area, but may stray into it while chasing bait fish. Bluefish - Pomatomus Saltatrix - The young bluefish, commonly known as snappers, are definitely to be found in the subject area during the late summer. Scup or Porgy - Stenotomus Chrysops - Probably none would ever be found in the subject area. They prefer, in summer, fairly shallow waters over smooth bottoms. Weakfish - Cynoscian Regalis - They might on occasion be found in sutject area while chasing baitfish. They prefer warm water and are sensitive to sudden cooling. Blackfish or Tautoc - Tautoga Onitis - They are probably not found in subject area even though they inhabit peconic and Southold Bays. This species is normally found very close to the shoreline, usually among rocky shores, breakwaters, piers and docks. -So- 2-54 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS American Sandlaunce or Sandeel - "Ammoydytes Americanus - This species might occasionally be found in subject area after being chased by predators. They prefer sandy bottoms. Northern Puffer, Balloon Fish or Blowfish - Spaeroides Naculatus - They might on occasion be found in subject area, and they are almost always found close to shore in relatively shallow water. -51- 2-55 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - HUMAN RESOURCES - TRANSPORTATION CON'MEYT *Reference is made to a USACE maintenance NO. 20: dredging permit. Is it in force or pending? A copy should be included in the DFIS. A low water depth of 6' is mentioned, while on Page 9 a depth of 7' to 8' is mentioned. Can this be done within the scope of the USACE permit? Who holds the permit and who will do the channel maintenance dredging (aside from basin dredging)? The need to dredge to this depth has not been fully demonstrated in the DEIS. If this depth of dredging is deeper than the entrance channel, the reason for doing any dredging is missing. Where will the initial spoil and the maintenance dredging spoil be deposited? A modification to the dredging is needed as well as more detail and a soundings plan." RESPONSE: As stated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the channel entrance to the basin is currently subject to a 10-year maintenance dredging permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Said permit is in effect and A copy is included in the suppler;ental exhibits. -52- 2-56 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Additionally, the project sponsor has indicated that the basin depth will be maintained at the same mean low water depth of 6 feet as is allowed under the aforementioned permit. -53- 2-57 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - SIGNIFICANT £NVIROMENTAL IMPACTS COMMENT "The significant environmental impacts NO. 23: discussion on soils, topography, groundwater, surface waters, vegetation, wildlife, and wetlands cannot be commented upon without a more detailed environmental inventory and at least a schematic sketch plan to demonstrate before and after conditions. The impacts listed are conjectural and not conclusory based on evidence contained in the DFIS. This section needs to be rewritten." RESPONSE: A detailed environmental inventory has been submitted as a part of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendum. Therefore, the adverse and beneficial impacts caused by the proposed action can be expanded upon as follows: Adverse Impact Beneficial Impact Soils None Improvement of existing soil conditions through placement of top soil and dune enhancement program. Topography None Creation of aesthetically pleasing land forms and construction of a "0" run-off storm water management system. -54- 2-58 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Aeverse Impact Beneficial Impact Ground- Discharge of se,.aae !'parading of existing water effluent subsecjent to sanitary system. treatment by denitrifi- Removal of future cation system. Said potential for system will not include industrial discharge. treatment for chemical wastes. Surface Increased potential for Establishment of buffer Waters fuel line and holding areas and wetlands will tank failures due to control suspended solids expanded marina from present uplands facilities. and will create a bio- logical filtration syste�-. Sanitary effluent will Establishment of pump- cause nutrient loading out facility will reduce of surface waters to illegal dumping activities . increase. However, tidal flushing will ensure satisfactory water quality. Vegeta- Natural upland vegetation Installation of buffer tion will be removed during areas, dune enhancement site development. and wetlands creation will result in a diversit:• There will be a temporary of vegetation. Said loss of 7,000 square feet vegetation will be of HM and IM areas. utilized for beach stahilization and non- structural erosion. control. Wildlife Disruption of existing Increased diversity by populations. improving habitat through buffer plantings and wetlands creation. Wetlands Temporary loss of 7,000 square feet of H_y and IM areas. 55- 2-59 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Adverse Impact Beneficial Impact Trans- None None portation Zoning i Loss of future Adherence to Town of Land industrial development Southold Master Plan, Use potential Proposed Zoning Ordinance and N.Y.S. Coastal Zone Policies. Community Loss of industrial Increase in tax revtnues Services tax base ($60,000) Increased demand on Development will fill Greenport water growing demand for marine District and tourist facilities. Development will be accomplished by private sector. -56- 2-60 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - MITIGATION MEASURES COMMENT "A statement is made that mitigation measures NO. 24: could be made a part of a proposed project. Specific mitigation measures, even though general at the change of zone level, should be identified as being an integral part of the project. For example, regrading and modifi- cation of existing drainage patterns to achieve certain results are both mentioned as mitigation measures but since the extent of the impact being mitigated is not defined, the need or extent of the miticating measure cannot be defined." RESPONSE: The mitigation measures detailed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be employed as a part of the protect design. Said mitigation measures are reviewed as follows: 1. Top soil installation will improve existing soil conditions. 2. A "0" run-off storm water management system will prevent overland flow, siltation of -57- 2-61 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS wetlands, eros_cn and crcund/surface water contaminat_cr,. 3. A denitrification sewage treatment system will be constructed to Suffolk county Department of Health Services specifications, and will reduce nutrient loading of the ground and surface waters. 4. A turf management program will ensure that no ground or surface water impacts occur due to improper use of fertilizers. 5. Maintenance dred'cing will only occur between November 1st and April 1st. 6. Buffer areas and tidal wetlands will be created in order to stabilize shoreline areas utilizing non-structural controls. 7. Buffer areas will be installed utilizing plant species beneficial to local wildlife population. -58- 2-62 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS S. A pump-out s_ation will red::ce ille;al durnping by vessels now using t`.e basin facilities . -54- 2-63 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - MITIGATION COMB"X%"r "What is the design of catch basins, as NO. 25: described, which will contain storm water runoff and where will they occur considering slope on site is toward water. A site grading plan is needed." RESPONSE: A specific site grading plan with construction details is not required as a part of a rezoning application. However, it has been stated that a "0" runoff storm water management system will be maintained within the project boundaries. -60- 2-64 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SFCTION - MITIGATION COMMENT "Why will the phragmites be removed and why is NO. 26: it really a nuisance species? This needs to be detailed." RESPONSE: The Common Reed (Phragmites Communis) is considered a nuisance species because of its limited value for wildlife food sources and cover. It has aggressive growing habits that allow it to out-compete more desirable species and will be the first to colonize disturbed sites, such as the subject property. Within the project proposal, it is intended to remove areas of Phragmites and replace them with desirable seashore species. Within these areas, the Phragmites does serve to control soil erosion; however, this attribute can be duplicated utilizing more beneficial species. Once removed, IM, HM and transition zone plantings will be installed and monitored to ensure that Phragmites does not re- colonize the site. Said maintenance program will continue until full coverage is accomplished. -61- 2-65 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS COMMENT "The creation of a natural Wetland along the entire NO. 27; basin shoreline is proposed. The DEIS does not show this. A better rendition is needed." RESPONSE: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement states "S. Alternifloria, S. Patens and Baccheris Halimifolia will be utilized to establish a natural wetland community along the entire basin shoreline." This wetlands creation will provide shoreline erosion control, flood control, wildlife benefits, siltation protection, etc., without the use of structural measures. -62- 2-66 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS COMMENT "Little demand' ignores freshwater use for the NO. 28: entire expansion proposed." RESPONSE: As stated in previous sections of this Addendum, the Greenport Water Authority has already allocated sufficient reserves to serve this pro- ject. No other public service demands are anti- cipated to increase. -63- 2-67 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED COM.*IENT "The discussion of unavoidable adverse impacts NO. 29: cannot be completed without an analysis of the existing bottom to be dredged." RESPONSE: As stated previously, bottom sediment analysis is currently being accomplished by ECO-Test Labs, Inc.. Said analysis will be submitted to the lead agency upon its receipt. Although no concentrations of contaminates are expected, if found,dredging at the basin area will be eliminated from the project proposal. -64- 2-68 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - NO ACTION COMMENT "Document economic infeasibility. what does NO. 30: this mean?" RESPONSE: An inspection of the subject property by the applicant and its consultants clearly established that the existing marina requires a sizeable capital contribution in order to upgrade the facility to acceptable current standards. Unfortunately, marinas tend to "generate low return on investment"1 and have, accordingly, experienced great difficulty in securing financing. The applicant has gone through a preliminary marina upgrade and design, and based on this upgrade, has secured cost estimates outlined below for approximately $830,000.00. In order to more specifically understand why no action and simple upgrading of the marina in not a feasible economic solution, a simple pro-forma statement is outlined below: PROJECTED RENTAL I%COME FROM UPGRADING OF M:-.RINA: Average boat slip - 37' by $60 per lineal foot - $2,200 x 121 slips: $ 268,000.00 (All figures rounded.) -65- 2-69 a HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Dry storage income for 75 boats x $1,000 per bcat: $ 75,000.00 Gross 'income: $343,000.00 Operating expenses:2 (200,000.00) Net available for debt service: $143,000.00 DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION LOAN COSTS FOR MARINA UPGRADING Dock construction and installation: $450,000.00 Dredging: 70,000.00 Dock Utilities: 60,000.00 Upgrade site develop- ment costs: 150,000.00 Miscellaneous - engineering, architectural, permits 100,000.00 Development loan cost: $830,000.00 Amortization of loan at 12-1/28: ($103,000.00) )\ET after operating cost and debt service: $ 40,000.00 It is clear that no responsible investor would consider incurring $830,000.00 in debt with a return of only 5 percent. Further, to exacerbate this situation, we placed no value -66- 2-70 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS on the upland area noted for the marina. Whatever reasonable value is established for the upland area will clearly make this a negative investment. It is clear from the above analysis that only through a diversified development program, including a motel, restaurant and supporting facilities can the marina stay in existence. Most simply put, marinas need related uses in order to subsidize their existence.3 While all economic studies are always subject to interpretation, a general economic impact of Southport Development can be drawn. A recent study entitled, "Napa Valley Tourism Protect", prepared by Planning and Erviror..ental Services, dated November, 1984, estimates that for every $1.00 stent on lodging within an area that attracts tourism, namely the Napa valley, $4.03 will be spent on other items within the coranunity, as follows: a -67- 2-11 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Restaurants: $ 1.85 Tourist attractions and entertainment: .45 Retail purchases: 1.52 Gas and automobile service: .21 TOTAL: $ 4.03 Estimated income projections developed for a completed Southport Development motel indicate that approximately $2,000,000 will be spent on lodging per year within this development. Accordingly, and based upon the above study, the economic impact generated by Southport Development within the Town of Southold would be over $8,000,000, i.e. $4.03 x $2,000,000 equals $8,060,000. In conclusion, it is only through the motel and supporting facilities within Southport Development that the applicant will be able to subsidize the marina so that it can stay in existence and offer the public marine recreation opportunities. -68- 2-72 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS F 1. C.J. Chamberlain, "Marinas, Recommendations for Design Construction and Management' (National Marine Manufacturing Association, 1983) . 2. D.G. Norvell, Phd., "Financial Profiles for Five Marinas" (National Marine Manufacturing Association, 1984) . 3(a) . Nodin and Brown, "New York Commercial Marine and Boat Industry" (New York Sea Grant Institute, 1974) . 3(b) Brown, "The Stability of the Commercial Marina Industry, New York and Long Island" (Cornell University, 6/85) . -69- 2-73 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS E X H I B I T S 2-74 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT A TOPOGRAPHIC MAP SHOWING FXISTING SITE 2-75 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS IS ri �l���' II�. �,r.Il•I�•./{lir ' �� 1 ►t Willa 44 - _- -•t ' - - - _T - - - r r 2-76 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN OF PRCPOSED MOTEL AND MARINA 2-77 sum mm ivommaw 1 1 rw GM AVOa ANO MOB Aw 010MI ofcc 'll ul 2 � � /� ll JL�I_ `• W ,I WON Z I lI( lII( IIIc ('�•�\ Macon t ' �,• I ,II� .. �'_ ,/` It ,C •' 1 � __---- Vw vw I 3 I + / .. ,ti r 1 1.iii co A I Z 0904- ""m N. / � � wrr• w.w r �rw. � b `�` . � I W wry• r.mlw.wr.wp �, W sw+► ww r Intnv \1 _ ILL r — 1_�' MIUr YO W1 v nrW IV=>w I l I Q HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT C SITE PLAN LOCATING SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM 2-79 a A - FII•TFR BFD AREA B - I.FACHINr, AMA C - SEPTIC TANK ARFA Q � I �I m _ ' � � _ _ - t -- ✓� 1 maw Z I _ .__ �� .. ....�� wA•4 w Ly iu II N/� v `O aw w•1•A; 111 w 1 N JIM T�Al bla M~8k am 1 1wM, w wr M ■RM �� J J r J ! I' ' ' • v I LT " -+- MAIMMA _ Lagoon -4 Y NONE sou""Le sw 'VOOPOT room M rTIrM �11�IM011i.11�Tm HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT D SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS FOR DENITRIFICATION SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM 2-81 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS DENITRIFICATION General Denitrification of the sewage is required whenever the population density, in accordance with the Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article VB, Section 2(c), is exceeded and the total daily design flow is 15,000 gallons per day or less. These guidelines serve as an aid in design of a minimum system. Plans are to be prepared and submitted to the Department by a licensed Professional Engineer. The construction of the under-drain and/or denitrification system must be certified by a Professional Engineer as being installed as per the approved plans. Septic Tanks In all cases, the system shall be common for the site. The septic tank shall be of approved precast concrete construction sized to receive two days' flow. For further details, see 'Standards for Sub-Surface Sewage Disposal Systems for Other Than Single Family Residences." Leaching Field and the Nitrification Process The excavation shall be carried to a depth 4'4" below the proposed invert elevation of the leaching field. The entire area shall be excavated 3 feet beyond the perimeter of the leaching field. The leaching field area is determined by one square foot per gallon of sewage per day. Next, a 20 mil continuous vinyl liner shall be laid to cover the entire excavation and lap up the sides by one foot. A one inch layer of 3/4 to 1h inch washed gravel is then installed over the vinyl liner. A manifold of 4 inch PVC SDR 35 drainpipe with 1/2 inch holes, 2 every 6 inches, is installed with the holes downward to serve as the collection system. Collection pipes shall be spaced 6 feet apart and extend the full length and width of the leaching area. A suitable solid 4 inch PVC SDR 35 pipe shall connect the perforated pipe to allow the effluent to flow to either the denitrification system or a pump station which is determined by depth to groundwater. An additional 5 inch layer of 3/4 to 1� inch washed gravel is then placed in the manifold bed. The gravel bed is then covered with a filter material. Three feet six inches (3'6") of clean sand and gravel is then placed over the filter material extending to the edges of the vinyl liner. This sand layer shall be completely compacted. Four inches (4") of 3/4 to lh inch washed gravel is placed on top of the sand in a uniform layer. A continuous manifold is then erected over the gravel bed. This manifold shall be con- structed of 4 inch PVC SDR 35 sewer pipe with 1/2 inch holes, 2 every 6 feet, 306 apart, facing downward. This leaching system shall be located 3 feet inside the perimeter of the vinyl liner. The leaching pipes shall be spaced every four to five feet. An additional 6 inches of gravel is placed within the leaching field up to at least the top of the leaching field pipe. The entire leaching field is then covered with filter material. The top of the leaching system shall be at least 2 feet below grade. The leaching system for nitrification shall not be placed under driveways or parking lots. - 1 - 2-82 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Leaching Pool and Nitrification Process Wher he depth to groundwater is not critical, leaching pools s:y be utilize o effect nitrification. The number and depth of pools are determined by ' .5 gallons/foot2 of sidewall area of the pools for eve gallon of sewag er day.. The excavation shall be carried to a de 4 00000, feet below the bo m elevation of the leaching pools. The are to be excavated 3 feet yond the perimeter of the outermost le ng pools. A 20 mil continuous vi 1 liner shall be laid to cover th tire excava- tion and lap up the sid one foot. A 1 inch layer of to lh inch washed gravel is then ins t led over the vinyl line A manifold of 4 inch PVC SDR 35 drainpipe wi 1/2 inch holes, 2 ery 6 inches, spaced 300, is constructed with holes cing downwar _o serve as the collection manifold. Collection pipes shal space feet apart and extend the full length and width of the outsi ..eter of the leaching pools. A solid 4 inch PVC SDR 35 pipe shall nnect the perforated collection manifold to the denitrification c er Where the pipe penetrates the vinyl liner shall be made wate ght, an ditional 5 inches of 3/4 to l inch washed gravel is th laced betwee. the drain pipes. The entire gravel bed is then covere ith filter mater' Next 3'6" of clean coarse sand and gravel is pla over the filter mater. 1 extending the full length and width of the vin liner. This sand layer sh 1 be completely compacted. The leaching pool re now installed, piped in a su able manner to assure equal dosing an- ackfilled up to the inlet line(s) w h clean coarse sand and gravel. Th eaching pool tops, whether domes or slabs, are to brought to withi t least 2 feet of the final grade. Chimneys with cas 'ron covers br t to the final grade placed over the manhole shall be ins 'led over .tain leaching pools (see the approved plans). Lift Station If the depth to groundwater is insufficient for the effluent to com- pletely flow by gravity, then a dual sewage ejection pump system will be used to suitably lift the effluent. Pumps shall be sized according to the head required. The pumps shall be placed within a monolithic precast concrete manhole, which is waterproof, with a cast iron cover brought to grade. The cover shall be placed so as to provide access to the pumps for repair. . Refer to GLUMRB "Recommended Standards for Sewer Works% 1978 edition, for complete pump station design requirements. 2 - 2-83 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS The Denitrification System Whether the collected waste from the leaching system flows by gravity or is pumped, the following criteria applies. The sulfur and limestone media shall be placed within an approved precast concrete chamber. The chamber shall be lined with a 20 mil vinyl liner so as to render the cham- ber watertight below the inlet. The inlet to the chamber shall be 4 inch solid schedule 40 PVC pipe. The inlet shall be provided with a three-way 'T'. The bottom of the 'T' shall have a 4 inch solid pipe extending to within 2 inches of the bottom of the chamber connected to a 4 inch manifold system with two holes (1/2 inches), spaced every 6 inches, facing downward. The bottom of the chamber is to be filled with 6 inches of 3/4 to 1% inch washed gravel completely encasing the manifold. The chamber is then filled with media which consists of 4h pounds of elemental sulfur per gallon per day of design flow and 4h pounds of limestone per gallon per day of design flow. The sulfur and limestone are to be mixed to provide a uniform media bed. A 4 inch outlet should be placed one foot below the manifold point of entry into the chamber. Both inlet and outlet are to be securely ce- mented to the chamber. Solid rings will be placed on top of the chamber cemented to be watertight, if needed. A slab or dome shall be placed on top of the chamber one foot below grade. A cast iron cover to grade shall be located over the inlet manifold pipe. Final Recharge The effluent from the denitrification chamber shall be piped to approved precast concrete leaching pool(s). For design purposes, an application rate of 10 gallons per day per square foot sidewall leaching area is per- mitted. The 4 inch effluent pipe should be brought to the edge of the manhole for sampling purposes. Either solid rings or domes and chimneys shall be utilized with a cast iron cover brought to grade over the manhole opening. Chimneys shall not exceed 2 feet in height. 3 - 2-84 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS DEN17RIFICA71ON CHAMBER - DETAIL FLEXIBLE COUPLING DROP "T" t RIGID GROUT, DETAIL A CAST IRON COVER 1 ALTERNATE TOP AND COVER \i FOR USE WITH WET WELL r_-Jr, ------- _-;i .� SEE DETAIL A �w SULFUR TO LF-ICHING POOL t LIMESTONE 20 NIL VINYL LINER TO OVERFLOW DEPTH I. T" PEA GRAVEL AROUND 2" PIPE DENITRIFICATION CHAMBER SEE DETAIL S DIRECTLEY UNDER COVER DETAIL 8 WITH FLAT COVER DETAIL B Will: DOME CCS 4 NO SCALE 2-85 S CASs In"COWN, m LDCf1N. .u.ET v /1NHIQ0 MAD.\ / m INLET H A• IP Q 17--13 . A'NP i'.II' SANG • GRAVEL IL[.IK[ . I/f• 2 r COUPLING D le G' PEA GfAV[L AROUND 4'/IP[ /L[.IGI[ G COUPLING FILTER SED SULPUN E a a O SEPTIC TANK to CAL • VINYL UNEP LIMESTONE W SEE F10. 4 !s YA. p N 1 0 I G'KA GNAV[L AAOUNO G'PIK C rn `" m 1 DENITRIFICATION r r CHAMBER tE■ FPO. a ;.PLICATION SATE Is C 2 NI GAL. PEA DAV PER C s..R. O/soot WALL r AREA ISELOG/INVINTI LEACHING FOOL M m 2 FIGURE 1 g m GENERAL PROFILE N DENITRIFICATION SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM GRAVITY FLOW NO SCALE S m Z YfNt SRTN SCRrrN) CAST Iftem AST w"COVeR m PINISNfe eRADe� y to MIL Z A'N► VINYL LINrR� fflfle =S. NN.rT couPUN$ •• pwr rill' D SAND a $NAVEL Z ). o S' $A ••pipe PUN E ED ® v Leel t a ee VOL w FILTER !60 COUPLIN$ N LNNtSPON. VINYL �,sm. 0 sE►TIC TANK � w LIMER 1 6EE FOO. a w N K r"� m y I $•eP►rA$RAvn r" AROUND 4PIPs r IWe TEN W6T TATC WELLAn) 06NITRIFICATION O ONAMSEII APPLICATION we or 2 10 GAL-PCII DAY PER 90 FT N OP floc WALL A09A C ISCLOW INVENT) r 4 LEACMINO POOL Z O m FIGURE 2 cl z GENERAL PROFILE mm DENITRIFICATION SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM H (HIGH GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS) NO SCALE I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS FINIsHEo GRADE FLET R•F� R• 7'-11• SAND • GRAVEL n a FL& GRAVEL Amoupop 4 EO OIL VINYL LINER SEPTIC TANK FILTER !ED BEE DETAIL A row SEPTIC TANK DOTTOII SECTION MCMEp UK•PER FOOT 70�AR0 DENITRIFKASMO CHAMBER 1 � 1•AL. IER SO.FT APPLKATION RATE 1 11 TO SURFACE AREA 1 II 1 1 1 1 -y KI TO OCRITRWICATN - - - - - CNAKBER 1/K• 1 1 t t PER FOOT 1 I TD► ~1 1 SECTION 1 1 1 I L J TOP VIEW F FINISHED GRADE CovER r-KBLlr-sABRK MATERIAL •S• • •.G:GRAVEL ID• *04 FABRIC MATERIAL KA GRAVEL 17N•-11Ft'pSNEpI DETAIL A INL VINYL LOWER FIGURE 4 FILTER BED — DETAIL — 7 NO SCALE TJK 9109 2-88 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT E RESOLUTION BY VILLAGE OF GREENPORT SHOWING ALLOCATION OF WATER FOR YOUNG'S MARINA PROJECT 2-89 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS VILLACE Of GREENPORT BOARD OF TRUSTEES RESOLUTION ADOPTED 4/18/85 WHEREAS, the Utility Committee of the Village of Greenport has evaluated the installed capacity of the Greenport Municipal Water System and eaking allowances for Peak Demand, Fire Protection, Contingencl Reserve, Froje;ts Under Construction, Approved Projects, and Future Projecto wiv.ln the Village, has found that the approximate available is 350,000 g.1lor.2 per day, and W4EREAS, the Utility Committee of the Village of Greenport I..n, evaluated the anticipated demand of the active proposals before Lt.e Committee and found that this demand will be approx1mately 115,000 gallcne per day, and WHEREAS, this; dercar.J rr.(r.-!�rr.ts 30% of tl.e avallat,le capacity of tie Greenport Municipal hater System. THEREFORE, 1!.r - t :.'ty CcirmiLtee requests that the Village "rd of Trustees come nct cortro t fri',tlations for water service with the following applicants. 1) The Breakers at Brecknock Hall 2) August Azre_ Se.t icer 1. 3) San Simecn Fetirer,ent Community. 4) Long Pond Estates, Sectior. 1. 5) Russell Mann 6) Leon Marcus 7) Nlch—IZZ Allan: 6) Tiae Mork yl Peddler ': Vr1I::. 1(-) ycUnF's 1:.Iatyet.: A l:..r :r.. 2-90 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS - 2 - Board of Trustees Resolution Adopted 4/18/85 AND WHEREAS. the Village Board of Trustees requested a review of the peak water loading and subsequent review found a demand of approximately 194.E gallons per day, and WHEREAS, the demand represents 55% of the available capacity of the production of the Greenport Municipal Yater System. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees enter into negotiations as recommended by the Village Utility Committee. • • • • • • • • The question of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote which resulted as follows: Trustee Jeanne Cooper Aye Tru3tee Gall Horton Naye Trustee David Kapell Naye Trustee William Lieblein Aye Mayor George Hutbard Aye This resolution was ti,ereupan declared duly adopted. CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION STATE Of NEW YORK ) ) as.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) THIS I3 TO CERTIFY THAT 1, Nancy W. Cook, Clerk of the Village of Greenport of the County of Suffolk, f,.ve comibred tt,e foregoing copy of the resolution with the original now or, file in LI-13 office, ar,d which vas adopted ty the Board of Tru-tees of s.rt-i ruut,ty or. April 18, I'A"; find flat the sage is a true and correct transcrija of Bald resolution at.B _tire whole tfereof. IN WITNESS WHEFFIf,, 1 havt 11—ru,.t a met ay f..r,d er,d the r l t l c.lal fiez. of tre Village of Greenpovt of tr.e c.-ueo y of Al-:1- 1985 l; i Efate A,r,. y . Q"a V- 11air• Clcn. 2-91 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT FM CORPS OF ENGINEERS - MAINTENANCE PERMIT FOR YOUNG'S MARINA 2-92 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Aitlt;on No. "-533 Nam of Apphcant Hc6w d H• Zehner Effective Date 28 larch 1978 Expiration Data Ilf aWicabiel 28 March 1981 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT no. 10484 watrrine to"a,ttwt reouat triad__�Seg t�t)brr 1977 __Ml..p.•1►I ro b(1 Darlonn wort ie a dfarune nawptb4"rtra of tly Uwtad Sutr.tlprin Ills•w+ltrandwan of the Cnrl pf Erplrlara.O+arrt 0 Saban 10 Of UN R,tart aad Korb-.Act of Morels 3,1889133 UiC.dill. Q(1 Di"W"&ftleod ar fal"WIVOl Into tte41le trtrS Woo Rile WW&Ca d a 00-1 Ieam ft Sacnu•Ir of du Army acing wWAP Wa Cllr)M 140 &ptrrel•alx to SM-on 404 of die Fed.al allow►oaut on Cont,at Act 06 Sul.816.►L 92 5001. 11 1 Ttartgort dradW rtr+/IS,Md It.,rpaaa of d,mpne n into ocam ata,a.t~ow wll.wea of a Orme from the Socrotry of tot Amy—o uvoup ilia Cart of Eryntert p,.t„am to Satan 193 OR dr fdarnat►a.toctan,Aaaw•a!,and Serctuano M d 4972 WS Sot.low;I.L.823321; Boward H. ?Aft= -.8 p/re ar.r•t the full acne and ad*eu of the pwotafaa) Yaayas Boatyard i Marina P. O. Boot 250, Slaw Boulevard eeer;�art, Had Ycdt 119" •1.19,eatwelaad M r Saeatrr M do Amy: N lrgmall iq grr-r. 70 ft. of steel bulkhead -0 txeae doa dbo tae OaaOawd Anson or ac"cv.awd me and maintenance dredge a loo jw•wr n. ft. X 20 ft. d ow as . of a.appucaue. for a. �\i Wi:G ai a6{RC1 y,►cp{It'S boat d is be •&aWd N tie law tar auY alt0knues lor*a basin to a max. depth Of 6 ft. below MW. dorkuR of drtdtcd or fta wavnal Into tbayatle AVE=. 180 cu. yds. of anterial will be OR OR tra.'wtw uses roc dlwJwf. r ocean .atm of ren ed on an initial basis, placed behind wp.d ol.•.do e degree tltr ape alr e.l.tttAv w the prcpcsed bulkhead and suitably retained tD•a,••-'�w d rs e 1 y prevent its entry into the water— Way in WKI-Z to insse safe navigation in the applicant's existing marina facility. rr Southold Bay, Shelter Island Sound (Nen to be.awed w oeeaa.tl.et.aarkw,er run.ar annmed, • Stirling, Takm of Southold, Suffolk -4 nl.r. t. w 4,a•e1 two .earteI .Wtw.n lacalla- Cbmty, New York pe.•- A-- .t w cNe a•td the d.ta,tre in end.W 1r ,I. . n.. -- 6IW,N ptam 11 tke axe.. rt ry .4 •• '•• ."'-1--w O.Inp da.c U an 4r V-".W amttadalre r.tl:W plana aeMl Oaa,er attached ken to vk,ck ue rre., 1. .1.1 oleo•pen of AS pem.L luo dr—oto ah i rwMr w atnn del—t.,d.r n..a•wa aatkal. 1522-15 (colter Isla.-rl Sau1d - Zehner# Ha and H. - Wlkhead, fill and maintenance dr'ed'ge) rMct to v.• a—%:aa6r...a. L Gerr.a'Ce-d I.ow a TIN: a •.,t.t Ar�nr•wl i d r t►,y„td Mr•n a�a tr rwwue,.l a•• 1,..r..�. r.t.-rWov. .• .• •. . N'n.eM .^\ i t •1+•d Nlnu•rW r,rcl .•• . _ "tar•n. - -'f• ..ite+:3'W-rWX 11 ..4:r`n;r'^• r.,J.,•. .. . .. Co,ta1 a-t . a ! • • w,,. .�1\..`ley. 1 -te•4 . . .... _ . - tt-ernl,- .. •: • .. . „lt• -•Jd,•,tJ ` • • .. \.l R..T•... J .- f t.rti.h:a t 1 •t aN(. ,,. � ,1'�1 -_/ • L tN.l1 t'Ofl f'l •tt t 2-93 V6-Z t Pflntt Wt 1eu.Ne tedWO al Ynep Awe al Seaq eW q 1w aM In1Aad eelp p wolIM j me'11a.weea•1/•wateal.pall M.g 9&U'W 'rwpeoea Ida"ftadade♦ ftM-ewe uaAIPM 10A A&W www.eAoO WI"0Ipwe'tAa w a fl WA M•Pe.eAaA a pePtAI 'Poi-pow q Amu leWAd aW'ftmunw y AO 096-auaaAe'eSle/q a Moa flp put walew..eM1!time'InwAO anP le 001.eMa ao a Iwtoo"na /1 YenOeldae towed 124 u— waueuupuad o3 u.prt"ltwAd 1A qe~ftaP p0alwwalY!W1 wo POP$W �1uSIANAM 041•t!wuea S-W Owns/w UPU-1 •+w+'d3 K P"O4 M P"jmwe"Aroma as weM.ne q 1p%p uea w a MW"w teWAO"Ill ep.w A pudue•Aypwe at Aalpa MMMO PWA S Arnow Aq —npe3eAa e43 PYS iw-ee4 9-411 p M3A.PAo3 04,L alemmim a weawe0w"'w W W3.ppow pnoaod eW SwAA3Ye3 ouap.4 ueewr pm M!flora e1 PM4 q Ow.w11 311114A.d•!e*Strubes aaunuae eW'Pe!Aa Up%plaeal0 SW n14w"U3 d'1wWd ORO p aA.WMGO Pa SWAM eW 41w ea"wlaw103 tlnl IN q TIRO ewa10ad0 0wW4 MO aea.unre Aig~ut apwwd ae Mta a pug I.YAAO q p SUOn.a1A03 PUN Suwt OW 44."0310e.Iawa3 w 010-eAae weq r4 MINAMeO SW pAA'Iftuep30e Ser.waetepr peft;e SW 140 M•Sade 1aq w low pop 1.WAa aW to""I.Pw03 0W pug SWAN 0411 to Meese%"perYe aW M wW ftute.a.Ap Apa.Mgana a OM a em0aA0 ao Po•Aa AePIX eW u.1Pw(al np1An SW"Ouet..ua"13.WWW a euq eW Ap30e.nwP gWWA uo.ua wm p mow uawr p e111"AM 10 so Aq 10e3eA alp•SAep OC wISIP M03q IIOW wau3oAu a'100ew @a"•1Aawat1Pw1JIM AYr-UGJMR 3i,WW So rr q MkM4MM PPM"wa13e 43M 100 Ae 3!WAed ane p t100!1.plA03 to aYI1 wN 00 Awe is we!Iel"It us"Sq aatp too ruwlawp ewteaweaAlb pr.Ae4/ne w4 a AWryr 041 10&M&SMS Jogs N IAO w A 0104"w peioAal"0 ppuadlM'paljW&g A11111Wn q Aww I!%m"alp-OU 7 PpoAu a Pe1/epowr'PeleuuuA q.eW.e ask"MAO flea P41 041 w Ou!4e4 OU 1!4111MMAeO soon"lw waglAed4 of M am'&Mv alp 0wu*Muoru•W-41"a'010-004 0W p wo,19^10 Aftlry uaeu.0u3 to Ia40 So Aq p0mimad ru.pnod as uAleaad Pft3Apuo3 q 11949 a'POwntaA In Ou.A04 0 at PDWAu a PWIVOW'Petflgur.q PInoM lauad 04 Ap04"as SS uoeuq•as Suuaaaa Ya1skwA0/•01 110wad a ape u.Owae4.1%W%bgA ASW efllwAd e4t'1000114da4 p a3!IaI aW p 104m 0uw,Wjj%SAep aft Wty 'o.lw VW to um"Aod OW 41AA A1011a3 w wa130 04epwlAw fl112 1100 eallwAa q j'trAllw agnd pAUW eta as p.en4 wwweq UWP 01 A0a10.Ow3 taAwa 041 Aq AAweaaft pSum ep ea 43"eftlwAed SW Aq weiaa q as w.neeew eraeluwd All wlwuee AM IG puS'uap0 aW al euaSeu 041 O 1'uoAw00eea flP p wne0 qe 111 elapu!I"431W1 Moe~aatwl weller•p mueAued so 44 90!03W uOdn aA""ll q aflp woMied M 43..11"tr.pw 3iwW pawn flp w all pyla"W AP4 Paa!A M"A1.AA13e eta be IOwmsm ftaP0wa1n tett Aawe0u3 1aAa40 qt Ag 0u!Pu11•Y001'tied w All pap"y•POpOOM AV.waawM q Aww teWae a4t twat 1 ' •tralw 3!Ignd skis p Sere$Pwun eta Aq-4wL pwll 12Aa!uAeao so"d beep% ww►4MaA d p pew"a q AaSr 43!4"u.eAq Pet.AallM ia•"a eeAnI311.a seat AAnk4 a e0w/wP d/wotauealm of%APIA"It Sow ROMP 20111waa OW MO Pull all"IRA Wj peaodod a Oweaae Avg 1pw OaAsyaw!to aaAo41M Saw oop I!Wa0 aW IwLL 1 'Y10a4 PenAo4aM Alwt3e 0o AOl M Aq Pe4naaA 11afte%Allo a ftft11 u!tW O lue1W!Met eo awtAgO u wwP Aow'SualaMAw a S.I""Dal"0'011211 IOAPS j le w0wmSw!yw A11a a fl411.1 p WOW."so Ataaod of AAnk"Awe auwpM two WI M wW Pte'SaOMMed 1uanl3ee Aug*a'Iaale w a Sear pee w^610'ft40u Auede.d Awe AaAYo3 ask rap tolled sop Mql q Pug"no OMP W."63-p—to Pug ual eluq ldNo g du"r1 1Pwo3 PoaO w w.0y peua411"i�a flnunAr aP wewe0w Nwp 00wWAw eW 1S4 j t tpw e3wpa3ae w a aW Ab ova to Ale .W*A%pep•nrd Suouepwao pull waft so aylne APA peumpoa b!aq Alumag 0W igl eAnee p APAO w AASs30Y p011Aap"Awe r Swa.l3aat111 apo.Aa a,pw a OISOU&S>P to!SIM-eeumsdai pena41M W"0 Aeud 3 IaAA.O SW lowaO&"SOu.Wad Wa 1+141 y 1 Anpne ate"p uo-aPOAep Aw ei.Www of w all.awweW S w w.g.fll PO4Ma41M 412"W1 ftn3wod 01 erlg e041e4lAa 0W IOU'0, I rnlr letl.wleAeA!AUS lepaeY pue 9IlIPI11"14al•a iAer ao p Na01w eaanpe AIIp GOUMPW et w OB awed•to uWA4 pm moti w 412"e1P pn3wod at ta1M MP10arA"a SiaW o1 raft wwwAd aW 1041 1 aVI le dwAww "I"WhMAW003 file Aappnq un OeSOw at SUMLP1p Askas u'AMMOV wafte d IawalwAOAAu 3 u*V pulelSM wp 4tw wwt121^wo3 w'Awn0u3 N!Aw!p qt r Mftt p para Apel WO 0400 d'Spepweaa Pe!IIPPW a POaAW 43M w pwWIU03 weld uaww&A*IdWe ue Aq pumnp r d'p.ep:m A"jen0 a1/e p wonae!mP06 •Ito".Aw Awe to flp Me+>•lp 0W p Weugw 11 Y.ta!"peePwW At!leA.e sae"papp"a p1A1N1 1P IN 411r WdpAaO p'Ammsm N'PalePaw q'1.WA0 PW p mum qt&'!•nP PM14+aw a P12!•ew w p.pweu A4"Aft—MP3iAde N*~AW03o po1Ae1PT q Yater SlgeBeAaw ow!IwatSW 101 a PdPa.P to I!Seap a SO,eys!p 0 SeApA1y u!aA4PatlgtlM 41430 ask 11w1SS Ie41 e. 'm" Pug flat$0911ea14009 w lummind to'I11t0 ISS 9N'OC1?.C& uat le w IOJI"7 uo.tnllad 11111M pawl 0W p ca put 11ot Mg-tog Wa1LMS OI lumn"d pOWFQn"ReWew luw" "mind pea 'wanq.Vo/d 'nuSW.oyed p pApuOw P1a skAatn!uM "eW410@ 'IW Wwm M!lw* Aleve pq@gdaa jar IMOUlp as MUS M w q•-Sew"vex Al after aspowl w elft yoaep A I S0A4=p•ata"!ASW N'lift#101004 Po1"01PM aenwue gig wall '9 SH33NION3 ONuinsN0o 113MO08 ONd NOSU30N3H HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS w. The"the pwm—"wtfy am 0 it's Ertpnw w tome"lata 09 actively"hwa ed herait wil Mcatgnwncid.is far in adtete of the lima d aornmwncenant n the Dbnin Enterer may specify.wd aI any rwod sepen Work M for a pled of mon tan WO lam.rawe"pron of*emit and to aortplatims, t.The"It era SCtM t euMrmiO Aram b rot Meteden n bane 28th dlly of March Hd �9 -(wta trap from Mme does d tMwce Of dem parfait rdw odlellan t5 0 and is not completed an or before lark day aI !larch fell (uvea Tern from the ds N ire al w pwmvt sea= ol—w*es WK f8wddh),h S prlftit.A Mt If0034,11IT rerot-4 or tpaofoar aaurtdmd,than owtornetically a>oia p. TM no ont Nan 6110101111 by ft PIP mitta le pfrWit ts Ma fwa and from was by the puble of at rwtrptbla voters as or adjacent soon at twly auMind a hemi awmiL ♦ The"A Oce dwtay d�a end aiMtMa at air wnetw o overt tmsthor head Aram a air rArwrae rotr6d/r ffy taw.Motto li/mts dad aowlo an may be proscribed by she United State Cowl Gerd Man be installed all whatnuuad by wnd at Ma evisomn of dee go Wt�. V.Ther the pormh dor not aushorin r approve the conservation of pencctrtr wrrm'se.Me authorization or approval of wMdm My n?rat 80110,481,01%br ell ConVvu or ether apnoea of she Federal Cwt rnment a.That A all when the permissive drtirw to abandon M wittily w thriaad harem,unMe arch abenaonment is part N a transfer proo"a M rArrdh the permium is batiyniry his sn rwts Arvin n•twrd Arty purmmnt to General Cmtdrdmam•kerao1,M meat niton the rn toe 00n6Mon ntdactortr to she Dbmct ErOmar. L TM■the recordiK of toil permit Is pole under applicable Scats or bol taw the pammatee.het take men&tion a may be tower►to rwrd dmis permit wan Mw Register of Dell or other apref ram etfwl erwpaa widen the npermabilmry for maintaining Ren U line to and incests in saw property. a. TM there"be no unreasonable In rfwerea with - iptan by the eamtarte or ver of as attrtily anhr m herein. ..UM ttr pwnit wwy not be bwedrred d a told poly Midwest Ria wrhnn notice se M Drives Eapiner.either by 00 wnlrn's wmen tpaamant eo canplr with N Irma all tandifion of the prmn OF by the vandrn aA soot"lohere pane in M some Rodded bolo.•end thereby yrnine to comply ywdm an tram wd cormdrteam of this permit in oddven.if the prfnceae barafwt the intrvas euthrraed herein by conteyarp of nafly,dine deed Md raleence this print end the terms and conditions; sowpcd hra.n rod this Permit heli be recorded alonewrath the dead wilh the Rymer of Dauber rhe eprop.ru oflcrM. Tom 4.ft rcp Spwr Codis one will to applicable wow+apprepra m STRUCTURES FOR SMALL BOATS TM prmrnes Araby weaMww she pwwWas, the Me atvemwe permitted Man nay to fkgws to dsr.q by wwa weft from pe aitg immos.The iw enc.of M perms does not rattle the pwmmrne ham oak utp all rope &spm N bamre owe mtaprity Of the atvetwa permitted(rein and owe nfaiy M beet mooed hereto from rmep by wale Toth and da ptr*rewm dao no hold M United Sul liable for any such remya 01204ARGE OF OREOGED MATERIAL INTO OCEAN WATERS. That the pemttes dun pace a copy a this permit in a emrmapoeda pfae ern the neesr lobe mrd fr the nenpraten ant0w,duwp.wp of grind, mrMmr.i es wrthrun0 Mem 61ECTION OF STRUCTURE IN OR OVER NAVIGABLE wAYWA That the prmtetee upw%step M•who of retoeten of h permit or term in aaprreten before eampleten of the ermmrwd aruewn or err• Nam without aapenes to she United Stain and In suer tow and menu a she Secretary,of da Amy r hen&~WW repfwanutna may direct.ears the waterway to ru 00 aond•tery M da permwnn tole b so 01,with Ow d-ommn at 1110 Swre"ary of the Army or he awthrued wwounuti e.da barely r tem damn muter restos she wourmary,to p/roar condom,by contract w oehen.mm.and recover the cost ifaraol from Mem P'frmrnn 2-95 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS VA1%TE%ANCE ORE OGING (11 Ther Men Mor fk ernnerr�d Aen.n rnNwfes ter.od.c nN.nten vw•tag-S re"he Oerfmmed Weft. 0.1 pe,f%,for,ULVese from M des M rA.renee of dtre pro%. (ten Vers -W omi.mr pr6ured) end 121 Thai rti prtertee Pert ed.ne dee QtUtt Enpneer et w.lry et reetf nr)look$Wore tee~.&r0 rndelske env rlWntF:ence d•edp.nd R�et.el Gnd•rrsA tefere Int cond.t.om merry tPecJre11V t0 M pr4•Cked tr�twre a w,rrk autr.ur.nd Nv m.e pvrn p 11W Pon +rAen btmrr~he an OW dote of Yte Orurrct Errry•rrw a venetere Pon Ir%r by Poets and epees to con%*w th the term errd condn..»t of We pa rtrt Horli3ra H. 2'S- / ---- '— KRMiTTEE DM E 6VAUTt/t,1RrTY 0$ ME CRETA OF THE ARM .e 28 !larch 1978 CIARK B. BE OAT Colonel, Co ngiCeetr afiTRrCT ts3•yr UE.ARMY CORPS Of EN;1 45 Tnrtele.w ere er,eW en a err.vr-n ty term an.t wn' ^..e el the yermrr. WE 2-96 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT F(2) CORPS OF ENGINEERS - MAINTENANCE PERMIT FOR SOUTHOLD SHORES/TARPON DRIVE 2-97 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 84 163 L2 Appbatien UN Name of App8ast Wilhelm Ficankme Dopald4ay;es. Levinson VfW11eDal March 7. 1985 taPhs"n Dal of paadY) Mardi 7. 1988 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERM[ 013508 Saford"to mrittea"quiet dated-TNo-ch 1984--for a Pie be I*Perform work In er affeedag salable motors of eb UatW mates,upon tie twmmendauen of tae Chief e(LaSfm mm PGWnat to SecUm 10 of eke llron sad Harbors Act of March 2.IS99 in U_d C soft 1 I Dbchsrp drodpd or fiD material Into waton of the Uaksd Stave open the beoasce at s psrmtt from W Secretary of the Army aetta[throeiL the Chief of Esdiseers psnuazt to ancths 404 d W Chao wsaor Ant W U.&C Jsuk I )Tmogmrt drafted material for the purpose of damping It Into scans maters epee the bsuaan of a permit from An Secretary of the Army acting thMngh the Chief of Eogimm pursuant to Seeteen 100 of As Marian Protection.Research and Sanctuaries Act of 107210th Sac J0S1•P.L 12•a ft Wilhelm Franken Donald Bayles Michael Levinson 75 Carroll Street 86 Mt. Sinai 255 West lane Brooklyn, NY 11231 Oaram, NY 11727 Bridgefield, CT 06887 516-477-1043 516-924-8866 516-477-1675 In be shy authorized by W Sea*"of W Army: In maintenance dredge approximately 300 cubic yards of material by crane from a 320-foot by 25-foot area to a depth of 6 feet below the plane of mean low water with a 3-on-1 slope and dispose of the dredged material on the adjacent upland. In an unnamed canal off Southold Bay, Shelter Island Sound; at Southold, Suffolk County, New York; In somrdancs with ike plans and drswfap attached►ante wit"an incorporsesd to and mads a port of this permit iso bum 6wr.aim fits numbe,er ether derwia ident/ wden marl& 1522-15 (Shelter Island Sound - Franken, Bayles, Levinson- maintenance dredging with upland disposal) subject to the following cosdkiene L general Condttlenn: & That all seUvitiw Identified and aphorised bents sbaD be consistent wtth W terms and conditions of this permit sad %by activiWe set sPeeifieaDy IMatifiod and authorized beau obeli cosstitow a vietatloe of W arms and conditiess of 'mit which may Monk b W meth(catles.euspesstea or revocation of hisermit,b pwhsh or in part as tot forth men 'tt Is Geseral Cesdklene J or It home.sed is W iastltuWo of such ball prewdlap as W usitad Stowe Oevenk �ssldnr appropriate.whether or not this permit has un pravisssly modtBot susPeaded w revoked in whole or is 721,Sep 82 Eomoet or i jttt rJ tstxa3OLM 1 2-98 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS "..r wia. NEW TUM STATE oErARTmENr OF ENVlhtwda KTAL CONSERVATION 10-84-1383 PERMIT 1100104111 THE ENVWONAIENTAL CONSERVATION LAU ARTICLE 15.(Flawaine N dated ARTICLE 25,(Tidal tietbods) ARTICLE 24,(Freshwater tseslads) ®ARTICLE 34,ICantrucli in Fluted Masard Areas) ntrt" SUE010 ' Donald Bayles, Michael Levinson, Wilhelm Franker OF FE mina ac5Yd—D1!rSif Southold, NY N OF PROJECT(Section d swear trial wetland,dam hmsldaW Lvate canal 4:111"10N OF FWIECT Drsdge 3751 area of Private canal south of Tarpon Drive to 61 below mean it f water by barge crane wita resultant spotl (300 y s. to be placed upland CIL bulkhead at southwest corner of Private canal. There will be no distur- qetatea tidalwetlands at property of Fran en i Xeismn Tarpon Dr. Sc thold, NY. WU hT MINE(Cdy,Town.Village) TOWN outhold Southold Ori FIA COwAUNITY NO. DAm NO. "ERMT EAPIRATION DATE ` u! folk 12/31/85 GENERAL CONDITIONS T Ratmitlee dull Irk is the office of the aaWfiprgk Regional R. That Ili State N New York shall is so case be liahte IW say damage 1 A 6anstrara, a am ce N intention to C, It Wad N least M W ipurr to the strunue or work here@*authorized which may be caused by a a.0vaNce N the tine N commencement and shall aha amity his result from future eserallCay undertaken by 14 Slate tin at conservation or all in writing N the completion N the work. iwpmwenwm N navyatrmn,a Ior Caner Mrposes6 and m claim Or ugh M T_ permitted work skill he subject to iaspecliw be as autbwized compensation shall accrCa from any such damage. .vert ere N the Depannent N Environmental Cowrvatam who may f. That if Ile display N lights and signals am say w irk hereby authorized the work suspended it the public Interest so requires. is era otherwise Provided for by law,such lights and signals as any be ore• A- a condition N 14 issuance N Ibis overran,the applicaw has ac- Scribed by the United Slates Cast Guard shall be installed aro mamte,ned 1 e: VSSIY,by the ezecaion N the application,the full legal Rapier- III and at the eaprow N the owner. I, 4 aft damages,direct or indirect,of whatever nature.and by wrhm► N. All work caned out under this permit shall be penonew In actor. iuNered,&losing arm of the protect described herein and has agreed p ddace with established engineering practice and in a workmanlike manner. ndy and save harmless the State from suits, actions, damages all aft -IT Sane and description resulting ICON the said refired. 11. 11 granted Oder Articles 24 r 25,The Department reserves the IgM to reconsider This AWOvAl al any fime and atter due amuce AM hearing in A., material dredged 10 the prosecuion Of the work herein permitted cmntisae,rescind a mddilV this permit in sack A mantmr as MY to found to It removed overfly,without leaving large refuse pules,rr4es across The be fust and equitable.N apron the expiration or revocation N EMs permit,Ise Oke waterway W flood plain of deep holes that may haw a Pendency to modification N the wetland bere►y aNhorized has am been cm*ieted,the ty is navigable channels or to the banks N the waterway. Applicant shall,without asperse to the Slate,mud M nab eaafnt and is Such A.., material to be deposited at dumped under Mus prmil,either in time and manner as It*Depannem N EawwWNentMlCem"nattas my leglire, scruffy or an shore above high-water mark,skill be depositedor dam(,.d remove aft Or any pOnron N Ike UNCOR lerN Afruaore or/dl mail restore the lor•hty sho.n out the drawing hereto attacked.amt,f so prescribed site to els former condition.No claim shall be soft apimse the Stale of New A,a him W bekind a pod and subsisMudl bul►head W hwlkheads,such 101k M account N any such removal«atierntifin. I W tut escape N t4 material alto the waterway. 12. This permit shall no be coesefrod as convepog r rhe appticatm any There shall be nd wreasoabk interference saMn Aawigatiam M at right Io trespass soon the lands or interfere with the riprraa rights N others OggTANhornaed to perform the premsltd Work or as adbari2ing the tmpditaA- N any rights, into a Interest IN real or persOral popery held a vested a s person Me a Th N future operations by the Slate of New Yak require an alklatios piny to the permit. 11".n.aw N me orruduk rc a worherein aurbaized,or d,a np The lnren 12. The pob eradtee is responsible for atsiag any Nhtr permits, AWDepanweM N Eataormerltal COASOfw3l$Oh it Shall(Mair oMasonable pOwals. lands,easements and rights-ef-way which may be Required are Ih,f :1'a, a rhe Nee aavigatraw N writ waters or flood Tows je enddeger project. arh 4101 or welfare N the people N the Stale,a MAS or destruction Ad+wdl resmects N One Stale,the owner MAY be ordered by its Depart- 1a. it granted ander Article 36,this permit is(raided sokly an the bassi flremoveor Stier Ike structural wk.Nntrucuons,or hazards caused N the refiusrements N Article 36 N Ike EswuroOndnal Conservation Law and orCar'yah aalleaw N the slate;and if,upon the exprralnn as revocatwn pan SRR N b NTCRR(Consltucum is Flood plain Areas hawing Special Flood So .d,the structure,fill,excawalioq or Caper nnddneallam at Ike hazards-Ruidug Ftrrnits)and it M way sigadies that the Wallace rIII be owl hereby Autbszed Shall am be complete, 14 SNOWS shall, bee from floodmit. 1 eapeese 10 the Slate,and to such extent and to smelt time And manaer 1S. Ry scctpante N this permit the ptrrtlee Res Mal the fdrwd Department N Eftseco Taal Conservation may affiliate.remove all or aR wilt N the OKOMpieled situctae or fin and sesom to its Former is contingent upon strut compliameo with the special canddaws fin Ike an Navigable and flood capacity N the watercfiarse.Me caN shall Reverse side. he against the Stale N New lark so account of ant such Removal or on. 2-99 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS pada!Ceaditioas 1111 be applicable when appnpAatw AIN 0E AFFICING NAWMA/U WATSES OF THE UMM fFAflf, tat the permit does set anchone&the istsrfsrascs withcal aainttaE a proposed roderal project and Nae the parmittes as be entitled to compsssattea for damage or injury to the structures a work authorized basis wbkh may be Caused by a ak tress 61"UM Of futon Operations undsrtakas by aka Usked Stave In the public interest L Tet se attempt shall be made by the psrmitw is provost the tan and free ass by the public of on snipbls Wates at cc adjacent to W activity autkerimd by this permit L That U W display of Udta cad signals ea Cay etructuro ar Werk antkerlasd►suis In set O8bWsriro provided far by low, sech lights aad signals as may be prescribed by the United States Ceast Guard&ball be installed mind maisssisad by and at the aspeass of the patilitaa IL That to psrmiUso,epos recalls of a codes of revocation of this permit or upoa its expiration►Ilse earopisdm of the authorised Structar&Or work,shall Without expense to to United Stow and Is suck time and mamser as as Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative may direct;neton the waterway to its former roaditioaa U the pasmirtse fails to cosy ply with the directica of the Sscntary of the Army at his tutharimd representative.the Secretary or W dripas may restore the waterway to its former condition.by contract Or otherwise,and recover the met thereof hos the permittee IL Structures for Small floats:Tbat parmitw hereby nmpiw the possibility that the structure perteimd bereis may be subject to damage by wart weak from passing vessels.The iaseaam of this permit does not relieve the pmsime been inking all Proper steps to insure the integrity of the Structure permitted berate and the safety of boats assured thereto!rues damage by wan wash and the pormittes&ball not bold the United States liable far W Such damage. HANITMAMa DS2DOINOr a That whoa the week authorized bsnie todudes periodic maintenance dredging,it nay be psrfarmed ander Nis permit for tan 4 T cel years from the date of koussce of"panic fere ops rakes otherwise imamraft Is. That the pormitw Will advise the District Engineer is wristag at least two weeks before be Intends is madarsake Cay maintenance dredging. 0604AROU OF DODGED 04 rte MATEnAL INTO WATEES Op TM UMM STAIM a That the discharge will be carried owt ie conformity with Js goals ad ebjectivss of to EPA Guidelines established per roast to Section 404M of the Clean Naw Act and published is 40 CPA 230; Is.net the discharge will consist of suitable material free from teak pollutants In toxic amounta. c. Tet the fill created by the discharge will be properly maintained W prevent erosion and other sos•poiu sources of pollu- tion. DISPOSAL OF DODGED SAATEESM WTO OCEAN WATIM a That the disposal will be carried out Is conformity with W Soak.objectives,and rociabumasta of Who EPA criteria established pureasat to Section 102 Of the,Marine Protacsisa.4sesrch and Saaetwarfes Act of 1112,published in M CFE 220. 324. Is. That the permittee lb"plan•copy of this permit is a OmPkseas Place Is to vessel to be surd ler the transportation and/Or disposal of the dredged material as authorized tresis. This permit shall became SffseUve ea the data of the District Eapesar's signature. Pumi w hereby accepts and agrees m e ply Ah the tans and Conditions Of thio permit. n _ ' ITTEE , DATE jr�,j, g��,�CS4P.EtAl�pdA�fiyles, ichael Levinson 7 Y.) l L ! ��'7 %/G'L�/ .J1'fi ��p/AA--?jruc � .. �� Narrh Ze IOTAS YGRIFFIS.—&-lonial ripe S DATE LL.2mforn, of EOG1titafaemegress to cross W r •cad coadi"O"of Jin P W WA TnAN4FEitEE DATE 4 a n.1 hwr�erw Igerr+OrM�resHNxN/IeNx 2-100 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT G CORE SAMPLE MAP 2-101 ■ii■■■■■iii■■i, • // ;, '� , ■■■/MEMO �—u ■■■I' . _�/MAMA■i .�, IM■■■■■■i: MAMA■\\■■■�����■■ �■■MIM■■■M■■■■■El■■■■■111■■■■ �y■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■111■■■■ ■ MAMA■\����.� 1■■■■■■11■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1/MAMA■■(II■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■U■■■■■■III©■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■M■ ■■M■■M■■■■■■■■■■M■■■■M■■■■■ ■■■■■■■scommo■a■■■■■■■■■■■■ MMM■■M■■■■■■MIN&■■■M■■MMM■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MIM■■ ■MAIM■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Om . . , _ Mu HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT H SHELLFISH SURVEY MAP 2-103 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT I SOIL TYPE MAP 2-104 HENDERSON AND BODWELLCONSULTING AKEA CF --,.WELLFlf>W SURVEY Afts • - ■■■■■Iwi IN I Lono416 05' .�. 1■■ W■■■■■ a 150 Ito ■■■��. ■■ ■■■ �,- =, � �p- -^� . ■■■■■/I■■■■■lid■■■■ /■■■ �� : r- -_�: �; ■W■1/it■■■ill■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■mil■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ► Ll OF 1 90T-Z �4�I' � •�a.l : fL.rd er of L.�l�. Lr1�w I•y�J�.3 t {�`I 1 •�1V AMiln-2►y�v -�1�r11o7 �ia�lal h�Iln.,�.� 174, xogi od 14+LIM roatwYld00-p •0*7 asrn a N`d1 714-L 7-71A'M'24. NOIJ-VA924,f4l" 11et -awmljm-ptyb.► Ao Lid G-A%L W ISWJ •ldxa v.alrl�,. x711 n,n .�IZlOJ+ M3M J.lr�►,es ��eJJl+s. A• J.anynti 11oe.� —W :c.9L�w-ri4 % s w o-mil av"t."lcao S.�rr1 Hr+oNs. r�ollwasoJi.� ��-�► . s�.L,oK 4^� s tiaL.►�lo�l t�.�lca Clcpt4j.n 04 To r, Sa33NIJN3 omiinsN0o 113Ma09 aNV NOSU3aN3H HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT J TEST BORING MAP AND ANALYSIS 2-107 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 111: r Fit . us i i i .o. 'J t 2-108 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SLACKE TEST BORING, INC. Snk'z�&w Y" V e0L&'L,' 4 MAIN STREET,P.O.BOX 64.KINGS PARK,LI.,NEW YORK 11754"(516)544-04U 11.64n.1 Safly Ann Slac&*.!frogdant tw,ng No I Job No 3242-85 Dated: March 26, 1985 Jab loca•.on "Youngs Marina", Sage Road, Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffulk County, NY alum Ground Surface ElevN.on water leve,IS 92" below Ground Surface QaSSItIC1110M Of SOA f a".« CASING agms r JT6 topsoil. Loam, Gravel, small pieces D R I L L E D UN C(S .. Broken Bricks USED 1'6 16' Coarse to Medium Brown Sand, some Medium to Fine Grovel, some Silt Sample I 1 0 S' to 7' 13-11-11- 14 24" Swnple t 2 0 10' to 12' 14-19-14- 11 24" Sample 13 0 15' to 17' 6-9-10 10 24" )c' 53' Cray Clay Sample 14 0 20' to 22' 6-8-12-12 24" Sa mp ie I S 0 25' to 27' 6-12-17-124" Sample 0 6 0 30' to 32' 4-11-18-19 24" Sample 17 0 40' to 42' 6 12-16-2 24" Sample / 8 0 50' to 52' 7 13 17 20 24" 5:" 59' Ccarse to Fine Light Brown Sari.). Sarre Fine Cruvel I Sample 1 9 0 55' to 57' 10 ltl 11- 1 e 24" Sample 0 10 0 57' to 59' 9 ll 1! 1' 24" i 2-109 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1 SLACKE TEST BORING, INC. 4 MAIN STREET,P.O. SOX 64.KINGS PARK,L.I.,NEW YORK 11754• (516)544 04W lb IMrs 1 Sa'ly Ann Slack*.►res dent So-n; No ? lob No 3242-85 Dated: Munch 26, 1985 Job Locaten "Youngs Marina". Sage Road. Greenport. Town of Southold, Suffulk Cuugt,r kY Da'u-n Grow-+d Surface Elevation Water Level is 2'3" below G,Ound Surface taasancanoar OF for er+•4 d SMw CUiafG NOWa Sp— Topsoil D RILLED I': (AST,f ''«• VS£D 6" 3' Loam. trace Gravel 3' 10' Coarse to Medium Bi•ou-n Sand. sorie Gravel, some Silt 10' 53' Gray Clay Sample I 1 0 10' to 12' 8-13-17-2 24" Sample i 2 0 20' to 22' 11- 13-16 21 24" Sample 0 3 0 30' to 32' 5-9-13-15 24" Sarnple i 4 0 40' to 42' 10-14 16- 24" 5.1' S3' Coarse to Fine Light Brrown S old, so me Flnc Gravel Swnple # S 0 55' to 57' 7-JO 111 )-1 24" i , 2-110 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT K SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DESIGN DISPOSAL SYSTEIMS/WATER USAGE 2-111 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5-011 DETl.BB MM Kamm Dzsl= FLOW All sub-surface sewage disposal system are to be designed according to the occupancy rating and/or the following criteria3 Building sr Dosiqn Fow Single Family Equivalent 1300 allons/da Ef t c ency Apartments Bots Mote gallon:/day/unit-plus food service Units over 400 so. ft. in area 1 150 allon /day Plus food service Bedroom Apartment/Condominium1 150 qallons4day Bedroom Apartment Condomin um 1 225allons da Bedroom ftartment Condominium 1 300 gallons/day Planned Retirement Apartment Condominiums One Bedroom ( l60 allons da Seasonal Cottage* 1 100 callons/dav/bedroom Tourist C 1 60 aal Ions da s to -a=.r Park allons datra ler eaters al ons da occu ant Drive-In Theaters allons da arking space ling Allay, Racquetball or Tennis Courts 1100 allons da court or alley School- allons da occu ant ♦ food sere ce r n Sc ool Home allons da occu nt O ce space al one/dayloccupant Industrial Stora a Warehouse 1 0.04 • .foot oU-building floor area s, Beach Count lube allons a occu nt ♦ food service *,1C&*Q,1C&l Art 1 25 qallons/day/suito- ospitaI­s 00 qallons ay/bed !Torsinq Homes 50 aallons/day/btd ro r etary Homes 110 qallons/day/bod blic Gatherin Places 15 aallons-/day/occupant Zat1nq Places 1 30 qallons/day/occupant ars 1 15 gallons/day/occupant t food service Cat*rinq Halls 1 7.5 gallons/day/occupant Markets and Met Stores 1 0.05 qpd/sq.foot of bu ld n floor area 1 catessen i F rocessin allons a s . t. of floor area Dry Stores0.03 d s .foot of buildingfloor area ake t t n s . oot o bu ldin floor area urc es l 1.5 allons a occu ant th House 1 5 Sal lons da occu ant Laundry Pae t es 1 4 0 allons da washin machine 4 2-112 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT L LETTER FROM ARTHUR FOSTER ON PUMP-OUT DISPOSAL 2-113 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Isle)29e-4777 "a-4127 CUSTOM CESSPOOLS, Inc. CESSPOOLS — EXCAVATION — BULLDOZER — CRANE SERVICE FILL — BACKHOE SERVICE K P.O. BOX 1132 MATTITUCK N.Y. 11952 February 14, 1986 Joseph rischetti Hobart road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Joe, Please be advised that I studied the situation concerning seware and or sludge removal from a hold- ing tank located, at the marina now known as Zainers or Youngs. This does not impose a problem as far as p-impin7 and disposal is concerned, as we :ave facilities in our orzinisation available for pumping, and disposal is available at the " Sewage Disposal Plant" wit"in the incorporated ililla;:e of :.reenport. 'paste material can be pumpei and disposed of at the rate of 2500 gallons per trip ta'sine approximately an hour and one half per trip. If you have a-iv further questions please contact me at 29_--9660. Sincerely, A.P. roster President AP/ts 2-114 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT M LETTER FROM SOUTHOLD TOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT 2-115 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS yfF4x� H s OANIEL WINTERS c-�t1 a1-a-Ci �0 t POLICE DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PECONIC. NEW YORK. 11956 TELEPHONE EMERGENCY DIAL 911 28 January,1986 ADMINISTRATIVE SIG?GS•26M 616 U4,W22 Mr. Joseph Fischetti P.O. Box 616 Southold,New York 11971 Re: Southport Development Youngs Marina Greenport,New York Dear Mr. Fischetti: Pursuant to your inquiry, please be advised the construction of a motel at Youngs "farina, Greenport would not have an adverse impact on the work load of the Southold Town Police Department. In the past we have experienced a minimum of complaints and problems with other motels in Southold Town and I can see no reason why a motel at Youngs Marina would be any different. If I can be of further assistance to you please feel free to contact me. Very ours n • H Daniel Winters Chief of Police HDW/w 2-116 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT N LETTER FROM JOSEPH FISCHEITI, in. TO SOUTHOLD TOWN BOAPM 2-117 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS •OO�CSSO'�l[NGNC[• MO04RT ROAD SOUTH OLD,NEW YORK 11971 516-765-2954 February 12, 1986 Southold Town Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Master Plan - Marine Business and Marine Recreation Districts Dear Supervisor Murphy and Board Members: This letter, I hope, will clarify an inconsistency between the intent of the Master Plan and the current Proposed Zoning Map and Proposed Zoning Code as they pertain to transient motels in general and Young's Marina (Southport Development) in particular. When Southport Development was first proposed to the Planning Board in May, 1985, it was consistent with the then draft Proposed Zoning Regulations, dated F.pril, 1985, prepared by Raymond, Parrish, Pine and Weiner. At that time, both the Marine Business and Marine Recreation districts allowed transient motels and restaurants. The Planning Board was in favor of the project and recommended the zoning change to the Town Board. During the scoping session on the Enviromental Impact State- ment for Southport Development, the Town Board notified us that Mr. Tasker, the Town Attorney, was make possible revisions to the Zoning Code at the Town Board's request, and that we should contact him to inquire whether Southport Development was still consistent with the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. In discussions with Fr. Tasker, we were advised that the Marine Business and Marine Recreation districts were, in fact, being revised. Transient motels would be permitted only in the Marine Recreation district, while in the Marine Business district this use was being removed from the Code. 2-118 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Southold Town Board 'February 12, 1986 Page 2 We then contacted the Planning Board, through Mr. Emilita, and were advised of the changes in the Code. It was our understanding that the Zoning Maps were being revised to reflect the changes the Town Board was requesting, and that the Town Board, in support of the Vaster Plan, in- tended to transfer certain properties, including South- port Development, into the Marine Recreation district. It seems, however, that the maps were released to the Town Board prior to those changes being made. The Zoning Maps as they stand now will not allow transient motels on sites designated as Marine Business, such as Port of Egypt and Young's Marina, but would allow motels in Marine Recreation sites, such as Goldsmith's Marine at the end of Hobart Road in Southold. I therefore request that the Town Board revise the Zoning Maps to show Young's Marina in the Marine Recreation district to better reflect the intent of the Master Plan in regard to transient motel use. It is our feeling, and the Planning Board's feeling, that the Young's Marina site is one of the most suitable for transient resort motels. Very truly yours, Joseph Fischetti, Jr., P.F. JF:mdh cc: Southold Town Planning Board 2-119 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS EXHIBIT O LETTER FROM SZEPATOI+SRI ASSOCIATES, INC. TO SOCTHOLD TOWN BOARD 2-120 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. E.WIRONME'NTAL CONSULTANTS S41 1 T0: Southold Town Board ' t Jrs4 2 2 P% RE: Southport Development u L �. FROM: Szepatowski Associates, Inc. DATE: January 20, 1986 1 TOI ;J CF SO:1,;:;LJ Upon Szepatowski Associates, Ines. review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development, Southold, Vy prepared by Land Use Company, Ilading River, KY, the following concerns and discrepancies were raised. The major points are: 1 Proposed Development conflicts with: Change of zone requested and the proposed zone on Town Zoning Map. 2. Sage Boulevard is not a public road, therefore, possible problems with access, road width, and improvements are apparent. 3. There are problems with the Marina expansion, specifically what is to be done with boat pump out; suitability of dredge spoil for intended purposes; and providing boat slips for *less than luxury boars (less than 30 ft.). Lack of Schematic sketch plan to demonstrate -Location of Motel, Restaurant -Environmental impacts -Mitigation measures -Adverse impacts A meeting was held on January 13 to discuss the above concerns and the following detailed comments. The proposed response has been indicated. 1. The change of zone requested (General Ilultiple Residence) allows for docking facilities for non-commercial boats and hotels, and motels both with special exception by the Zoning Board. Restaurants are not listed under this zone. The Proposed zoning (Marine Business) on town zoning raps allows for marinas, fuel sale, swimming pools, tennis courts, and boat yard (storage) all under permitted uses. Restaurcnts are permitted by special exception. Hotels are not listed under this zone. As just pointed out, the proposed development conflicts with Doth the cnange of zone requested and the proposed zone on the Torn Zoning Ilap. The Planning Eoard has recommended i;arine-Fecreation for this site and the applicant has agreed to corply witn trat District. The proposed Zoning Map needs to be amended. 23 \asaoanser. �.e .a-es!;.-an RI 025:5 =01 3.3.01?0 2-121 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2. As a general comment, the DEIS contains many typographical errors and unfinished sentences which, should have been detected with proof reading before submission. They detract from the quality and credibility of the document. 3. Page 1 - No regard for fresh water use impact on Greenport water district was given. The utility will be asked to verify if it can provide peak flow 4. Page 2-3 - Boatyard (repair) facilities are proposed. However, the use is not permitted in the zone requested. The zoning proposed by the Town for the site, mHarine Business", does not allow motels as currently drafted. The Planning Board has recommended "?Iarine-Recreation" (ti-Rec) as appropriate for this site, but this zone does not permit boat yards. A resolution of these conflicts is needed by eliminating repair to boats not moored at the marina. 5. Page 3 - Sanitary effluent will be subject to denitrification system. This eliminates only 30% of nitrogen from effluent. Where will effluent be discharged? It is not clear from the report, but was revealed at the meeting to be to a gravel bed on the northwest corner of the site. The site plan needs to show the system. 6. Page 4 - A public need for the project is referred to, but surveys or other evidence is not offered. An intention to serve residents is stated. This intention needs to be translated into fact as the proposal is developed. The statement is made that there will be no increased demand for public services, yet public water is needed. Police and fire protection are also needed. A statement from the Village is needed on water supply and from the Police an Fire Departments as well. A municipal cost impact would be helpful. 7. Page 6 - Sage Boulevard is apparently a private road with its abuttors having some control over access and "improvements" there on. Since improvements to Sage Boulevard by others cannot be assumed, what right do the applicants claim to alter (improve) Sage Boulevard? This is essential for project approval since existing access is not satisfactory for the proposed project to be approved. The question of maintaining Sage Boulevard is not addressed. Sage Boulevard will have to be improved jointly. An agreement on same will be necessary for site plan approval. �i EPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC.E*,%1RLn%%1[%TAt Col.CVt•n•,•� %Am 2-122 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 8. Page 7 - A supposition is made as to potential negative impacts from spills of industrial compounds which might be used by industries under the current zoning. It appears that an impression is trying to be created that somehow this would not be possible under the proposed use. However, it is a known fact that even the existing use has such compounds on site and that there already exists a threat to the environment. This fact is much more pertinent, but is not mentioned. 9. Page 9 - Dredge spoil analysis must be done to determine suitability of spoil for proposed uses (wetlands creation). If contaminants are found what will be done with spoil so as not to create a public health hazard? Upland grading as stated in DEIS would not be possible. Dredging method, time, upland dewatering, and runoff control method must all be addressed. 10. Page 10 - Concern with regards to boat slip length. All are over 32' in length. This does not allow for "less than luxury boats.' What is the public need in the area for *elite boating?• Small boating needs to be addressed. The fuel facility needs to be described and located, as does the boat pumpout and pumpout disposal method. 11. Page 11 - What is pervious material used for 288 space parking lot? Inconsistantcy on page 11 as to whether parking lot will be •pervious• or 'impervious', or 'semi-pervious'. A site plan with all drainage patterns, grading plans, holding ponds and their capacity etc. oust be shown along with drainage calculations. A 00" runoff must be maintained so as not to impact surrounding waters. 12. Page 11-12 - Since no site plan has been included in the DEIS, it cannot be commented upon whether the parking stated is adequate. The restaurant has given no capacity and no mention is made of employee parking. Unsubstantiated statements are made regarding 'satisfying zoning requirements", runoff generated from impervious to semi-pervious surfaces. This section needs to be supplemented. 13. Page 12 - Ho calculations of peak water use and sewage flows are given to be verified. Is an on-site well capable of supplying the water needed for boat washing and irrigation without going saline during pear, season? If not, Greenport must be made aware and utility acknowledgement is needed. EPA70WSKI ASSOrIATFS I\C. t%%1ro%%4t%•At c�•.��: �1 2-123 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 14. Page 12-13 - What is meant by the statement, •Subsoil testing will be conducted to determine• etc and 'If such material...` and 'proper design criteria...' and 'proper erosion contract...' This is a draft environmental impact statement and this information is needed to properly evaluate the impacts and to clarify the vague statements made. Supplemental information is necessary. 15. Page 15 - Soil borings, since they will be necessary anyway, should be included in the DEIS. Unknown subsurface conditions may affect the project and its environmental impacts. 16. Page 16 - The last sentence is missing at least two words so that the meaning of the sentence cannot be concluded. 17. Page 17 - Undocumented 'Agency observations' are held to conclude satisfactory water quality in close proximity to the subject. This statement needs conclusory evidence. 18. Page 17-18 - Does the 'representational species list' represent actual observation? If so, why call it 'representational'? No shellfish survey of any kind was done or cited. A study of this kind should be done in this area so potential impact can be discussed, along with any mitigation measures. 19. Page 19 - Why aren't the bird and fish species actually sited named? On what dates were observations made? This is supposed to be an inventory. 20. Page 20 - Reference is made to a USACE maintenance dredging permit. Is it in force or pending? A copy should be included in the DEIS. A low water depth of 6' is mentioned, while on Page 9 a depth of 7' to 8' is mentioned. Can this be done within the scope of the USACE permit? Who holds the permit and who will do the channel maintenance dredging (aside from basin dredging)? The need to dredge to this depth has not been fully demonstrated in the DEIS. If this depth of dredging is deeper than the entrance channel, the reason for doing any dredging is missing. Where will the initial spoil and the maintenance dredging spoil be deposited? A modification to the dredging is needed as well as more detail and a soundings plan. i4l ZEPATONSKI ASSOCIATIS I%C.Cwap%%thTat 2-124 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 23. Page 27-29 - The significant environmental impacts discussion on soils, topography, groundwater, surface waters, vegetation, wildlife, and wetlands cannot be commented upon without a more detailed environmental inventory and at least a schematic sketch plan to demonstrate before and after conditions. The impacts listed are conjectural and not conclusory based on evidence contained in the DEIS. This section needs to be rewritten. 24. Page 30 - A statement is made that mitigation measures could be made a part of a proposed project. Specific mitigation measure, even though general at the change of zone level, should be identified as being an integral part of the project. For example, regrading and modification of existing drainage patterns to achieve certain results are both mentioned as mitigation measures but since the extent of the impact being mitigated is not defined, the need or extent of the mitigating measure cannot be defined. 25. Page 31 - What is the design of catch basins, as described, which will contain storm water runoff and where will they occur considering slope on site is toward water. A site grading plan is needed. 26. Page 33 - Why will the phragmites be removed and why is it really a nuisance species? This needs to be detailed. 27. Page 34 - The creation of a natural I-letland along the entire basin shorelines is proposed. The DEIS does not show this. A better rendition is needed. 28. Page 35 - 'Little demand" ignores freshwater use for the entire expansion proposed. 29. Page 37 - The discussion cf unavoidable adverse impacts cannot be completed without an analysis of the existing bottom to be dredged. 30. Page 41 - Document economic infeasibility. What does this mean? FPAIONcuI ASSOCIATES I%C. S%„R0\%11%T•i .41 2-125 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION III COMMENTS AND CORRESPONDANCE SUBSEQUENT TO SUBMISSION OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS LEGAL NOTICE RECEIPT OF ADDENDUM TO DRAFT EIS - SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold is in receipt of an Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development with respect to their petition for a change of sone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-1" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, ois the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, consisting of 12.461 acres. SEAR Lead Agency is the Southold Town Board. Availability for Public Comment and Contact Person: The Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement and Addendum thereto is on file in the office of Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, with a 20 day comment period to end on March 26, 1986. The public hearing with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development has been recessed by the Southold Town Board, and will reconvene at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, April 8, 1986, Southold Town Hail, Main Road, Southold, New York, at which time all persons will be given an opportunity to be heard with respect to same. DATED: February 2S, 1986. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK * t � PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, MARCH 6, 1986, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD. NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Long Island Traveler-Watchman The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Town Clerk's bulletin Board Southold Town Planning Board Board of Town Trustees Southport Development Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services N.Y.S. Department of State 3-1 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS RECONVENED PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD February 2S, 1986 3:30 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM "C" TO "M-1" AT SAGE BOULEVARD, GREENPORT. Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councilman James A. Schondebare Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran Councilman George L. Penny IV Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker SUPERVISOR MURPHY: At this time I would like to reconvene a public hearing which was originally held on February 4th, 1986, 8:00 P.M., Southold Town Hall, concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development. We are going to recess this hearing again to allow comment on the Addendum that was turned in. We are not going to disallow any comments. Anybody could make any comment they want, but there will be a reconvening of this public hearing after there is time to evaluate the new addendum. At this time I'd like to ask anybody if they would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? LYNNE M. GORDON. Attorney: Gentlemen and ladies, 1 am Lynne Gordon of the firm of Conforti, Gordon, Reale 8 Shenn. Your resolution No. A 1 think is fairly clear. 1 just want, in my own mind, clarify it. The public will have until March 26th to make further comment. That will then be the end of the public comment period? And then there will be a hearing, which we have some expectation of being the final hearing, on April 8th, or should it be adjourned for another week or something like that. But Is that where matters stand as of now? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: It appears so. Yes. Is that correct, Bob? TOWN ATTORNEY TASKER: 1 don't know. Judy's got the resolution. TOWN CLERK TERRY: Yes, 8:00 P.M., April 8th. MS. GORDON: The time is somewhat longer than we had expected, but we certainly will no object and will be pleased to do what we can to assist the Board. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak on behalf of the applicant? (No response.) Anyone like to speak opposed to this draft? (No response.) Anyone like to make any comments to the Town Board at all? (No response.) Okay, If not, 1 would like to recess this to April 8th at 8:00 P.M., Southold Town Hall. 3-2 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS -age 2 - Reconvened Pv'' Hearing Southport Drai liS Moved by Councilman Schondebare, seconded by Councilman Penny, it was RESOLVED that this reconvened public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development be and hereby is recessed until 8:00 P.M., Tuesda A rll 8, 1986, Southold Town Hall. Vote Of the Town rd: yes: Duna man Penny, Councilwoman Cochran, Council- man SchmWebare, Councilman Stoutenburgh, Justice Edwards, Supervisor Murphy. This resolution was declared duly ADOPTED. r • � JRh T. Terry Southold Town Clerk -3 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS W • tArch 3, 156 Jos-ph Fischett, ,:r. P.F. r 0 Box 616 Southold, M Y 11971 Mr. Joseph eischetti Jrs In reply to your letter of ranuary 29 th, re: Southport iev- elo+;wment, Young's Marina, Greenport,:tY. Construction of the ei-hty (90) room Motel ani expansionof the saranta rill not cause any unJ*e harishi;, on the Greenport Are De,.srt- sent. I-4 ours t ,,, \T'+�i %t-,,^ +sul qua_ �\ +C�rc Chief .;peen_c-t el-ft .e,.a--gent F GGCCMAR 51966 ' I 3-4 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS =cam. rF�.Y ' T—N.II.5309S Main Road O P.O.Bos 1179 1F I r"It1A/ $— .. Southold,New York 11971 ts1617ra. _7:004p.."7, LIAR 1 0;3a6 SOUTHOLD TOWN CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Tale t7..&SUOWW March 5, 1956 Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Subject: CAC comments on Addendum to DEIS for Southport Development Dear Board Members: Our comments remain much the same for this project although the addendum clarifies several items. In what follows, we sum- turize our criticism of the DEIS and then list specific items, page by page. We still find the maps misleading. One glance at Exhibit B shows that the area for the complex contains excessive blacktop which, if allowed, would be ruinous for the surrounding areas. It's hard to believe that the requested zoning would eat up virtually all the usable land without providing for any open space, but that is exactly what is indicated. Where are the contracts here for Greenport water, and what are the plans for REAL LIFE sewage disposal? This development clearly needs more than a simple denitrification system when marina users come onto land and use the facilities. The calculated effluent is plainly a "fudge" to get in under the amounts that would legally require sewage treatment under County Department of Health regulations. Why not be honest and admit that the 20000 or 25000 gpd level will require a hookup to Greenport sewage and request that with the zoning change? Are the applicants worried about toning approval if they are honest about this? Now a few pale-by-page comments: 1) p. 11 What are true costs to the town here for roads, maintenance? 2) p. 14 What specific changes are required for Saga! Blvd.? 3) P. IS Ju,t ahCrL' will those dit-dge spoils b.- d. p..sited for eventual removal to upland? •1) p. 19 Exactly chat is meant by ,.wetland, creat1n_"? Na, this group of d(-vv1np4 rs n4 vo•r dont- this bt 101,0'' Wt, Arrtously doubt that ' 3-5 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 2 5) p. 20 If the typical cost of a 32 foot craft, some $100,000. to $500,OOO. ,doesn't make them "luxury" or "elite", what do you call them? Even "yuppies" don't qualify as boat owners for such things. 6) P. 41 Of course there were no scallops this year! The conclusion for recent times is not justified in the report. 7) p. 50 A multiply-sampled one year survey of fish species Is called for, especially for juveniles. 8) p. 58 How much fertilizer use is "improper"? Are you going to fertilize the blacktop, or what? 9) p. 26 Estimated water use by accessory lavatories is ridiculously low. Some 60 flushes 010 gallons or even 120 flushes 0 5 gallons per flush is much too low when you think about all the "elite" marina users coming ashore to use the heads all day every day. An honest figure would best be obtained from Carl Darenberg or Henry Colombi at Montauk. 10) p. 59 Just how are your going to reduce illegal dumping? Patrols? How will you enforce, or will this just another burden on the town? 11) p. 65-66 There is not "other income" to the marina included in the figures presented. Surely the sales of gear and equipment should be figured? Also aren't the operating expenses a bit on the low side? One is always suspicious of figures that are so beautifully rounded off, like $200.000. It really makes the final figure of $143,000. net look far too low. We can only hope this criticism will be addressed frankly in the final EIS so that the Town can finally act on the proposal and evaluate it for true merit. Thus far, the EIS hardly presents the proposal in a favorable light. In fact it makes a rather poor case for a zoning change. Dr. Martin 11. Garrell. Chairman Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council 3-6 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS L_ F.M. FlynnT'f'x•�tc_ P. 0. N. 144 Southold, Nr 11971 March 12, 1986 Mr. Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner County of Suffolk Department of Planning Veterans Memorial Highvay N'auppauge, L. I., My 11788 Re: Application of 'Southport Dav2lepment" 0'259) for a change of zoning from T" Light Industry to IN - 1 " General Multiple Residence, Tom of Southold ( SD- 85- 9 ) Dear Mr. Newman: I refer to the letter of August 8, 1985 regarding the subject application and signed by you on behalf of Dr. Koppelman and the Planning Commission. You realize, of course, that your letter is being used by Southport as an endorsement of its entire project end aplarently accepted as such by the ibvn of Southold. This virtually blanket approval of the project is so widely at variance with the opinions you expressed on the occasion of our visit to your office, and with the recommendations of other highly regarded and qualified planners such as Frederick H. Reuter, W?, that I question vhether the Commission vas fully aware of the !acts involved and of the intensity of the planned uses. It would also appe%r to me thut your approval gives scant attention to the safety o d welfare of the cocu=lity; to the project's effects on the character of Lhe neighborhood; to the impact on surrour.•ling property valuer- and, perhaps even more important, to the deleterious effects on the area's sensitive ecoloMr. It appears that the subject it=pert:• has been singled out for a variety alai density of uses which benefit the applicant at the expen: : o: surrounding .owners and the neighborhood at - large. The facts of the matter sire that the sut•;ect property consists of approx- imately b upland acres and 3-7+acre!i of um'erwater land. The preposterous nature of the application is demonstrated by the applicants stated intention: to expand the dockage by approximately 5(*; operate a marina up to industry standards; build an 82 unit motel; build a lf'5 seat restaurant and continue the operation of a pool and tennis club. In its applications, Southport represents the entire property as being zoned 3-7 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS •2. for "C" Light Industry use. Our Investigations indicate that the under_ anter land was never Zoned for this one and inquiries of the town produced so record iour O x�� special exception for Marina use in "C" zoning. Thus# it position that, unless the applicant proves otherwise, the use of the underwater land for Marina use is illegal and should be terminated rather than expanded. If our analysis proves correct, the entire basis for the Southport Development application is false. 'the exorbitant intensity of the proposed upland use is indicated by the applicant's OSIS In which it is stated that the existing marina/boatyard encompasses the majority of the site ". Since the applicant states its Intention to 'expand the Marina" substantially, it is only logical that the entire upland area would be required for marina use. ibis is all the More the case since the property has a special exception for pool and tennis club use on 2.1 acres of the Mcre upland area. You May recall that at the time of our discussion, you were in general agreement that the operation of a modern marina required an upland area at least equal to the water surface area used for dockage. It appears obviuos there is simply not enough upland area to accomodate the Proposed uses. This is particularly so when it is realized that the property's configuration precludes the development of 2} acres included in the required wetlands setback areas. Of the remaining 6 acres of upland, 2.14 acres is allocated to the pool and tennis club. If the marina is to meet modern requirements for winter storage, repairs and maintenance, 4!acres of upland would be a reasonable requirement. These calculations indicate there is no available acreage for the construction of a mere 82 unit motel and a 125 seat restaurant. Despite your recommendation to the contrary, the applicant states that he Intends to expand the marina. His plans call for an increase from 91+_slips to 138!;slips, or 50%. Further he intends to more than double the linear footaEe of docks. As a matter of fact, the zoning places no limits on the -mber of slips. Further the use of the ramp and of " hitt'; and dr;" storage could create " wall to wall" boats on the small embayment.. Perhaps the Commission does not realize that the marina is accessible by a channel ' only 20 ft. in width. Further, the beams of the proposed slips range from 21 ft. to 12.5 ft. Croneof the boats for which the slips are planned can pass each other in a 20 t. channel. Sketches submitted by the owner do not depict the overall impact of the project on the surrounding properties nor do they reveal that the proposed marina is situated In an embayment the entire area of which is classified by the DEC as tidal wetlands. The embayment is an ecologically sensitive area with productive shellfish beds and nesting areas for water fowl. Further, the surrounding upland is an important wildiife habitat area. The er-baycent's configuration is actually thot of five separate basins all defending on the previously mentioned 20 ft. cbannel for the necessary flushing 3-8 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS -3- action. the construction of an enlarged marina and the more than doubling of the the of floating docks actually creates a series of veirs or dates • which will confine pollutants and serve to make severs or sumps of Previously virtually pristine areas. Should you believe I exaggerate the effects of pollution emanating from a marina, I suggest you read the recent studies on the effects of marine bottom paints on shellfish and aquatic life and check with the DW on the recent oilspill at the subject property. The applicant's plans also call for the dredging of 17,000 cu. yds. of spoil which, In large part, he intends to deposit on existing wetlands. The effect on other areas of the embsyment and its resourses is not even considered. pyrther, such dredging is represented as "maintenance-. If, as we believe, the present marina operation is illegal, it can hardly be maintained. 1 One eoft a most important considerations affecting the proposed uses of the sitapparently been overlooked by the Commission arriving at its conclusion. the property is located on Sage Boulevard some 1740 ft. easterly from Rte. 25. Despite its grandiose name, Sage Boulevard is a private, Poorly paved R.O.W. with an overall width of 16 ft- 2110 applicant has only an easement over the R.O.W. and the land on both sides is owned by others over the aforementioned 1700 ft. Fur-ter, the R.O.W. is in such close proximity to both fresh and saltwater wetland on both sides that it is not probable to assume It could be widened. Nevertheless, the applicant blithely presumes that Sage Boulevard will accomodate 2204 trips per day with 183 trips during the peak hour. Over one-half of this count will be marina traffic consisting of trucks, tractor-trailers and passenger vehicles all passing on a 16 ft. Right of Way without shoulders. Vie traffic will average one vehicle every 20 seconds during peak hours and one every 30 seconds night and day. Such a situation is obviously unsafe and the lbvn of Southold's consultant states that the existing access is unsatisfactory. Finally, the others interested in this matter, (and in the proposed Muster Plan for the Tbvn of Southold) and I would appreciate an explanation of your Interpretation of marine related us>,. Certainly motels and restaurants ere more hignway uses than marine related. They are more frequently found at desert and mountain resorts or serving transient travelers than at marinas. As a i matter of fact, as I'm sure you know, the recent trend has been to restrict motels and restaurants from waterfront sites for a variety of reasons not the least of which is their potential for the polltion of wetland areas. In summary, substantial argumento have been mustered against this application t7 e.-_gerienced planners and by the community tat large. I have recited only some Of the factors influencing these opinicris. On-ler the circumstances, the Department and Commission 3houl•1 certainly reop.n this matter, investigate my statements and negate the appruval. Very truly. yours, F;, Fiend I i I 3-9 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Co ies IIenry C. Weismann, Esq. P. 0. S. 1123, Southold, NY 11971 Christopher Kelly, Esq, Twomey, Latham, Shea K Kelley 33 Hest Second St. P. 0. B. 390 Riverhead, NY 11901 Town mrd, Town of Southold TMM Hall !lain Rd., Southold, NY 11971 Board of Town Trustees, Town of Southold Tbvn Hall, Main Rd., Southold, NY 11971 Mr. Charles T. Hamilton State of MY D.E.C. Regulatory Affairs Unit. Suny- Building 40 Rm. 219 Stonybrook, NY 11794 Henry C. Williams, Commissioner State of N.Y. D.E.C. 50 Wolp Rd. Albany, NY 12223 Mr. Y1111am F. Barton N.7.State Department of State, Albany, NY L?231 Assemblyman Joseph Sawicki, 206 Criffing Ave., P.O.B. 1060, Riverhead, NY 11901 Dr Martin Carrel,Chairman of Town Conservation Advisory Counsel Mrs Ruth Oliva,President of North Fork Enviromental Counsel 3-10 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS G JNTY OF SUFFOLK '' /-'`�,�' ''� XECOM Te.e Cb*Swiftow PMN F.CONALAN surroLN CCU""EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Or PLANNING LEE E.KOr►EuaAN awccma crPLA"Wo a March 17, 1986 Mr. F. M. Flynn P.O. Dox 144 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Application of "Southport Development" (1269) for a change of zone from "C" light industrial to "M-1" General Multiple Residence, Town of Southold (SD-85-9). Dear Mr. Flynn: In response to your letter of 3/12/86 please be advised that in accordance with established policy and procedure of the Suffolk County Planning Commission, the above referenced can only be reconsidered upon submission of an amended application. The Planning Commission only approved the zoning change subject to use/developmental restrictions. If the zoning change is approved, and the existing zoning remains in effect. petitioner will have to file special permit applications with the Zoning Board of Appeals for the motel and marine use(s) necessitating further Planning Commission consideration of such development proposals. If the proposed zoning is enacted, the motel/restaurant use(s) will require submission of applications for a special permit, once again necessitating Planning Commission consideration of such development proposals. While the marina is a permitted use under the proposed "!B" zoning requirements, the Commission determination clearly sets forth a limitation on any expansion of such facility. Any further interpretation of terminology set forth in the letter of determination can only be offered by the Planning Commission. Very truly yours. Lee E.Koppelman Director of Planning b / ✓�! "� i Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner GGN:jk cc: Southold Town Board inn•+s.c wa.....c..w.. •!•l-KO l�73 3-11 HENDERWN AND 80DWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS NMR 2 6 :2-6 TwosivY. LAT11A.M.SHEA & I:FLLFY +'w �4u*Aw�',.y� ATTORNEYS AT LAW {W w C10" 72 WEST SECOND STREET P O NOR S{{ THOMASA TWOMEY in RIVER IKAIt.\6'N'YUItF IUN11 STEPHEN S LATHAN { JOHN F SNEA 111 NORTH MAIN STREET {I{-727.2150 CHRISTOPHER D KELLEY EAST HAMPTON NY 11927 SIS-224.1200 ANTS TURNER LAWRENCE M STORM* MAUREEN T LICCIONE -ALSO ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT Aro VLOR.DA March 26, 1986 Ms. Judith Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendun of Southport Development Dear tis. Terry: On behalf of Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn, I enclose herewith an original and five copies of their comments on the DEIS Addendum of Southport Development for the Town Board and Town planners review and consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Kelley C K/mp encs. cc: Supervisor Murphy David Emilita 3-12 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS W 26 �y �•.j' .t - ,5.. . .] _ •tet i� Ii2 Z:•,• ,� -s=1� _ e'.;.r4.': ant'.i.�'�.'f•>`,�.:1�?riy:t.., -i%'• y •y�'< •. �_ t.�.) ;tii:• .�y�j"•�I r /r•�ys�..- r l�y� qN :L y ��L:ct. 't'•fir..:t�';��I`'=±y�•- ��.{(�J!rtl�,��.�►��,+j.'3;�'!ait "�'��.�`•l ` :i F :• ; ?^•}�r• .'�}�Z.-;i• �r r3:n4�-s:tf.:i�,.i.J�t4 •f' ♦ -�.� e. '4"COWNBOARD OF-.THEs'1�OWN'OF�SOUTHOLD -ti •, �•_�. .c!S'`:.1v;-:'' �'•.a ` .t= • .•..R'-;c.' rwv • }�tu•. was }'-.:,�. ^'4' �t �-- ��_c_ —•+ ':•-.- -� t ms's:_ - •�t•-� y<-'j••� .r •_ f.-^�•''���4��-:t'�ty!6 =�-r -:'ti..:. i:�il•.t w�- }•�.. �:li�.�t f�����-.'•�;i,b. r:::;j�l: �.+. ya Y 7•'Y�i .+ .5 .•_•.... ,jr�frY R9�� 7s �. ,�,�rtt..,�,,,,..,J �J- e�- �-. tit '- .,In •the_-kaEtei of'•t e :App { +. �� •�?` ?L= �v, :.f.3w�rw •-. '�"t.-• S 'DEVELOP aa on.Af r�rM,. 't`�a_;�.,•F 'SOUTHPORT MENT' ��:-;�'�.i ar„� sI[:ib••YLt��t�`i��.'. f:r� -.'��% •_:?; -'%.v. -' » - -- .�;s�'f acrC� f• ? •t• +t'.�r{:.y y�,'�iS�++TN ',tY-•,a 1r ,.!ti,•'_.� i-+1•.'(•• •i'_:�::a :.�^�A•.�tf a'':°~ .r rhe S �T�-'���:t.l►��t��k� et1�e.Q' �'�� .t•:3-'�i;ilii •1+•1r.•r r{. ► ++::!fit •.. :• ;f =. C'. ::•r.::�':.', .�rR�r�r.'..�t�:�7i�y fSLY-,'•�y;�Y'�,�1^r"'1a��-n�','.' .a_J►•a•• L�' '�,r �S:f .�..,;, ,'•-...�.••,::i>�.;�; .�.��rL +�•1•`4s'��,'t }���' '.:' •J�,. Kk: ?w4:fr�.� . �r,,►�,;�', ;15 , rkj.f; ; ^♦ �•.JM� '�-w:r3`- J:t��t \.�T.•'"'••-Y'�.'k;VSs! 'O"L15r/: 1s�ats.• 'syr�:Z'•. r,1N,'•. .� ,.t•Z.1 fu'!�y 1.....v►...`rv'- J:_91'L•:Y a te •F COMMENT :ON-;-THE-;A;DDENDUM j T6E`"' aI �f' RAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEKENT OR SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMET Nr�i1;i :' r:a�:._ �. ._TT i;•` a.:• — f.1 ';:' ��SUBMITTED nON BEHALF HTERVENORS•'�'-�' ;_pr's;7r ;''•4 f : '"ir- ::HENRY WEISKANN J1ND'-FRANR'YLYNI '*�� 1�i;.r•_ sr�;.;: -lY., a `}�J.:-''t�� '• ... :.: gat" 2�4''i� °.S U.i1'�a'}�.X'?�• � _"e,_ �.;�',+y '+'s'+�• M1'' t;'•.l' ;'i''!._ ~':,:e^�.•,� .\? 1 W {�•. .�.�. '.�•�.,. -T_. k• .'::,r,'._R.'t �i'i: - ''Y`vi ..w7t w .t• •{•w'T• jf: �� r�� •Ly�•;' =� .r; i . t=.`_t.'•�•:taj'y%�:'..G:-'%_• T ..'•^ t�`�I��¢��._�:i1�•C,�' �.`�-r.i-''.i-f--;ay. •,i'��: - -. :T:- -r.�• �'_ _-'.: ,� ' .a :�y4, �' •t�"4:� _ :^.:n;�' ►:`� is- at ' ' .�L r.fir' : ,-:..•,s� 'i:s•.r'c•. -_x � r' 7!!' :.':-.c,�+,•;, '.t ►.a:•••.it,1 f;':.ri 'TT .S� 6; w�..,Ay�' +•'k�Jr! +,•i!' C�'YAA �.�+•` - _. - 'J yam: .,,: 1.''.• {'.:',.. N�A^'»:2•- - _ r.1' _ -�..^„�..-.�.' 1:1.`jh- Qr;.J�.'iy?i Wit.'�'-.s(' _ .�c`w71C a:r:::. tY�7.'•V{:s'•xg�j�, •.• i.;l..tt .. _ .•t.�: a fir'.--5'-�.�:'_ T+:r.1:r,`�--�t .ti(�-A'� - ''i- - _ ";} a�•.-"r?�• 't:c •S' i."s , } '3 •S;.`'i:y r atti�dti:-. i:+?:^••i: _.►t s' d - -•r.-•'• "• •t''�; a:..- _�7ti- ':��}:.�,�Y!:Yr�=h Ki;�rF� f�fjJ:f%''rte:�r•.-'.:-�r••�.'..•• t. :_••"cis•e• -ff::-> . :1%--t '•••l .�'• .i t .a ik -�.' �7-:"5=,�•,_ S' s• '� .i -tet• r-•> .' r4"- +- : `-�' .•_''ftifr•r•_l;• ',t i•Ti\.: -•�'�= 1L.• 1 •r...•a ,j'•`.T+'••V_�:i„T,fE"�••1:�:.rd.-. ' ,u`�-�• '=ii '•_.. - . .. F=t.... FZ' :-..._Z t1_..1.'r��S •, a .J '•rt.d•:+' •:� _ +.'^i'�L4:..:�_:i� •r Yti yti �+ '' �'T �?_FFJ '4w#� ,t L�•..:'��t;'�••y��a ' � � + '�.' �t - ..may..,,:. _ \_; �'r-���•'•i-:•�•�'. 'f:%.:: ,��, _ .S March•IS ­1986 , - ', ��.�� ;� _. -t�'5=.±, ..� •` '. '~`•r•' CHRISTOPHER KELLEY R: y •t:;t-of Counsel � -.'ti•.: ',�':;•>•p ='gel. ' •' s' _ •',�.s., int' • _ ''-.. =w: •_ �,� may' -��`. Tw omEY. LATHAlf • •' - ' - ATTORNEYS AT LAW ::••._' �� t�+•• •'< .-'•,. •l ` �� ,,�'' - RT WEST SECOND STREET rt. • • ,•�^ •'�. MWERIIEAD.NEW YORK 11601 �• 'pr C• :i~ ►` 3-13 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD -----------------------------------X In the 'fatter of the Application of SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT -----------------------------------X COMMENTS ON THE ADDENDUM TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF INTERVENORS HENRY WEISMANN AND FRANK FLYNN Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn reside on Tarpon Drive, in Southold, in close proximity to the proposed Southport Development project in the Town of Southold. On their behalf, we submitted comments on the original draft environmental impact statement submitted by Southport Development including technical analyses by land-use planner, Frederick Reuter and environmental analyst, Laurence Penny. We have reviewed the addendum to the draft enviromental impact statement and enclose our comments herein. In general the responses of the applicant in the addendum do not suffice to adequately answer the questions of Szepatowski Associates, Inc., the Town Board's planning consultant, as they purport to do, nor do they in any way attempt to respond to the 3-14 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS comments and questions raised by the intervenors and their experts. The analysis, overall, between the original DEIS and the addendum, temains faulty, defective and insufficient as a matter of law on the enumerated points. This conclusion is supported by the comments of Frederick Reuter, landuse planner and Laurence Penny, envirnonment analyst submitted herewith. It is apparent from a review of the DEIS addendum that the applicant is attempting to postpone enviromental review on particular critical issues to later stages of the process. However, SEORA requires that these issues must be addressed at the earliest possible time. Applicant will undoubtedly argue at the site plan and special permit stages of review that an additional DEIS is not required. This reasoning is circular in nature, if he is not required to give a full analysis of his project at this early stage. A review of the addendum reveals that the applicant has still failed to adequately address several major issues raised by this project. A brief discussion of these issues follows. First, the applicant has ignored or avoided the serious questions raised about the legality and prudence of allowing three intensive uses of a very small site -2- 3-15 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS based on a double and triple counting of the area of uplands available for development. The calculations used to determine the density of the motel and the area available for parking are far out of touch with reality. The overriding issue this development presents, as set forth in the comments of the intervenors on the original DEIS and again at the hamlet meeting on the proposed master plan for the Town of Southold, is that this proposed development is not consistent with the character of the surrounding community and would constitute a spot zoning. It is of a type and intensity of use out of character with the surrounding residential and open space qualities of this area of Southold. In addition, the site is severely constrained by the unique environmental features of the small but fertile and relatively pristine embayment, which it abuts. A marina, motel and restaurant of the size proposed cannot be absorbed by such a small area and are more appropriate for a site on an area with greater tidal flushing and with neighboring related commercial uses. Second, as stated in the original comnents on the DEIS, the alternatives section of the DEIS, what should be the document's 'heart and soul' is woefully weak and inadequate to withstand judicial scrutiny. -3- 3-16 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Third, the economic justification for this project Is based on a study of tourism in the kappa Valley in California. whether or not such a study is relevant is subject to question. But assuming, arguendo, that it is, the assumptions used by the applicant in applying his economic analysis seem remote and far fetched. At page 68 of the addendum, the applicant argues that the motel will generate $2,000,000.00 in revenue for lodging per year, which will generate $8,000,000.00 in spending in Southold in a given year. The $2,000,000.00, figure according to the analysis provided, does not include restaurant, entertainment, retail purchases, gas or automobile services but is limited to lodging. If we take this $2,000,000.00 figure and divide it by 82 units it means that each unit would have to produce $24,390.24 in income per year. To provide that type of income, each unit would have to be filled 365 days per year (a 100% occupancy rate) and rented at a rate of $66.63 per night. Given the seasonal economy and the motel rates in the area this would seem highly unlikely. Thus, the projection of $8,000,000.00 in spending is grossly exaggerated. Fourth, this project is seriously limited by the lack of adequate access to the site as pointed out by Szepatowski associates, Inc. and the various experts -4- 3-17 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS who have commented on this project including the office Of the secretary of state. Access is controlled by a neighboring property owner and is by a narrow right of way. The ability to expand this right of way is highly questionable given the proximity of wetlands and other owners whose property would be effected. To date, no satisfactory solution has been offered by the applicant for the access problem. Fifth, conflicting statements are given in the DEIS and addendum regarding the handling of runoff, effluent and what use will be made of industrial chemicals used In the marina and boat repair businesses. No data is provided regarding the effectiveness of the proposed dentrificaion system and no drainage plan has been submitted. Sixth, the applicant's vegetation and wildlife analysis, based on a single day of observation in the dead of winter is laughable and deficient on its face. A point by point analysis of the DEIS addendum by Frederick Reuter and Laurence Penny, underscoring these six major deficiencies and others, follows. -5- 3-18 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS CM94ENTS ON THE ADDENDUM OF THE SOUTHPORT DEIS FOR DEVELOPING SAGE COVE PARCEL IN SOUTHOLD TO'W1 Authored By Larry Penny, Environmental Consultant, 450 Sag Harbor, N.Y. March 25, 1986 3-19 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS The following coR;ents address the concerns raised in the GEIS for the proposed Southport Development change-of-zone project at Sages Cove, Southold, in light of the materials contained in the "Addendum" of February 17, 1986 and other file materials received on this matter subsequent to the previous hearing. (P.3) 1. toaster Plan Update Summary. With respect to compatible use, namely "water enhanced uses"..."for properties that front on bays where there is extensive tidal flushing," this project fronts on a small cove or basin which does not have good flushing; the cove stands to be greatly impacted should the project be approved. (P.5,25-27) 2. Water Use. The 17,825 gpd is still a low estimate of the actual water use for this project. It does not include water piped to boats at berths, swimming pool filling and rake-up, and underestimates unit use (especially inasmuch as these units are likely to become condo- minium or cooperative units) and accessory uses(accessory lavatories, irrigation, etc.). .':evertheless, the estimate provided by the con- sultants suggests hook-up to the Greenport Sewa;e Treatment District or treatment by a tertiary package treatment plant,as the water use and design floe will clearly exceed 15,D00 cpd. 4:hereas the Greenport :tater Authority is en record as having Nater available for this project, you will note that the Authority's water supplies are already quality and quantity stressed as has been well adve,tised. It may be possible to provide potable water to this project a-O.:n:ing to well more than 15,000 gpd during peak, tut we are nota;: convinced that such would be in the interests of sound planning anc according to a rational Drcerar, of water resource -anaze!-ent. 3. .later Treat-ent'E-fluen:s. The flow o` effl:;ent toward the cove hes been overlooked. The materials made part of the file to date indi- cate that there maY be more conductivity towards the cove than towards the bay. The mounding effect (of 20,CC! gDd or -:ore during peak)of effluent has not tee- cor.s:gered, there are no test wells for elevations c° groundwater ar-1 zradiert determir.2-ion. ?eca,se c` high grounC:,ate, 3-20 HENDERSDN AND 80DWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Southport DET %ddendum Comnts/Penny-2 conditions there may have to be a pump-up system which would further complicate the final design of the denitrification system proposed. The fate of virus particles and most chemicals that are soluble in water or of very small molecule size and we.inht, other than nitrogen Products, is not elaborated. Such a system is not designed to treat these. Ironically, the very springs which now enrich the coves tidal waters with freshwater and thereby serve to enhance flushing and contam- inant dilution( while inhibiting shellfish predators and creating optimal salinities for the reproduction of shellfish),will serve to' entrain contaminated effluent and shunt it into'the cove. (P. 13) Access. The elaboration of Sage Boulevard and the road to the site is necessary to this project and a pending subdivision partially surrounding this project's site. This elaboration will require the filling of wetlands at several points in the R.O.W. of the road to be improved. These wetlands will be greatly diminished in value as will those ones connected to them. (P. 15) Co=ercial Uses Ys. :carina Complex Uses. The applicants continue to "raise the flag" that their project is inherently less chemically polluting corepared to possible commercial uses for the site. However, the use of boat cher-iicals (e.g. tributyl tin, CCA, etc.), restaurant chemicals (bleaches, degreasers, pesticides), swimming pool chemicals (chlorinate salts, buffers, cleaners, algicides), motel chemicals (cleare- pesticides, preservatives) and laundry chemicals (bleaches, detergents) ar sure to present as :much in the way of potentialiy harmful chemicals to the basin and bay environment as many a well-designed, well-mitigated cerriercial use would. Dredce'Dredce Spoil. The s,.itability of the cove's spoil for site enrichment and stabilization is not at all de-onstrated by the infer—a!i:, provided based on bottom samples (4 bottom grabs). The material is ap:arently very silty and clayey (although ::e are yet to be provided Nit- a particle size breakdown) and the sedir..ent is relatively rich in toxic reals (on the order of 5 to 10 tires greater in concentration than four-- in zott--- sediTerts of bus! :carina basins in La:e Montauk. Ir. is reit=._: 3-21 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Southport DEIC%'Wdendum Conn. nts/Penny-3 appropriate for marsh building, nor construction base. nor landscaping, nor leaching substrate. nor other site use. In all probability the only safe deposition of said anterial will be at the landfill or other upland locus off site. The dredging proposed (nom cut in half in volume) will not necessarily increase flushing throughout the basin. How it will effect bottom flea, benthic water quality (dead spots. debris accumulation) has not been addressed. The dredging of the channel area to conveniently fall outside the bounds of the parcel (and thus outside of the bounds of the expanded marina facilities) may not be best for channel maintenance and cove water quality. (P.20,21) Marina Uses. The placement of a fuel dispensing facility so close to the channel ( and main surface flow vector) would be foolhardy. The accumulated pump-out station waste may not be compatible with the scavenger waste treatment plant design requiremnents (it may kill the cultures!). (P. 22-25) Poland. The site will be overdeveloped from the point of view of rung°f and associated coverage-derendent impacts (e.g. lighting, sound, odors, etc.). These noxious impacts are not addressed. (P.29-33) Soils'Subsoils. Existing soil and subsoil evidence based on two cora: and mapped county soil units indicates more permeable soils located downgradient from leach field site. There is a strong indication of perched water on site which could play havoc with drainage and effluent leaching (see, for example. the elevations of groundwater in the two soil borings presented). The freshwater wetlands to the north are apparently perched (see elevations on pending subdivision ma;.). (P.3:) Groundwater. No empirical grounds for statement redirection of groundwater flow are presented. Quality of groundwater has not been tested. (P.35-370) Surface :dater. Althou;h a fey coliform tests are provided (March 20, 1SE6, submission) they indicate off-season impacts. but do prcvide an interesting baseline for comparing on-season inputs wren they becc—e available. The site's surface waters will no doubt reflect much greater "ae*:ir..e` and "drytiTe" coli`or- values should the pro e_t be de.elc:ed as envisioned. The peaK seas:- i-:acts could be felt we"7 seaya•: e' tce cove. Nc tests of wate,s cutside the cove in the tet have teen 3-22 t HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Southport DEIc%Addendum Cor=ents/Penny-4 provided. (Note hearsay contents attributable to Redman of DEC on page 35.) (31 plus) Wildlife And Fisheries. The shellfish survey is entirely specious. It%as done at the worst possible time of year, the methodology is suspect, and the results even more so. Obviously, no blue-claw crabs would be found a: this time of year. If only 3 hard clams were found, how is it that Southold baymen regularly remove hard clams from the cove? The analysis of benthic vegetation should also be disqualified on the same grounds. Of course only small amounts would be found at this time of year. The wildlife accounts are also flimsy, In my casual observations (tso dates) I found several species of waterfowl (e.g. greater scaup, red- breasted merganser, canvasback, etc.) not found in the addendum. The core's wildlife value has been seriously underestimated. It is hard to see her _: will be enhanced,as claimed by its proponents, by this very large pro.iec:. 3-23 HENDERWN AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS FREDERICK H.REUTER.AICP Monning and Zoning Cam%*= 1030 Fow lir Rood He 4&wnare.N.C.28739 (704)692.7104 ` COMMIS ON THE ADDENDOM TD Im DRAFT ENVIROh'MENTIAL I11P.NCf STATL-4W POR SOITDWM DEVELOP'1E.YT ENTM FEBRUARY 17, 1986 Note: All references rade herein to "Reuter Study" are to cax.vnts I Submitted dated January 14, 1986 on the original DEIS. In general, the addendLm supplied by the applicant does little to raredy the insufficiencies of the original DEIS and my original comments on that document remain applicable and pertinent. Dated: Mares 25, 1986 3-24 -- HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT Comment No. 1 - Be Zoning There is no legitimate basis for requesting a use variance to permit a restaurant in the General Multiple Residence District. The Master Plan Update Summary statement referred to is incomplete. As reported in the Reuter Study, the last phrase of the sentence quoted is " . . where they do not negatively impact on resi- dential neighborhoods or the natural environment." The Reuter Study also notes that Marine Recreation areas are ". . recommended for locations along creeks that have suitable harbors, but less tidal flushing than 13 possible in bayfront or Sound front locations." (Emphasis supplied) This clearly indicates that not all harbors along creeks are suitable for such intensive development and that tidal flushing is a matter of particular concern. Southport harbor is not ". .in fact, on Southold Bay" and there is no indication that the harbor site does, in fact, have "extensive tidal flushing." , In general this supplementary statement flip-flops between !"trine Recreation and Marine Commercial designations. Whether the sub',ect site clearly meets the criteria of either category is still not substantiated. As pointed out in the Reuter Study neither category is consistent with the goals and findings of the Master Plan Update as they relate to the Conklin& Peninsula. All this aside, it may be true that the site is to be changed to the proP03ed Marine Recreation designation. Motel and restaurant' u=es would tnen becc=e special exception uses subject both to certain s;.ecifi: criteria and to the purposes of the proposed Zoning Ordinance and environmental review. As examined by the Reuter Study there is every evidence of this site beim& over developed. This new information does not indicate the assignment of site areas to the mous use elements. ice DE:S still is without a satisfactory detailed description of the ;rz;cse! use or an adequate site plan as noted by the Reuter - 2 - 3-25 HENDERWN AND 80DWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - SUMMARY Cossient b. 3 - Re Fresh hater Since the fresh water resource question is a dynamic one, it would sees advisable to verify the resolution of nearly one year ago. This question does not answer the issue of the private well pumping proposed on the subject site raised in the Reuter Study. Comment No. E - Re Boatyard Use It should be noted that the proposed district does not permit boatyards or storage yard in the Marine Recreation areas presumably as a result of concern for adjacent property owners use in adjacent districts. Does the response with reference to winter storage mean that the marina will not be in operation over the winter? Comment No. 5 - Be Sanitary Effluent This response does not deal with the comment's point about the system removing only 30 percent of the nitrogen from the effluent. It also assumes that the Suffolk County Department of Health will find the site suitable and issue such a permit. As the Reuter Study notes there is no information on subsoil conditions or the deptn to ground water as these factors eight be related to sewame disposal. The very lizited information on Exhibit, C does little to clarify the ccnditicns surrounding the rudimentary indication of the sewage dis;osal systems elements. - 3 - 3-26 HENDERSON AND BODWELL COMULTINO ENQINEEMS SE ON - PUBLIC NEED FOR THE PROJECT Comment No. 6 - Re Public Need The response in this instance relies heavily on verbal communica- tions rather than written statements. It also fails to rdspond to a request for a municipal cost impact analysis. With reference to the Reuter Study's questions, the response does not describe the sponsor's objectives in tens of tfat distribution of boat sizes he intends to serve or to what degree he will provide berths for seasonal boaters as contrasted with transient boaters. Will there be a boat launching ramp service? rurther, no proof Is offered as to the need for the restaurant and motel as an accessory use to the marina facility. Could they be located somewhere also where there was core room, better road access and a less sensitive envirow.ert? In .chat way does this serve local residents? The reference to bca: and rarine sales see=s irrelevant unless the spcnsor proposes to operate a ships chandlery, a boat and marine engine repair and sales facility or a boatyard on the site. Is this the case? With reference to Exhibit L, it is noted that the inquiry to the Police Departaent apparently only concerned motel use of the site. - 4 - 3-27 HENDERSON AND DOWELL OONBMTM G ENOMMEMS SECTION - LOCATION Comment No. 7 - Re Sage Boulevard Although this response answers Comment No. 7, it leaves unanswered questions raised in the Reuter Study with reference to the details surrounding the traffic cmmts, the trip generation data and the uses data on which it was based, some confusion about the site's driveways, and the overriding question of the impact of commercial traffic on a local residential street. Vith reference to this latter point, there still is no description of the character of the vehicles involved (e.g. boat trailers, etc.). The question of marine access and traffic volumes is also un- answered in this response. Comment No. 8 - He Spills of Industrial Compounds This response suggests that there will be no boatyard activity or any boat and marine engine repair or sales facility on site. Despite this the re3;onse to Comment No. 4 indicates that there will be provision for "emergency repairs" and that the"existing travel-lift will be utilized for potential winter storage and the occurances requiring emergency haulage." Are there to be no industrial compounds associated with these activities? - 5 - 3-28 HENDERWN AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - MARINE CONSTRUCTION Comment No. 9 - Ike Dredge Spoil The response in this case seems to answer the comment. There is still no map information as to the location of the channel. Apparently the sponsor still proposes to remove 7,000 s.f. of N!! and IM areas with a very doubtful potential for creating any new marsh from the grey clay found on the harbor bottom. The use of grey clay for regrading the site, assuming no ccntaminants, does not indicate a very beneficial condition with respect to surface water drainage. Coaert No. 10 - Re Boat Slips, etc. The question of how small a small boat is still remains. If a survey where made of the state rebistrations of boats by boat length, this could be demonstrated. As for meeting the market, it may well prove true that thase with 32 foot boats can afford more than those with 22 foot boats. The response does net locate the fuel facility or the pump-out facility as requested. - 6 - 3-29 HENDERSON AND BODWELL WNSULt1RG aNMEERS SECTION - UPLAND DEVELOKM Consent No. 11 - to Pervious Material In this instance the response is essentially a repeat of the question as an answer. No site plan with all drainage patterns, etc. has been provided. As the Reuter Study points out the DEIS provides no information to substantiate the concept of a pervious material on a pervious soil. Ponding on the site suggests that the soils say not be pervious. The lack of graphics in general is not in accordance with the SEAR re- quirements. In this case there is not topographic information avail- able as well as no drainage pattern or plan. Exhibit A is illegible. The nature of the common storm water Management system questioned in the Reuter Stud} is still unknown. Comment No. 12 - Re Ade;uate Parking The response to this comment indicates double counting of the land area available for the various uses. The only upland area set aside for the marina is one acre of parking, nothing else. No land area is set aside for the restaurant or its parking. As a result the motel site becomes 33S,364 square feet in area and a unit yield of 64.59 units is achieved. As the Reuter Study indicates the sponsor has not provide d 3AL-A area for the three distinct principal uses. Co=ent No. 13 - Re Peak 'later Use For the first time this response reveals that the motel will fhave efficiency units. Are these to be year-round units? Will they be condominivaized? We also learn fcr the first time that the restaurant will include a 10 seat bar area. Will this be open year-round? Did the traffic generation analysis take these same numbers into account? If sc, urnere are the computations? - 7 - 3-30 HENDERSON AND ®ODWELL CONWLT1NG ENGINEERS SECTION - CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION Comment No. 18 - Its Subsoil Testing The response to this comment indicates that the upland test bor- ing results have been included with a slap shoving the sites of the borings. Although the mapping is relatively legible the log of the borings is completely illegible. Reuter Study findings with reference to soil conditions are still applicable. - 8 - 3-31 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS sDMW - MVtTitaR~lt NTAL S7:TP YG, WMMAL RES==, sons Comment Ito. is - Soil sorings See finding with reference to Comment No. 14 on borings and soils. For any evaluation of this entire site of Made Land more borings are going to be needed. Reuter Study findings are still applicable. 6 3 .i 2 4 i t 'r 7 v i d 9 ' i ' 3-32 HENDERSON AND BODWELL coNSuIT m ENGINEERS SECTION - GROUNDWATER Comment No. 16 - Re Missing Words Response provides the words. 10 - 3-33 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - SURFACE WATERS Comment No. 17 - Water Quality Evidence Needed This response refers to the subject "basin area• without definition or mapping but refers to the velocities produced by the •constriction encountered by tidal waters between Conklings Point and Jennings Point (Shelter Island).* Such a statement does not disclose much if anything about the conditions in the harbor area of the subject site and its surface water quality. Reuter Study questions related to surface water quality remain unanswered. 3-34 HENDERWN AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS r d w d SECTION - WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION Cocoent No. 18 - Representative Species List The response to this comment is to be reviewed by others. i 1 \ 12 3-35 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS i SECTION - VEGMATIM - WILDLIFE Camient No. 19 - The respanse to this camment is to be reviewed by others. 1 - 13 - 3-36 .4 _ HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - HUMAN RESOURCES - TRANSPORTAION Comment No. 20 - USACE Maintenance Dredging Permit The response in this case is a non-answer. Further the permit papers do not inlcude any mapping. Similar questions raised in the Reuter Study also remain un- answered. - 14 - 3-37 1 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - SIGGNIFICANT ENVIRO.`rlENTAL IMPACTS Comment No. 23 - Significant Environmental Impacts Section Needs to be Rewritten Response with reference to soils is not substantiated by the soils information presented. Beneficial impact of topography is not substantiated by the soils irfcrmation presented. Adverse impact related to groundwater does not recognize residual nitrogen question by Emilita which went unant erect. The beneficial impact regarding future potential for industrial discharge is a *straw man" since any use which produced such a discharge would be subject to a critical review. Ir. the case of surfa=e waters the answer to the potential for tidal flushing is still open to question. Amore the beneficial impacts the potential for wetland biological filtraticn system action seems very doubtful since wetlands are to be removed and the creation of new wetlands with dredge material appears to dcubtful as well. The findings with reference to wetlands *above applies to the response on vegetation as well. The temporary removal depends on creating new wetlands which is doubtful. In teras of transportation, the prospect cf mixed cc=ercial and residential traffic on a local residential street must be considered an adverse impact with resect to the quality of the new residential area. Icning and Land Use adverse impacts have been le:ailed in the Reuter Study. There are no beneficial Impacts re:a:ee to the Ccrklins ?mint peninsula which is a low densis/ residential shoreline car-Munity. In the abstract the project would provzde marina facilities and motel a=cc==odatians. With reference to the Ccastal Management Prciram it may be noted that the site is in the nczt fragile Land Ca;.atility Units III and I% over much of its area and the harbor is in +later Ca;ability Unit I. The Lard Use Plan - 1995 shows no expa.•23icn of the existing use area or atout half the sub.'ect site area. � 1 Response with resect to Community services is confused with tax base discussion and other irrelvevant coseents. o i t' . F 1 y F h - 3-38 _ . HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - MITIGATION HEAASURES C=ent No. 24 - Specific Mitigation Measalres During the course of this review the practicallity of some of the mitigation measures izz questiared.The Reuter Study findings are still zpr:icablt. C.:=ent No. e5 - He Regrading Plan rh= respcnse is a ron-answer. Co=ect No. 26 - pie Ehagjites Sitrzut sa,;ir.s t::is .espcnsa has little meaning. Where dues this apply? Cc-re:%c N2. 27 - 9•n Wetland Creation Th-43 Loa is a nen-an_we-. Cz=ent No. 28 - Be Little Deland This reapcnse nes been covered earlier. i6 _ e 3-3t HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SE'7ION - AC1EKSE ENS ONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED Comment No. 29 - Be Adverse Impacts This answer is not responsive. 17 3-4Q +p< HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION - NO ACTION Cant No. 30 - Wcument Ecarxmic Infeasibility The response in this case provides a L forma statement ;,on the feasibility of the marina as a stand-alone facility. It finds that, with some value placed on the land, the annual net return would be negative. This does not take into account depreciation on the investment or interest on the loan of funds borrowed. The response then proceeds to suggest that it needs the applicants two other principal uses to make a reasonable return. He does not, however, estimate the net ince and what the resultant return on investment would be. Instead, he provides an estirate of the beneficial econaaic impact on the Town. The Reuter study finds that the entire discussion of alternatives is obviously inadaquate and inom plete in term of the requirer,�ents of Si OM. .: . 3-41 ;. "Ile� HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Tow.C"Seufhold STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY N.Y 12231 G--LS S-AFFE" SEC"E•A".a STATE March 25, 1986 Ms. Judith Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Terry: The Department of State has reviewed the Addendum to Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development an wou d ike to take this oppor- tunity to outline our concerns regarding the development and protection of coastal resources with respect to this project. Our comments are as follows: 1. This Addendum does not describe how the proposed zoning action and sub- sequent deve opment is consistent with the State's coastal policies. As indicated in this Department's letter of December 27, 1985, the con- sistency of this action with the applicable policies must be demonstrated in the FEIS. 2. Due to the recent oil spill at the present onsite facility, what Provisions will be taken to protect the local groundwater system and tidal wetlands from future leakages? 3. The results of the Traffic Survey were based upon June, 1984 conditions. Peak tourist season traffic flows (i.e. for the months of July and August) should also be considered in determining the potential impacts of the Proposed development on the existing roads and traffic conditions. 4. The Addendum states (p. 22) that "a common storm water management system" will be utilized to achieve "0-runoff" conditions at the site. Because of the site's existing soil conditions, the FEIS should contain a descrip- tion of a system that would be appropriate for the project site. S. The Addendum indicated that some boating services may be provided at the site. FEIS should describe which services will be available at the proposed marina and where other necessary boating services may be obtained. 6. To minimize turbidity during dredging operations, the Department of State recommends that clam shall bucket or hydraulic dredge methods be used rather than a crane with a drag line (p. 18). �,. . 3-42 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Ms. Judith Terry March 25, 1986 Page 2 7. The dune enhancement program mentioned on page 55 of the Addendum should be explained further, including the provisions which will-W-made (i.e. elevated catwalks) to minimize human impact during dune crossings. Please contact Mr. Aram Terchunian of this agency at (518) 474-3642 should you have any questions on the above comments or need additional information. Sinc rely, William F. Bar on Coastal Resources Specialist Enclosures MFB:KAC:dlb cc: M. Greges, COEMY District C. Hamilton, DEC/Region I R. Musack, DEC/Region I 2.3.13 2.3.14 --- HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS �%%FFn(,�-�o ! w Town Hall,53095 Main Road j�� P.O. Box 7:8 �O! J"+�►� Southold,New York 11971 JUDITH T TERRY IELErHOA•E To%�CURK (516)765-1901 RRGOTRAR OF WMAL VFATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TONIN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 26, 1986 Attached hereto is the Dredge Spoil Analysis and Water Samples for Southport Development for inclusion in the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement transmitted to you under date of February 25, 1986. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk cc: Southold Town Planning Board David Emilita, Planner Board of Town Trustees Southport Development✓ Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services N.Y.S. Department of State N 3-4 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Srgz -Zane (UsE Com#anly N. COUNTRY RD. • BOX 361 WADING RIVER.N.Y. torp (516)9n-J.V5 DREDGE SPOIL ANALYSIS SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT Sediment Analysis On February 1, 1986, the staff of the Land Use Company collected core samples from four different locations in the subject area (see map) the samples were delivered to Eco Test laboratories, Inc. of North Babylon on February 4. 1986 and the results are as follows SAMPLES Bottom Sediment, Sample A, 11e2S AN Lindane us/[s <2.0 Cadmium as Cd ■8/Cs. 0.060 Heptachlor u8/Ls 42.0 Chromium as Cr ms/Cs 7.S Aldrin u8/Cs L2.0 Copper as Cu ms/[s 9.S Heptachlor Epoxide u8/Cs 42.0 Lead as Ph ■s/Ls 7.5 o,p-DDE us/Ls <2.0 Mercury as H6 ■s/Cs 0.03 p.p-DDE us/Cs <2.0 Nickel as Ni ■s/Cs 5.2 Dieldrin u8/t8 <2.0 Selenium as Se ■s/Cs 0.15 o,p-DDT u6/96 <2.0 Silver as A8 m8/Y8 0.20 pop-DDD us/Cs X2.0 Thallium as T1 me/Cs 0.07 p,p-DDT u8/Cs <2.0 Tin as So m8/[s 2.7 -1- - 3-45 s' ' „ . _ y�'. ••.x,"i.a 1'S r��:e n -x ~✓ - k:a . C�Mvi•. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS Mire: u8/Ks (2.0 Zinc as Zn ms/Ks 22 Methoxychlor u8/Ks (4.0 Chlordane u8/Ks (8.0 Toxaphene u8/Ks <40 Arochlor 1016 u6/Ks 1,40 Arochlor 1221 us/Ks (40 Arochlor 1232 us/Ks <40 Arochlor 1242 us/Ks 1,40 Arochlor 1248 us/Ks 40 Arochlor 1254 us/Ks 140 Arochlor 1260 us/Ks k40 Arsenic as As ■s/Ks 1.6 Beryllium as Be WKS 0.23 -2- : : 3-46 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAMPLE* Bottom Sediment. Sample Do 1203 PM Lindane ug/Kg Z� 2.0 Cadmium as Cd m$/KS 0.065 Heptachlor ug/Kg /, 2.0 Chromium as Cr mg/Kg 13 Aldrin us/Kg k 2.0 Copper as Cu ■a/Ka 16 Meptachlor Epoxide us/Kg < 2.0 Lead as Pb ms/Ka 10 o.p-DDE us/KS 4(,2.0 Mercury as 8s ms/Kg 0.03 pop-DDE us/Ka � 2.0 Mickel as 111 mg/K` 11 Dieldrin us/Ks < 2.0 Selenium mg/Ig 0.16 o.p-DDD ug/re ( 2.0 Silver as A& ■g/Kg 0.25 Endrin us/Ks ( 2.0 Thalliu■ as T1 mg/Kg 0.16 o.p-DDD u6/Kg ( 2.0 Tin as Snmg/Kg 2.8 p.p-DDT u6/K6 < 2.0 Zinc as Zn ■d/Ki 120 Mirex us/Ks ( 2.0 Methoxychlor us/Kt ( 4.0 Chlordane us/K` L 0.0 Toxaphene u`/Ks 40 Arochlor 1016 u9/K6 < 40 Arochlor 1221 us/Kg ( 40 Arochlor 1232 us/Kg �(40 Arochlor 1242 ug/96 ( 40 Arochlor 1246 u`/Ks 1.40 Arochlor 1254 ut/Kg (�40 Arochlor 1260 us/tg 40 Arsenic as As ug/Kg 1.7 1tryllium as be mg/K& 0.50 -3- 3-47 ' HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAMPLEt Cotton Sediment. Sample C, 12025 I'M ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS Lindane u8/K8 4C 2.0 Cadmium as Cd m8/Ks 0.080 Heptachlor u`/Ks 41-2.0 Chromium as Cr mg/K4 12 Aldrin u`/K8 42.0 Copper as Cu ■g/98 12 Heptachlor Epoxide u8/K8 2.0 Lead as !h ■8/K8 10 o,p-DDE us/K8 2.0 Mercury as as m8/Ks 0.04 p,p-DDE u8/K8 /,2.0 Nickel as Ni ■8/K8 8.5 Dieldrin u8/K8 4 2.0 Selenium as Se ' ■8/K8 0.18 o.p-DDD u8/K8 (2-.0 Silver as A8 a8/Kg 0.20 Endrin us/K8 1, 2.0 Thallium as T1 ■8/K8 0.18 o.p-DDT us/K6 4�2.0 Tin as Sn m8/K8 3.6 pop-DDD u8/K8 '12.0 Zinc as Zu n8/Kg 43 pop-DDT us/K8 ( 2.0 Mirex u8/K8 42.0 Methoxychlor u`/KS ( 4.0 Chlordane us/K8 t 8.0 Toxaphene u8/K` (40 Arochlor 1016 u8/K8 4.40 Arochlor 1221 u8/K8 �40 Arochlor 1232 u8/K8 (40 Arochlor 1242 u8/K8 �40 Arochlor 1248 u8/K8 L40 Arochlor 1254 u8/K8 ( 40 Arochlor 1260 u8/K8 (40 Arsenic as As n8/K6 4.2 terylliu■ as to ■8/K8 0.44 -4- 3-48 4 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SAMPLEI bottom Sediment. Sample D. 1100 TM ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS Lindane US/Kg 42.0 Cadmium as/Kg 6.8 Heptachlor u6/K4 /,2.0 Chromium as Cr mg/KS 0.25 Aldrin us/K` 1,2.0 Copper as Cu m`/Ka 12 Heptachlor Epoxide us/Kg /, 2-0 Lead as Ph E`/KS !.S o.p-DDE u6/Kg 4_2.0 Mercury as HS ■`/Ks 0.14 p,p-DDE ug/Kg /2.0 Selenium as Se m6/Kg 0.18 Dieldrin us/Ks e2_0 Silver as AS mi/KS 0.10 o.p-DDD u6/96 42-0 Thallium as Ti ■`/Ka 0.08 Endrin ug/Kg (2.0 Mickel as N1 m`/Kg 5.0 o.p-DDT ms/96 <2-0 Tin as Sa m`/Ks 3.2 p.p-DDD ug/Ks <2.0 Zinc as in mg/Kg 33 pop-DDT ug/Kg < 2.0 Mirex uS/KS <.2.0 Methoxychlor us/Kg 44.0 .Chlordane u`/Ks /%a.0 Toxaphene us/KS <40 Arochlor 1016 ug/Kg '.40 Arochlor 1221 US/Ks k40 Arochlor 1232 US/K6 (40 Arochlor 1242 u`/Ks C40 Arochlor 1248 us/Ks 1,40 Arochlor 1254 us/Kg 1,40 Arochlor 1260 us/Kg (40 Arsenic as As ms/Ka 3.3 Beryllium as 3e mg/Kg 0.23 -S- . 3-49 MINE No Ell /■■■■■■■■N ■■■1 ■■■■■■■■■■■\7■L_---==-- ,m■■■■■■■■■■■►\■■■■� ®�.�■ was ■■■■■■■■■R■■■■■III■■■■ ■■�. ►■■■■■E2NIM■■ HIM ■■■■■■■■■fit■■■�■■■■■■■■■■�■ a HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS The sample's criteria tested was for Bulk Sediment Analysis as per request of the lead agency, Southold Town Board. It was noted that the numerous regulatory agencies Involved in this DEIS have in fact no standards for the acceptability of potential contaminants that are to be found In dredge spoil. Contacted wares Mr. Alex Lechich, Area Manager of the U.S.D.O.A., Mr. Larry Enoch of the N.T.S.D.O.S., Coastal Management Program, Mr. Dennis Cole,-of the Bureau of Regulatory Affairs at the N.Y.S.D.E.C. and various staff members of the Division of Solid and Rasardous Wastes at N.T.S.D.E.C. Particularly during conversation with Mr. Enoch, who is a dredging specialist with f.T.S.D.O.S. Coastal Management Program it was noted that even though standards have been examined for disposal in the L.I. Sound, no standards have been set for upland disposal. with this the staff of the Land Use Company then contacted Mr. Steven Congdon of the New England Division of the U.S.D.O.A. In Waltham, Massachusetts, who supplied us with the following information. With the absence of definitive knowledge of pollution effects or the effects of specific pollutants found in dredge spoil at disposal sites the following chemical and physical parameters are called for in the review of a disposal action or what conditions will be placed on the disposal of the dredged material. Dredged material sedimest ,fa classified -6- 3-51 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS as follows$ A CLASS I CLASS II CLASS III Percent oil and grease (hexane extract) 0.2 0.2-.75 .7S Percent volatile (NED mehtod) S 5-10 10 Percent water 40 60-60 60 Percent silt-clay 60 60-90 90 Class I sediments are often relatively coarse-grained with high solids content, volatile solids, oil and grease, heavy metals, and potential pollutant concentrations are low. Class I sediment based on a case-by-cans subjective evaluation of the dredge site and/or metals concentration. Class I materials include non-recent and recent sediments which are suitable for capping materials at open water dump sites, for habitat creation projects, or rehandling for productive uses including beach nourishment and land fill cover based on the evaluation. Class II sediments are often relatively fine-graded with moderate solids content. Class II materials ■ay contain a moderate amount of potential pollutants, volatile solids, oil and grease, and metals, at levels often sufficient to be a cause for concern. A subjective evaluation of the dredge site and metals is needed to designate this material as either •mon-degrading" or •potentially degrading". Potentially -7- 3-52 I HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS degrading Class II material will be treated as Class III material. On the other hands this evaluation ■ay show that some Class II material is suitable for habitat creation projects, capping Class III material, and landfill cover. Class III sediments are usually fine-graded with low solids contents. These "terials often contain high levels of potential pollutants, volatile solids, oil and grease, and metals. Class III sediments ■ay be judged "potentially degrading" or "potentially hazardous" based on the relative concen- trations of pollutant constituents. The probability for Class III sediments being •toxic" •to marine bottom fauna ■ay be high. Subjective evaluation of metals and other pollutants, and objective review of bioassay and/or bio-accumulation test results, ■ay be required to determine the suitability of Class III material for open water disposal at Long Island Sound regional disposal areas. As a general policy, Class III material will not be dumped at regional disposal sites unless it is capped with suitable Class I or Class II material. Therefore, the conditions under which Class III material ■ay be dumped ■ay include both temporal and seasonal restrictions relatinj to the availability of suitable material for capping or Alternative management techniques directed towards the goal of maximum environmental protection. In addition, there may be certain circumstances under which open water disposal may be -8- 3-53 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS prohibited. 0 Statistical analysis of metals data on sediments developed by the Corps of Engineers fro■ numerous New EriRland ports and harbors. as well as non-spoil sediments from the vicinity of open water disposal areas, suggest the following operational limits are appropriate to enable confirmation of the sediment class designations described above. Average and range values for metals in Central' Long Island Sound sediments are included for comparative purposes. In general, the Corps of Engineers data shows that high concentration of metals appear in the sediments of highly industrialized ports and harbors. Central Sound Level of Contanination Sediment Average (ppm dry basis) San6e Low Moderate High Hg .05 .05 0.5 0.5-1.5 1.5 Pb 27.8 6-63 100 100-200 200 Zn 87.8 2.3-214 200 200-400 400 As -- -- 10 10-20 20 Cd 1.3 1-2.9 3 3-7 7 Cr 28.8 2-108 100 100-300 300 Cu 69.6 2-269 200 200-400 400 Ai 11.2 2-40.6 30 50-100 100 V -- -- 75 75-125 125 -9- 3-54 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS All concentrations are give in mg/litre. Concentrations of PCB's of 1.0 parts per million (PPJM) will be considered as confirmation of high contamination, DDT 0.5 PPM and Dieldrin 0.1 PPM (dry basis). With the aforementioned data, it can be assumed that the levels of contaminants found in the proposed dredge spoil can be classified as Class I material. 'Class I spoil is considered clean material acceptable for beach nourishment or open water disposal at regional disposal sites or at a site of similar lithologic background.' Interim Plan for the Disposal of Dredged Material from Long Island Sound, Now England River Basins Commission, August 1980. It should be noted that sample D revealed moderate levels of cadmium. However, this area of the project contains deep water and will not be subject to the 6' ■aintenence dredging program. Additionally, it should be noted that said cadmium level may be the result of limited past dredging in this area. As stated previously, this section of the basin area contains deep water and has not been the subject of sediment removal operations. As a result, a higher concentration of particles and/or similar source material ■ay have resulted in the parameter found within this sample. It should be also noted that said parameter would still place the spoil material within a "non-degrading" classification suitable for use in habitat creation projects such as intertidal marsh construction activities. -10- 3-55 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS The following table indicates data Collected to date on the bacteriological water Quality in the subject area by the N.Y.S.D.E.C. Seen enclosed map for station locations. Total Coliform MPN/100m1 Date Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Tide Rainfall* 1-27-86 240 4 240 high ebb 1-27 - 1.46• 1-26 - 0.41" 2-3-86 3 3 3 low 2-2 - 0.38" 2-13-86 3 7 3 ■id- to rain flood *Rainfall recorded at the Southold Police Station. Fecal Coliform MPN/100m1 Date Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Tide Rainfall* 1-27 - 1.46" 1-27-86 93 3 4 high ebb 1-26 - 0.41" 2-3-86 3 3 3 low 2-2 - 0.38" 2-13-86 3 7 3 ■id- no rain flood Using a three tube MPH test, bacteriological water Quality at a station is acceptable if the median total coli- form MPN/100m1 is 70 or less and no more than 10I of the samples exceed at total coliform MPN/100m1 of 3301 or if the median fecal coliform MPN/100al is 14 or less and no more that 102 of the samples exceed a fecal coliform of MPN/100al df 49. Review of the aforementioned data would indicate that the higher coliform counts were attributable to overland -11- 3-56 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS (storm water) runoff entering the basin area in the vicinity of station numbers 1 and 3 (Area adjacent to Sage Blvd. and Tarpon Road Canal vicinity. See map for specific sample locations). It should also be noted that significant rainfall occurred during this period and that the said stations 1 and 3 were located adjacent to single family dwellings and/or road improvements not incorporating storm water management systems. During the test period covered by data analysis, an average of 3 vessels were moored in the subject vicinity. Conversations with various staff ■embers of the N.Y.- S.D.E.C. indicated that the Inter-State Shellfish Program has recommended that all marinas be closed to shellfishing during the summer months. -12- 3-57 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS lAlAc(al- Qu&trFf .14*.M love-YTi►'(�ow1"ti0v0C(losati i .� alcrac- w: • • ' � ��,� s�oN NoV D DWI ! . :.77 1 - 3-58 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS REC:(VED ✓�11i�`i G� APR 41-9086 $TATE OF NEW YORK 7oyrr.CG.1L *OUfFCld DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY.N.Y.12231 GALAS S«AFF[R April 1, 1986 SEGRETART OF STATE Ms. Judith Terry Town Clerk Town of Southold P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 Re: F-85-455 Southport Development Corp. Town of Southold Dear Ms. Terry: Mr. Barton asked that I review the document you submitted entitled 'Dredged Spoil Analysis for Southport DeveloplmentR. This document should provide the information necessary to knew the nature of the proposed dredged material and therefore to make decisions on acceptable disposal options. However, I have found serious shortcomings: 1. On page six I am essentially misquoted. My statement was that I had been unable to locate standards. Stan- dards set by E.P.A. do exist and I have since located them. Upland disposal requires that E.P. toxicity testing be performed, however, which is not the case with this document. 2. The paragraph on the bottom of page six is incomplete. The full wording is RIn the absence of more definitive knowledge on the pollution effects of dredged material or the effects of specific pollutants found in dredged sediments at the disposal sites, the following physi- cal and chemical parameters will be used to determine whether biological testing of sediments will be called for...0. Thus, the decision making process may actu- ally' require an additional set of tests. 3. Although the proposed dredged material is presumed to be Class I (page 10), I could find no data to back this up. It is necessary to have proper data to com- pare to the values in the table on page seven. 3=59 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Ms. Judith Terry April 1, 1986 Page 2 4. As stated on page 10, very minute quantities of certain organic chemicals can render dredged material contaminated; for example, 1 part per million (ppa) of PCB. However, the test methods used were not sen- sitive enough to measure such small values. In the case of the PCB chemicals (Arochlor 1016-1260) the minimum that could be measured was 40 ppu. Since there are a total of seven Arochlors, the test materi- al could be extremely contaminated yet not be shown as such by the test. Even allowing for differences between wet and dry weights, the situation is similar for DDT and Dieldrin. Testing performed on proposed dredged material should be in keeping with the stan- dards to be met. When 1ppn of a chemical may reflect contamination the testing must be sensitive enough to show this. In my judgement no decision on the suitability of the subject material for a particular disposal means can be made from this document. Additional testing and retesting of physi- cal and chemical parameters are necessary. If you have any questions you may call me at (516) 474-3642. Sincerely, Larry Enoch Envirorrnental Analyst Coastal Management Program LE:hm cc: C. Hamilton - DEC Region I W. Barton - Coastal Management Program 3-60 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS o�oS�FFO(,r o �r0•p ' •� Town Hall.53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold.New York 11971 JLDITII T TFRRI TELEPHONE To,hN CLF RA (316)763.1/01 RaMIAN or TIT AL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 8, 1986 To: Southold Town Board Members From: Elizabeth A. Neville, Deputy Town Clerk Received telephone call at 2:53 P.M. from Mr. Larry Enoch, New York State Office of Coastal Management, Albany, New York 518 474-3642 Mr. Enoch said that he recently reviewed the paper on Southport Development and had several criticisms. Several of which are still valid, but one of which is not. The following complaint is no longer valid: His complaint about the sensitivity of the tests as pertains to PCB and DDT. He must admit that he misread the scales as parts per million. when they were actually parts per billion. Therefore, the material is not contaminated, but it is clean. Mr. Enoch stated that he was asked by his superior to call the Town of Southold and withdraw this particular criticism. Mr. Enoch may be reached by telephone at 518 474-3642 up until 4:15 P.M. M 3-61 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS "')LII-IG S 00-AI V ARD & MARINA P O BOX 250 SAGE BLVD GREENPORT N. Y 11944 April 9, 1QA6 TO: The mrml^ers of the Southold Town Board Res Drat Environmental Impact Statement of Southold Develpment My name is Howard Zehner and I an the present owner of Young's Boatyard A Marina. As a licensed N.Y.S. Professional Engineer I have alkays tried to operate the Marina in an environmentally concerned manner. I would like first to answer Mr. Flynn's over- stated complaint of a ms for oil Spill. On December 16th, 1435 a cracked hydraulic valve on ttF boat lift c803ed 5 to 10 gallons of hydraulic oil to en*er the basin at t1- lift bulkhead. This was an accident and obviously unintentional. Jn the same day, althouch t"A west wing was holding the oil against the steel bullosa' anti there was no moil rnnta-nination. we pia—d booms in the basin to contain the small oil slick. Early the following morning it was all sueked nut by a r"sspnol company. A conservation orfirer who checked that area later in tlr mornine was satisfied with the clean up. I would likes to rive a brie background of the boatyard property. The brick makinr overation of Do'ditt Clinton Sage b-tuaen lA O and the, 19p1's, located at Younc's Boatyard & Marina. created the Sara desin from upland Droperty owned by Mr. Sage. The I`axin %as flooded in the 1QPI's when th- ilke broke. Lri•:k- makinc war disr•mtinued du,, to Malt water +nt*usion in the clay, and t1110 Dr.tent tasin rt-qultPd. 3-62 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS :r l W. Yi.unr bouF'it t-v- brirkyara orrp:rty in 11=0 and cp,rated a boaty+ird an-i marina until 11'70 a- ih;^h time I bought the pr000rty. Th- own-rs of this proorrty created tho existint neviget;le inlut, the s•eel bul'kheadcl jetty to protrrt the inlet, and maint,•nan-P drP+i,;inv to KePD the inlet op-n. Without Yuunr's boatyard and its previous owners efforts ant! expanses, tho S%re Basin would not Exist, ncr its inl-t and prot—five iotty. Yet the Young's botityard and Marina taxabl- underwater property (Sac- basin, hrinr man made, is not town waters but man-made taxable p^aoerty) ar)rnxinately �.7 acres or 2'1% of a total of 15.6 a-res n' SRv- vasin. It could be argued that the YounP's boatyard and Farina property owners over the years are solely rasnonsihlo for the existen^e or the ontire Sage basin. Yet, many oth-r vroprrt7 owners benefit new anti have benefited from Young's minority hnldina and maintenance. For Fronomir reasons fixed dot:ks wore created along shallow bars extended into the marina frnm which clay drpdainR took place before the basin flooding. Boat slins were created in th- deeper water to the sides of the fixed walking docks. The existing dock layout allows inefficient oven spaces dictated by thst location of those :,Ivy bars. With ressonebl-i dredaina and a more effirient dock lavcut, room -ould be mad- for up to CMA more boa's (than tho ql existing). It is understand tt,at this additional dorkagn is .nraly n—d-d in our township. .And const imoortan', these additional sl;us would b^ orovldPd wi•hin the property borders of an existing marina which has had Narina •Lonine undor the 3-63 Jauttd� .h pJbMU� •UUIIU .aip}suo:, Jrct,B &UjA nuk Kubys *Uvussta% 'JW ;do;;Xj slia ayl Jeodao Ul posnjdJ aney uuSi; •JK [y palae;uoJ 119 •utsba 4118S uU sJduwc elJdd;,Jd Jaylo ql{'I pey and 6uUI.bsJ,nuJJ J.rd pue —:i .1% up AW o_ 'bcllJb� 6,11unJn Joh SI -q dyl .sudJ(,- Ll uu -,.4 •JW ::1 p.•..► fuc J -0444 duvp •bulJC.4 6,:11'CUZ jU 6.1iwAv y::nd pue U."; •J.: -y. �0 V�JO�jd Hyl J.6 l J JJ.I�b ui a�q �jb r p,4-4 tin SJ-ilj%u /i.J .�l�i..d ;suy •9414ciuid d44 p.,avii..1na J .t:rc: lI1Js.,Ja •+410 u.+l�h w�{J{ �� J•+;JG A.:OJJ;UJ JuluoL M{kCri►t QUI .UJ4Z — �� Sa33NION3 ONainsNoo 113MOOB ONV NOSd3CN3H L HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS PUBLIC HEARING RECONVENED from FEBRUARY 25, 1986 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD APRIL 8„ 1986 8:00 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM "C" TO"M-1" AT SAGE BOULEVARD, GREENPORT. Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councilman James A. Schondebare Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran Councilman George L. Penny IV Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker SUPERVISOR MURPHY: I would like to open the public hearing. This is a reconvened public hearing with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of Southport Development. Original hearing was held on February 25th, 1986 and recessed until today. Now, is there anyone here would like to speak? Any representatives of Southport Development? LYNNE M. CORDON, Attorney, firm of Conforti, Gordon, Reale L Shenn: We are the attorneys for Southport Development and I'll be pleased to yield the floor and listen to the other comments and then 1 will comment on those comments. Thank you. t SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay. Is there anyone else would like to speak on behalf of the applicant? (No response.) Is there anyone would like to make any comments at all on this Draft Environmental Impact Statement? Sir, go ahead. JOHN SHEA, Attorney, firm of Twomey, Latham, Shea L Kelley, Riverhead and East Hampton, New York: We represent Henry Weisman and Frank Flynn. As you may know, our firm has filed comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and we have also riled comments on the Addendum to the Draft. 1 believe you received our most recent set of comments on March 26th, 1986. Without repeating a great deal of what we've said in those comments, I decided it would be most beneficial to the Board to hear perhaps from one of the experts that helped prepare those comments, Lawrence Penny, who's an Environmental Planner for the Town of East Hampton, and is acting on behalf tonight, on behalf of Nr. Weisman and Mr. Flynn. I had prepared this in a question and answer format with Mr. Penny and I don't know the best way to do this since we have one microphone. Mr. Penny, could you give your address. LAWRENCE PENNY, Environmental Consultant: 450 Noyack Ruad, Sag Harbor, New York. 3-65 HENDERSON AND 130DWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 2 - Southport 161R. SHEA: And how are you employed? MR. PENNY: 1 am the Environmental Protection Director of the Town of East Hampton. MR. SHEA. Could you give your background and education as an Environmental Planner? MR. PENNY: Yes, I have a Masters degree in Biological Sciences and have been a consultant in biological analysis, biological reports and many other technical areas that have to do with planning, and have been Environmental Planner for the Town of East Hampton approximately a year, and since that time I've been the Environ- mental Protection Director for the Town of East Hampton. MR. SHEA: And you reviewed, did you not, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on)this project, as well as the Addendum to that Draft? MR. PENNY: Yes, 1 reviewed both. MR. SHEA: Right. In reviewing the Draft and the Addendum, could you explain your rating of the quality of those sections dealing with wildlife and vegetation at the proposed site? MR. PENNY: Well, in terms of wildlife, it happens to be one of my areas of greatest expertise. The original DEIS was very deficient and the Addendum had some informa tion based on a relatively superficial look at the wildlife in the Cove area, on the upland area, and--- MR. SHEA. When you say, "superficial look at the wildlife", what do you mean? MR. PENNY: Well, the sampling for shellfish, for example, was done at an in- appropriate time, a few days at the end of January, beginning of February, and 1 believe there's actually a one day sampling for say clams, other bivalves, and if you were to do the appropriate sampling, and that's why it should have been done earlier when the DEIS was written, you'd do it at a time when most of these species were accessible. For example, the DEIS Addendum says there's no blue crabs present in that site, and you don't sample for blue crabs in the end of January, middle of winter, and other species--it says there's no bay scallops on the site, and we all know that bay scallops, this past year, suffered dramatic population decreases and are absent from many small bodies of waters, coves and creeks, embayments on both the north and the south forks because of the mystery algae bloom. In general I find it hard to believe that one days sampling would turn up three hard clams in the sampling areas when I know that the bottom type is suitable for hard clams and I have communication evidence from baymen that work those waters that they do produce hard clams in that type of sampling. In terms of the waterfowl, the Addendum does identify black duck, mallards, and so forth, and my two visits identified several other waterfowl species, and also black crown night herons, great blue herons--- AIR. SHEA: Mr. Penny, you were talking about the baymen before. Du commercial fishermen actually uae this cove? AIR. PENNY: Commercial f6hermen do use that cove. AIR. SHEA. Based on your research and knowledge of the area, what tl.tecies would you expect to find at the site? 3-66 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 3 - Southport MR. PENNY. What shellfish species or what species? MR. SHEA: Start with shellfish. MR. PENNY: First of all, it's suitable habitat for a variety of shellfish because it's protected waters. It has a fresh water influx, therefore it would make it a very good habitat for say bringing up scallops--starting scallops, bringing them up. Hard clams, oysters should do well there. They like--especially oysters like a little brackish water, and also the more fresh the surface waters--the few the starfish predators. We all know that starfish predaceous is becoming a very big problem again in Peconic/Cardiners systems, and these little coves are ideal bodies of water for not only catching shellfish, but also for breeding shellfish-- natural stock. MR. SHEA: What other species? What other shellfish species would you find here? MR. PENNY: It depends upon the season, of course, and the year, because certain years are more--like in bay scallops--are more prolific than other years. MR. SHEA: Would you expect to find blue crabs? MR. PENNY: Well, 1 had never seen a blue crab in there, because 1 haven't been there at the appropriate time, but I have, again, had hearsay evidence from people who have used the cove, that there are blue crabs there. I would expect to find blue crabs there, yes. MR. SHEA: All right, yes. What I'm asking you is knowing the habitat, you've studied the habitat--- MR. PENNY: It's good habitat for blue crabs. MR. SHEA: What is this good habitat--what other species is this good habitat for? MR. PENNY. American eel, which is a very important commercial species. Several fish species, especially big fish species. AIR. SHEA: Winter flounder? AIR. PENNY: Winter flounder would be in a situation like that. Would even breed in a situation like that. MR. SHEA: And what did the DEIS conclude in terms of wildlife? AIR. PENNY: Well, in terms of the shellfisheries, it was very negative, based on the three hard clams and a few other bits--odds and ends. As far as the waterfowl is concerned they--- MR. SHEA: Well, before we go on to waterfowl, is your analysis of the site in agreement or disagreement with the DEIS? AIR. PENNY: Oh, it's in disagreement, because 1 think there's more there then has been presented, and it's got--it's not a bad habitat. It's a good habitat for shellfish, so obviously we're in disagreement. AIR. SHEA: Now the DEIS concludes that the project will increase the availability of shellfish in the cove. What is your assessment of that conclusion? 3-67 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 4 - Southport MR. PENNY: Well, I'm not quite sure what anaylsis that's based on. It would be my experience that in those kinds of situations where you have intense shore- side development that not only the diversity of the shellfish goes down, but the individuals. Numbers of particular species population tends to go down. It depends upon the intensity, but we're talking about fairly intense use here. So it would be hard for me to say there was any kind of evidence that would suggest that the shellfishery in themselves would be enhanced by development of this kind. MR. SHEA: Well, based on your review of the project, what do you believe would be the impact of this project as proposed upon the shellfish? MR. PENNY: Well, it's very intense situation. Here we have three intense uses. Eighty-two units, a large marina--expanded marina, and a restaurant, and other services, accommodations and so forth, boat accommodations, maybe some minor repair. That kind of thing. It's very intense and 1 would say that the--in terms of several impacts from the proposed development. The quality of the water and the quality of the--and diversity of the wildlife--would go down considerably. MR. SHEA: All right. I'm addressing now specifically shellfish. What would be the impact of this project,as proposed,on the shellfish in the area? MR. PENNY: In terms of probability the impacts would not be good, because of the--first of all the great amount of water--wastewater to be generated and enter the basin. MR. SHEA: The DEIS said that the project would increase the availability of shellfish. MR. PENNY: 1 don't believe that it would, first of all. Okay? MR. SHEA: Do you believe it would--so you don't believe it would increase the shellfish? MR. PENNY: 1 can't see how it could, no. MR. SHEA: Do you believe it would decrease the shellfish. MR. PENNY: I believe that it would tend to decrease the number--tend to decrease their spawning. Yes, those kind of things. MR. SHEA: The DEIS addressed the question of surface water quality, and as did the Addendum. Do you know what records were used for that analysis? MR. PENNY: Well, the Addendum provided the first evidence we've seen on the surface water quality. Those three tests--three different days of coliform days presumably gathered by the DEC, and run in their labs under controlled conditions, and what we'd like to know, but we don't have, and we asked for, was more data. Data that would be--that we could see that would associate with a more peak time. It is interesting that one of the--a couple of the coliform values, in fact, exceeded the limits--were very high for total coliform. They were 240 in January. That's rather unusual unless you already have--- MR. SHEA: Why is that unusual? MR. PENNY. Well, because in January activities that were uses, and most canes you see that the --that the level of coliform contamination is relatively strongly 3-68 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 5 - Southport coincident with the Increased activity around the water. MR. SHEA. And what occurs in the summer? MR. PENNY: In almost all cases you have heightened coliform values where you have intense use around the surface water. MR. SHEA: So what impact would this complex as proposed, this project as proposed, have on the coliform counts in this cove? MR. PENNY: As far as I can see they could not help but go up. So--- MR. SHEA: Why is that? MR. PENNY: Because of the added impact. We're talking about something on the order of 15,000 or more gallons per day of effluent, including boat wastes, or else we're talking about the possibility of clean-out--pump-out station, 1 appreciate that. We're talking about the surface runoff from activities, and so forth. We're talking about swimming pool use. We're talking about a lot of intense use and area that has a very high water table. It's going to see a lot of that effluent is going to go right into the cove. Whether It goes in in one day, or whether it goes in in a few days. Okay? And it's been my experience--I've looked at a lot of these kinds of situations that coliform values go up in those kinds of circumstances. I've very rarely seen--in fact I have never seen one case where they go down, or where they remain the same in developed areas. MR. SHEA: Would you please explain your review of the analysis of the--1'm going to rephrase that--the DEIS makes certain statements about the ability of the cove to flush itself. Would you explain to the Board your view of that--those statements? MR. PENNY: Well, this cove--if you look at this cove and you look at the topography of the cove and you look at the way it's shaped and so forth, look at its inlet, it-- there's a constriction there. They're going to dredge the constriction--make it a little deeper--the inlet and so forth. A small embayment like that, a small cove, has very limited flushing. It has a very long, extended turnover time. Giving an example: the turnover time at say Northwest Harbor they think--which is not a cove, which is out south of Shelter Island and north of East Hampton and bounded by North Haven on the west and Cedar Point on the east, with no inlets. It's an open body of water with constrictions--about 23 days they figure the turnover. Latest calculations. We're talking about many, many more than a few months to actually turnover all the water in a small cove like this. So it has limited flushing compared to open bodies of water and the little bit we can do in terms of dredging to enhance that flushing is going to make it very small amounts difference, really. MR. SHEA: The DEIS included certain comments by a Mr. Redman of DEC. Do you have any views about those comments? MR. PENNY: Well, 1 know Jim Redman very well. Work with him all the time in the town and I don't think it appropriate to use a remark, which 1 think is out of context--- MR. SHEA: Why do you--explain why you think it's out of context. MR. PENNY: Because the remark refers to the Bay and does not refer to the cove, and that refers to the Bay, not the inshore edge of the Bay, but the outer part of the Bay. Obviously the outer part of the Bay is fairly well flushed. 3-69 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 6 - Southport MR. SHEA: Given the level of tidal flushing in the cove and the geography of the cove, do you have an opinion as to whether the type of use,as proposed, is appropriate? Based, again, on the tidal flushing and geography of the cove? MR. PENNY: Well, again, I'm going to say that this cove is going to be asked to accommodate on the order of five to ten thousand gallons a day of a effluent. We don't really know much of this effluent is going to flow into the cove, because we don't have any tough surface flow data, but it looks like, as far as I can see, that the bulk of that effluent is really going to flow towards the cove, and con- sequently a much smaller use would produce much smaller amount of effluent and would have much dramatic--much less dramatic impacts and would be more flushable, but I would say any one of these three uses perchance safely mitigated would have an impact that could be mitigated, but I don't see how you're going to mitigate these three intense uses taken together with some other uses that are a little bit ambiguous at this point. MR. SHEA: On your inspection of the site, did you see any waterfowl or other-- or water birds? MR. PENNY: Yes, 1 did. MR. SHEA: Could you explain to the Board what you saw? MR. PENNY: Red breasted mergansers (?), scup, porgy scup, black crown night herons, great blue herons, buffelhead, about four different species of diving ducks, which means that they're in there--they were diving, by the way. So they're in there feeding on things on the bottom. The diving ducks eat the ? little fishes, ? vegetation when they can't find those species. About tweni—y-five of these diving ducks on both occasions. They weren't all there on the two occasions that I visited. MR. SHEA: Now would you rate the population levels in terms of the waterfowl? MR. PENNY: I think it's a very good habitat for waterfowl and for water birds. Good habitat because a lot of the edge has not been disturbed. There's still a lot of wooded edge along that body of water. There are shallows where they can dive and feed, you know, with fairly high visibility. Would be good for dabbling ducks, mallards and black ducks that were mentioned in the Addnedum to the DEIS. I could see black ducks actually breeding in an area like that, and certainly mallards. MR. SHEA. Did you list--a moment ago you listed water birds or waterfowl? MR. PENNY: Waterfowl and a few water birds. MR. SHEA: And a few water birds. What other birds did you see at the site, or would you expect to see at this habitat, based on your study of the habitat? MR. PENNY: Well, you probably at one time or another would have just about every single waterfowl that uses the Peconic system, flies over it and so forth. You would have in addition to black crown night herons, great blue herons. You would have ? herons, and you would have some egrets, casual egrets. 1 don't think they would breed in that vicinity. Ospreys would dive into the cove from time to time and take a fish or something. I don't think there are any ospreys breeding on the periphery or in that immediate area. You would have several different kinds of shore birds at times moving through. Not a lot of the ocean ? by any means, 3-70 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 7 - Southport but you would have individuals working around the shore - yellow legs, those kind of shore birds. MR. SHEA: And how would you rate the quality of the habitat for those birds? MR. PENNY: Well, it's particularly good for diving ducks because of the benthic habitat and it's not bad for herons because of the availability of big fishes and the shallows and so forth. I'm not too sure it would be terrific for shore birds, but it could accommodate some. MR. SHEA: What would this project do, specifically in terms of the quality of the habitit, for those birds? MR. PENNY: Well, it's hard to say, except that this intense use again, during the peak time. It would not be friendly to almost any water birds--perchance mute swans which seems to take kindly to humans and occasionally mallard ducks, but in general this kind of use, this kind of area with lack of protection--you're going to have boats going--120 or more boats going back and forth all the time, or sitting there and sometimes radios and lights and daytime activity, nighttime activity, swimmin pool, tennis courts maybe. I'm not sure. Cars coming and out, you know? All that kind of stuff adds up and it would devalue this habitat value, you know? This water- fowl value, water bird value considerably. MR. SHEA: The DEIS concluded that there would be an increased diversity in the wildlife population by improving habitat. Do you agree with that conclusion? MR. PENNY: Well, it's hard for me to see how they're going to increase the diversity of say the waterfowl. You have a fairly high diversity there now. 1 think what they may mean is you may get a few more land birds, cardinals, mocking- birds, those kinds of things, because of some horticultural planting kind of thing. I dolt see anything in that DEIS, or the Addendum that speaks of--that will actually result in the increase in the diversity of wildfowl--wildlife in general. 1 don't see that. MR. SHEA: The DEIS makes some statements about the impact of septic waste from the project on the quality of ground and surface waters. Do you have an opinion as to those conclusions in the DEIS and the Addendum. The Addendum addresses that issue, septic waste, as well. MR. PENNY: Well, 1 think even the--I think the DEIS and the Addendum admits that the so-called denitrification system will only take out nitrates and presumably most of the coliforms. It says it doesn't take out the chemicals and there are a lot of chemicals associated with these kinds of uses, as you know. And the question of viruses moving underneath the ground is very interesting here, because we know that work that's been done the last few years has shown that viruses migrate through soils, depending upon the soil consistency, quality and so forth, great distances. MR. SHEA: Stopping there for a moment. The denitrification system to which you refer, does that protect surface and ground water, or not? MR. PENNY: To a limited degree. If it works well--if it works well. If it works properly. AIR. SHEA. Right. My question was just--protect both surface and groundwater? AIR. PENNY: It was designed to protect groundwater. That's why the denitrification 3-71 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 8 - Southport system came into existence, to protect groundwater in areas where you had high density and you didn't have sewage treatment facility, you didn't have the avail- ability of the sewage treatment pipes, you know, going to a centralized plant, and you had very high density and because of this high density you begin to exceed the nitrate levels, which is ten milligrams per liter. Therefore the groundwater would not be drinkable down gradient, or on site. MR. SHEA: Would there still be a significant amount of effluent from this project? MR. PENNY: There's a great deal of effluent from this project. MR. SHEA: And would it have a significant impact? MR. PENNY: It would have--in my way of thinking it would have a very big impact, yes. MR. SHEA: And would you describe that impact. MR. PENNY: Well, you have to keep in mind that a motel, and especially extensive one, and one that might become, who knows--you know, bought units and so forth, and a restaurant. All sorts of health codes that are involved here. All parts of the health code--the New York State Health Code and Suffolk Sanitary Code--in terms of keeping them clean. So they have to use a lot of cleaners. Restaurants have to use a variety of chemicals to keep them clean. They're inspected routinely by Suffolk County Health Services inspectors. Okay? There are a lot of chemicals that are associated with maintaining grounds, and maintaining swimming pools. I know, 1 deal with them all the time in the town. Several chemicals. Chemicals that you would not put on your skin, like methylene chloride, and so forth. There are a lot chemicals that have to do with maintaining boats. Granted this isn't going to be a boatyard as such, but 1 remind the Board about triabucile (?), for example, which is the most common preservative paint--bottom paint, which the EPA is think- ing of banning because it's so toxic to shellfish and so forth. You're going to have a lot of boat chemicals around. You also have an occasional petroleum leak, or petroleum chemical getting into the surface water. You have--I mean there's a whole bunch of chemicals here that in addition to the bacterial stuff they're worried about, that the DEIS does not address. It does say that the chemicals aren't taken out by the system. MR. SHEA: By the way, would you explain your experience with wastewater management in the Town? MR. PENNY: Yes, I'm in charge, in terms of one aspect of our scavenger waste treatment plant. I work with a--we have a scavenger waste treatment like Southold has, and we've been told that we better keep that plant in very good shape in terms of what goes into it, because we don't want to kill the cultures. I've worked with the scavenger waste lagoons now, which there are four of. 1 work with septic systems. I work with the Suffolk County Health Services. We have a standard in Southold Town of ISO feel from--I mean East Hampton Town, of 150 feet from surface water, so Suffolk County has a standard of 100, so I have to make sure that we're getting 150 feet from leaching pools to surface waters and have to keep Suffolk County Health Services on their guard in that respect, because frankly we've been losing too many of our waters. MR. SHEA: Mr. Penny, turning your attention again to the denitrification system, does the proposed denitrification system take out the chemicals you referred to? 3-72 L. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 9 - Southport MR. PENNY: Doesn't take out. MR. SHEA: Does it take our the viruses which affect shellfish? MR. PENNY: It's never been demonstrated it takes out the viruses. MR. SHEA: Does it take our bacteria? MR. PENNY: In the sense that it works like a conventional leach pool system it takes out, I would say, most of the bacteria. MR. SHEA: How much--what percentage of the nitrates does it remove? MR. PENNY: When it's working there's various figures. I think a ballpark figure Is somewhere between twenty-five and thirty percent. You have to keep this thing tuned, however. It has to be charged. It has to be inspected every once in a while to make sure that things are working, because it depends upon a biological culture process. MR. SHEA: So if there's a mistake in maintenance it may not even remove twenty-five to thirty percent? MR. PENNY: That's true. It would then work like a normal septic system really. MR. SHEA: All right, so then the denitrification system only denitrifies, and it only does that up to a figure of about thirty percent. MR. PENNY: It depends upon it again. 1 suppose it could exceed that on occasion. It depends on a lot of things--temperature of the system, how it's working, the state of the culture. You have sulphur and limestone and the quantity of those, the ratio of those. MR. SHEA: Generally if the system is in tuned it will remove only about thirty percent--twenty-five to thirty percent? MR. PENNY: That's the figure we hear. MR. SHEA: Do you have an opinion of the analysis in the DEIS about the uses of chemicals at the site? MR. PENNY: There is very little analysis. What they do says is because of the use, ? use, there will be less--fewer chemicals. I find that hard to believe and there are other uses that would ? your chemicals of this use. MR. SHEA: Does it provide an accurate estimate of the boat use--the use of boat maintenance? MR. PENNY: They don't have any figures on how--to what degree the boats are being maintained. They'll have to be washed down--- MR. SHEA. There's nothing in the Addendum or the DEIS on that? MR. PENNY. No. MR. SHEA: Does it say anything about restaurant cleaners? 3-13 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 10 - Southport MR. PENNY: No. MR. SHEA: Does it say anything about pest control agents? MR. PENNY: No. MR. SHEA: Does it say anything about treatment chemicals for the dwelling units? MR. PENNY: No. MR. SHEA: What about pool chemicals and turf management chemicals? MR. PENNY: Nothing. It does say that limit turf so that there will be low use of fertilizers. MR. SHEA: How would these, according to your review of the project, how would these chemicals be disposed of? MR. PENNY: Well, any chemicals that either go underground in that area, or are on top of the ground, are going to find their way--because the water table, the way it flows, are going to find their way into the neighboring surface waters, and they're not going to be degraded on the,way, because things don't get degraded-- 1 mean they do slightly, but there's very little bacterial activity underneath the soil. MR. SHEA: So they'll either be effluent or run-off. MR. PENNY: Yes. MR. SHEA: What would be the impact of that run-off or effluent of those chemicals that we just discussed? MR. PENNY: It will tend to degrade the qualify of the surface waters--of the cove and of the nearby inshore Bay waters. MR. SHEA: Did you review the DEIS analysis or representations concerning the drainage and run-off at the site? MR. PENNY: Well, the DEIS and Addendum continually refers to a zero storm water management plan, but we really don't have any idea how that works, and 1 have some very strong reservations about the plan here, not knowing how it works, but I know that--- MR. SHEA: Was the plan disclosed? MR. PENNY: Not really. It was mentioned as a concept on several pages. MR. SHEA: So it was mentioned as a concept, but the specifics of the plan were never disclosed? MR. PENNY: Right. MR. SHEA: So, going back to what you said before, it's your conclusion that all of these--all of this run-off and effluent will end up in the surface waters eventually? MR. PENNY: Eventually it will end up in the surface waters. Some of it will evaporate. 3-7* HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 11 - Southport MR. SHEA: Can you do an environmental review, as is required in a Draft EIS, or the Addendum, without the drainage plan? MR. PENNY: Well, 1 would say these three intense uses on this site, and the elevation of the site with respect to floodplain, with respect groundwater, water table, with respect to its proximity to wetlands behind it on one side and the cove and Bay waters on the other side, 1 would say that the drainage plan is absolutely crucial to mitigation. I'm not so sure that you could actually design a drainage plan that would mitigate all three uses to the degree that they should be mitigated, however. MR. SHEA: But it is feasible then without it to do a proper environmental review? MR. PENNY: I most certainly would say that you'd have to have something about how that plan is working, yes. Fairly--you know, a few pages and some good engineering. MR. SHEA: What would be the impact on the surface waters of the run-off that we've been discussing? And 1'd ask you to address the ? coliform 7, mosquito control chemicals, etc. MR. PENNY: Something that hasn't been mentioned here, but when you do bring up--when you have 82 units and then others on boats and restaurant and so forth, and there's got to be mosquitos in those wetlands back there. You're going to have to--there's going to be a hue and cry for accelerated mosquito control. It's like now, the County is using BTI, but they do use some hard pesticides, nybalm(?) and so forth, foggers, and they would like to use abate(?) again, and abate is ? to shellfish and so forth, but anyway in terms of--an exterminator can come in with the proper license and spray the place, but I don't know of any place like this that doesn't get sprayed routinely, especially during the summer when pests are such a problem. There has always been carpenter ants and termites and a whole bunch of control. So all these things are going--again 1 repeat it--1'm going to repeat it again--all of them are going to end up in the water at one time. You know, like the chloridane has. MR. SHEA: And again, what's the impact of that ending up in the water? MR. PENNY: The impact is the loss of reproductivity of the shellfish. Loss of the water quality for certain fishes. The fish just wouldn't reproduce in the area and so forth. Certain plankton are susceptible to these chemicals. Just a general degradation of the water qualify for all the highest uses. MR. SHEA: All right, shifting gears now, what's your assessment, as an environ- mental planner, of the impact--what's your assessment,as an environmental planner, of the access to the site? MR. PENNY: Well, 1 don't necessarily agree with the traffic study, because it says there's not going to be any traffic impact. I think there certainly is a traffic impact. It's--talking about a restaurant, 82 units, 20 employees coming back and forth, day trips and so forth, and whereas 1 haven't done any traffic analysis on my own, because I'm not really a traffic analyst, but an environmental planner would consider that. First of all, the expansion of the road that would be required here is certainly going to have some kind of impact on those wetlands behind that area, because to accommodate the kind of traffic that we're going to be looking at here, we certainly need a road that is safe in terms of the traffic coming in and out and also for heavy vehicles, you know, garbage trucks and other surface vehicles. 3-75 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 12 - Southport MR. SHEA: So the sixteen foot right-of-way is insufficient? MR. PENNY: 1 don't think the fifteen foot will meet Southold Codes. I'm not an expert on Southold Codes. There is a subdivision which is around--there's a sketch plan for a subdivision in the immediate area and I think that the road would have to be brought up to the specs of the subdivision. MR. SHEA: Do you have an opinion of the sufficiency of the water supply for the site? MR. PENNY: For the sufficiency of the water supply? MR. SHEA: Yes. MR. PENNY: Well, I--- MR. SHEA: 1 refer you to the Greenport--- MR. PENNY: Right. MR. SHEA: ---supply. MR. PENNY: Well, I've read all that about the Greenport Water District having all that water and so forth, but I will have to remind the Board that I have a report in my briefcase, it's the Suffolk County Groundwater Resources Draft Management Plan--or the Management Plan Draft of it, and it walks about Southold public water supply and Southold has eight wells that are poor. Two that are marginal. 1 think one that is good, and four that are what they call ambient, which is the best quality. So it has the worst public water well record of any Town in Suffolk County, and that is not only to do with nitrates, but nitrates is a problem. It has the second highest nitrate problem in Suffolk County, behind Huntington. It also has aldicarb problems, proper ? problems, and so forth. It has a bunch of problems. I'm not their water planner, but I would say it's not necessarily good water planning to just look the other way and say, yes, we have enough there. We have enough volume perchance, but I'm not so sure that we have the proper water quality. MR. SHEA: Would you address the alternative section of the DEIS? MR. PENNY: Just address it for the Board? Well, 1 know the alternatives lack-- first of all the whole thrust of this thing is to get away from commercial use here, but there are commercial uses that could be--I'm not so sure in terms of their profit-making ability--but there are commercial uses that are necessary polluting, and I think it was a tittle bit of a sham to say that all commercial uses are polluting. I think that given a good high quality marina in itself was not really explored in detail in terms of its feasibility financially. Okay, but that would be--that alternative has been looked at by people who have looked at it superficially. MR. SHEA: Is it possible that such an alternative would be less destructive to the site? MR. PENNY: There are several alternatives that would be less destructive for the site, yes. And 1 think a good high-quality marina would be--absent these two other high intense uses associated with it. 3-16 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 13 - Southport MR. SHEA: Did the DEIS or Addendum present adequate economic data to support the conclusions reached by the drafters? MR. PENNY: Well, I will say that they used, 1 think, a Napa Valley study-- multiplier study, which 1 find to be a little bit out of place here, whereas there are local studies. There are Suffolk County Planning studies, Long Island Regional Planning Board studies. You have a situation here where it's hard to translate from Napa Valley, which is a wine growing area, to a marina area where almost all of the services are going to be provided right there, and it's hard to take that multiplier from California and apply it to this situation here. This very local situation. Very different kinds of economic parameters. MR. SHEA: The Draft EIS and Addendum address--talk about the dredging that's proposed for the project. What would be the impacts of the dredging as proposed? MR. PENNY: Dredging can be beneficial and it can be deleterious. One of the things I was thinking about is the bottom. We have a lot of clay out there. Now if we dredge the silt, or the silt from the sand, the few things that the shellfish are living in it releases clay, well, obviously we're taking away good shellfish habitat, because clay is not good shellfish habitat in itself. You have to have some kind of loose sediments on top of it to make a good habitat. On the other hand, by dredging you increase flushing, which helps to decrease water quality problems to a certain degree. Dredging has to be done carefully. One of the problems here too is not only that you might remove the best part of the benthic habitat, because when you dredge out--you know, dredge sand out over sand you still have sand underneath to repopulate. Okay? Well, sometimes you dredge muds away which are noxious and you still have good substrates underneath to be repopulated again. Here we've got this spoil we don't really know that much about it. We see some bottom crabs. It's very questionable that we can use this spoil upland for all the things that they think you can use it for. For wetland plantings, because it doesn't seem to have the proper quality as far as I can see. Also it's loaded with metals, and it would just run off again if you put the stuff upland the metals would leach out and go right back up in the basin, and so forth. 1 don't think it's appropriate for that spoil for that site to do all the things they want to do with it. MR. SHEA: Based on your review of the DEIS and Addendum please tell the Board what your opinion is about the scope of the project. MR. PENNY: 1 think I said this before. I think it's too ambitious for the size of the upland parcel, keeping in mind it's surrounded by wetlands and surface waters, and the limited access. MR. SHEA: And based on your review of the Addendum and Draft EIS, what is your view of the information provided for the adequacy of the information provided in those two documents. MR. PENNY: 1 would like to see more information obviously. We don't have enough information on the sediment that would be dredged. There's displacement. We don't have the zero stormwater management plan. We don't know how the groundwater is flowing underneath, because we don't have any test wells. We do see some questionable--we see two corings there that shows the water table about seven feet higher than one and another, and they're only a hundred feet apart. Something's going on there. If we're going to put a denitrification plant in here we want to--we really have to know what we're doing. We have to have good substrates, you know. Those kinds of things are missing. Would like to see 3-77 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 14 - Southport what the coliforms look like in the--later on in the season when we have some more active use, and I would like to see a better shellfish analysis. MR. SHEA: Last, turning your attention to--there is a section in the Draft EIS, and a section in the Addendum which compares--where it was set forth purported benefits as well as impacts of various aspects of the project. If you could first turn to the Addnedum, to the sheets from the Addendum, and those sheets are page 54 to 55, 56, and focus in on the key impacts--the purported beneficial impacts, and explain your disagreement or agreement with those particular beneficial impacts. MR. PENNY: Well, first then the soil. I'm not so sure--they don't talk about removing the benthic soil which I find to be very important. MR. SHEA: If you could address your comments to the Board. MR. PENNY: Yes, excuse me. So I would say there is an adverse impact. They say none, but I would say removing the benthic soil might be an adverse impact here. Topography--creating an aesthetically pleasing land forms--I'm not so sure you're going to be--you have to build jup that site and so I'm not so sure how you're going to create an aesthetically pleasing land form on that site. Granted right now it's disturbed and something could be done with it to make it more aesthetic, but I'm not so sure that this is going to make it any more aesthetic from what I've seen thus far. The groundwater--beneficial impact they say is upgrading of existing sanitary system. I think they're talking about---- MR. SHEA: Moving back for a second. There's a statement about a sero run-off storm water management system. That's on page 54. MR. PENNY: Oh, right, we talked about that. It could be a beneficial aspect if we could do it here. I'm not so sure we could do it, personally, because of the high water table, the substrates. The limited amount of land and the fact that we are so close to surface waters and wetlands on both sides. MR. SHEA: Is there any basis in either of the documents you reviewed for that conclusion? MR. PENNY: No. Not at all. MR. SHEA: Moving on to the upgrading of existing sanitary--- MR. PENNY: It says the groundwater will have a beneficial impact upgrading the existing sanitary system, and I think what we're doing here is we're see a sub- stitution of a system that's going to handle 15,000 gallons per day--a day not a substitution for a system that's designed to handle four or five hundred gallons per day. That is not a quid pro quo trade-off. I don't see that's a beneficial impact. We're talking about upgrading the existing sanitary system that would be a beneficial impact obviously. Okay? Surface waters--they talk about planting vegetation to capture the gasoline leaks and other leaks of other petroleum products. 1 happen to just come back from Oil Spill School in Galveston, Texas A S M and believe me, that gasoline runs right through that vegetation. Vegetation does not capture gasoline and other ? I don't think that would work. You might stabilise the land. That would be nice. MR. SHEA: How about vegetation. Installation of buffer areas? 3-78 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 15 - Southport MR. PENNY: Well, that certainly would help in terms of erosion. Stabilization of areas, but I'm reluctant to sacrifice 7,000 feet of high marsh and intertidal marsh to produce more marsh. 1 think it's going to be very difficult to produce here because of the steep sidingness of the areas, and it's not an area that easily lends itself to marsh production and I would like to save the existing marsh firstly, and maybe add to it. MR. SHEA: And then under wildlife there is a purported beneficial impact of increased diversity. MR. PENNY: Again I think I talked about that earlier. How we could increase the diversity, increase the quality of wildlife habitat here by doing what we're doing. MR. SHEA: Moving to the Draft EIS, pages 28 through--28 and 29, could you address some of the beneficial impacts on those pages? MR. PENNY: Some of these are the same. I think it's interesting to--28 here where it talks about wildlife again, increased diversity by improving habitat. 1 don't think we're going necessarily increase diversity and are limited in what kind of habitat we can add here, because the use--the coverage of that site is such that it limits us greatly. The temporary loss of 7,000 square fee of high marsh IM is not going to be compensated for by planting along the edge buffer dune vegetation and so forth. All of those there I don't see any benefit in the whole area. Removal of undesirable species. I'm not so sure what they mean there. Maybe the phragmities, but phragmities can be desirable and does serve a lot of purpose in erosion control and so forth and filtration and so forth. Poison Ivy, maybe. 1 don't know. I just see that all these benefits are not carefully thought out and a lot of them are very ? MR. SHEA: All right, thank you, Mr. Penny. Members of the Board, you already have received Mr. Penny's curriculum vitae. 1 believe that was submitted with his original submission. It outlines his many years of work in this area. The original Draft EIS had some serious problems and they were to be corrected in the Addendum. I think after you review our written comments submitted by my partner Christopher Kelley, who could not be here tonight, Frederick Reuter, a land use planner, and the written comments as well of Mr. Penny, you'll see that the Addendum did not rectify the problems that were found by not only our experts but the many other people who--several other people, including the Szepatowski group--the problems that were in the original Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We believe the Draft is still inadequate, but more important it's pretty clear that this project is going to have some very serious impacts and before the Board goes any further with this, significant new information has to be developed along the lines that Mr. Penny layed out tonight. I thank you for your patience. I know this is fairly tedious material for you to have to--for you to sit through. 1 appreciate your patience and your time. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to speak on this matter? Ruth? RUTH OLIVA, North Fork Environmental Council: We'd just like to support every- thing that has been written or stated tonight in opposition to the Addendum and to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. One just point of information, we have the same problem here as we had this afternoon with the water filters, in that you give certain specifications to the Board of Health for say the water filter, or in this case the denitrification system, and the Board of Health will approve it, 3-79 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 16 - Southport but there is not one shred of date on Long Island as to the reliability of this system, except in the experimental project. Just keep that in mind. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Anyone else like to make a comment to the Board? INGEBORG FLYNN, Southold: I'm a realtor and appraiser for the past seventeen years. 1 have passed the--successfully the courses of the SRA in residential appraisal and income appraisal, and I'm a member at the moment of the Eastern Board of Realtors. 1 was a member of the Long Island Board of Realtors, and ? for Suffolk County, and a member of many committees. I'm a director for the State of New York, including land use and fair housing and their legislative committee. 1 also have studied these aspects and 1 would like to talk to the application of--one aspect of the application which has been largely overlooked and 1 refer to the economic factors involved in the applicant's attempt to interpret them as justification for a change of zoning. I don't have to point out the functions of the Board and we have heard in that point of testimony from Mr. Penny here, and I can go over this, but I would like to say that in contradiction of all these policies from the Town and of course the Town policies in protecting the wetlands 1 think that the application for the subject property, with an 82 unit motel and 138 slip marina and 125 seat restaurant, a bar and accessory uses, including tennis court and pool, I think this application must be viewed in the light of a spot zoning, since the property alone in accordance with the surrounding properties would yield three residential ? There's a population density of about 12 people, rather than hundreds who would be expected to occupy this particular piece of property in peak time. It's a part of the outrageous attempt to the intensified use of the property to a degree that it destroys, of course, the values of the surrounding wetlands and residential property. The applicant claims on page 6S of the Addendum, the economic and feasibility of a marina alone. In my opinion as an appraiser, the applicant uses ? a land residual approach, displays either a complete ignorance of appraiser techniques in general, or the economics of a marina operation, particularly, or it presents an attempt to mislead all of us to the true value of the subject property as currently improved. The land residual technique used is really a quite simple and easily understood ? theory. A projection is made of the properties gross income potential, estimated operating expenses are deducted, and the net income remaining when properly capitalized represents the estimated value of the property. The applicant opted to input $103,000 for debt service, leaving a net of $40,000. He then advances the Norvell appraisal theory that the $40.000 represents a return of five percent on debt. Well, the $40,000 net actually rep- resents a return to equity in the land. If he then capitalizes the figure at 4.5$, the indicated land value is $320,000. This can be hardly considered confiscatory, even using the applicant's figures, because he used the 1211. interest rate. Now let us attempt to shed a little bit light on this subject of the economics of the marina operation. The applicant has disregarded many sources of potential income and has, in my opinion, grossly overestimated the cost of a marina upgrading. 1 think you have the report on hand. It is important that he predicates income upon dry storage in that report, of 75 boats. Now let us resolve the question of the high and dry storage. What does he mean? Is that winter storage? It really doesn't explain it in this. Or is this an additional storage for 75 boats? If that is the case, then he really is expanding the marina operation, which he said he wouldn't do, to about 213 boats, because if he wants to enlarge the marina to 138 slips, and now uses the high and dry storage of additional 75 boats, means 213 boats. That is two and a half times the current capacity of the boat marina as of yet. The applicant has stated on page 9 of this DEIS that the existing marina uses and encompasses a majority of upland. Obviously an expansion of marina capacity necessitates the use of additional upland, and areas-- despite claims to the contrary the areas of the setback from the water lines, 3-80 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 17 - Southport mandated by the DEC, plus the required sideyards and setbacks, plus the 2.1 acres occupied by the tennis courts and pool, pursuant to a ? combines the require area for marine operation, leave no upland area at all or motel and restaurant use. The applicant professes the intent to operate a marina which will reflect the state of industry standards. The applicant apparently doesn't know that to operate the proper marina, current industry standards call for a full-service marina. This ? the case in which the owner of larger boats, which he is intending to put in 37 foot an average, the owners of these boats just leave the keys in the fall time and expect their boat ready in the spring in the water fully serviced. Morever, the marina space is in short supply, as maintained by the applicant. Marina operators insist, and on their contracts, including winter storage and the right to provide all repairs and services. It is these latter items that make marinas profitable and they are singularly ignored in the applicant's projection. This appraiser believes that the present use is a profitable one of income and expense or estimated--if income and expense are estimated realistically. Slip rental should be predicated upon an annual rate, including winter storage. Essential services include winterization of engines, water,systems, air conditioners, hull painting and boat covering. A properly operated and staffed marina catering to boats in the luxury range, must also provide repairs, facilities for engines, hulls, as well as ? maintained, re- model and upgrade vessels, install service, electronics, provide marine supplies, fuel, ? brokerage and new boat sales are additional sources of revenues not mentioned in the report. Also not noted that no projection of income has been made by the applicant for the pool and the tennis club, complete with the four courts. It should also be noted that in the Southold area many boat owners have private docking facilities that require facilities for winter storage in the winter time for their boats with ? maintenance. This is another other source of revenues which no projection has been made for that. Even allowing for reason- able operating expense and maintenance, it appeared--it is apparent that the value of the subject property as presently improved is far closer to the owner's asking price at that time when it was for sale of one and a half million dollars, then it is to the Land Use Company's opinion that the property is virtually valueless as currently operated, or as a negative value as is stated in their report. In closing 1 would like to make a general statement. It is my opinion that it is the duty of the Town to employ police power to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents. It should be concerned with water quality, avoidance of pollutions, and uses which place an extraordinary demand on fire, police and emergency services should be banned in general. It should be recognized that the Town is primarily residential in character, and that marine recreational use is incidental to the use. If these words, gentlemen, sound familiar to you, these are taken newly from your newly promulgated floating home ordinance, and as employed herein applies equally 1 think to marinas. The applicant's Addendum at page 59 states that a pumping station will only reduce illegal dumping by vessels now using the basin. Well, an increase of slips most certainly will increase the pollution again. And I wonder if anybody here has considered the potential for firey catastrophy in having a large number of boats filled with fuel in close proximity to a motel, with only a limited means of access for fire, police and evacuation. What chance of a rescue for people? And all of the above--if all of the above may well be academic, in that that the property's access is so inadequate even if it would be possible to improve the access would be at an expense of the wetland, the freshwater wetlands and the salt water wetlands. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to speak? Sir. • 3-82 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 18 - Southport CHARLES BOWMAN, President, Land Use Company: 1 know it's getting kind of late and I certainly don't want to take too much more time, but I would like to just point out a couple of facts--or at least respond to a few of the comments that were made tonight. The staff of our company has spent a lot of time on this project and we've made over twenty visits, and put in probably over fifty man-hours on the site. I notice that Mr. Penny has been there twice. We have done a shellfish survey. Mr. Penny has not done a shellfish survey. He stood on the banks and he looked out. We have provided traffic information. Again, Mr. Penny and his associates have stood in the road and looked there and made their opinions based on what they saw. Shellfish do not migrate, as do some waterfowl that we apparently missed, and 1 think that's pretty common. You go there at different times of the year and you're going to see different species coming through the area. The shellfish survey that we did do covered the area and it was done with acceptable practices and we did not find any. Nor did we find and shells, which would indicate that there were no standing crops of shell- fish in recent history. This is a fact. We have information to prove it. 1 don't think that Mr. Penny will say that he went out there and did his own shellfish survey to refute that. I think that's important as far as our interpretation of the shellfish resources on the site. Another point 1'd like to bring out is that it was mentioned that the core samples that we took of the sediments were grab samples. That is not the case and it says in the Addendum and the sample information that was provided that they were core samples. We did have the analysis made. All that is of record. A statement was made that the DEIS said that we were going to increase the availability of shellfish. I think that was a misinterpretation. We certainly didn't say that because of the marina we were going to get more shellfish. In fact, I think that what we did say is because there was more people in the marina the demands on the shellfish resource, if there were any, would increase because more people want to go out and pick mussels and clams and oysters. Coliform counts that was pointed out that there were some high coliform counts. That was in January. Those tests were conducted by the DEC. It's interesting to note that the highest ones came from road run-off during peak rain time, and in fact one of the worst places in that whole basin is by Mr. Flynn's house where the road dead-ends there. I think it also should be noted that a lot of the opposition to this comes from canal by Mr. Flynn's house. That canal was a subject of maintenance dredging permits in the past. In fact our company secured those permits, and at that time the residents in that area wanted that canal as deep as possible and they wanted to remove the wetlands that were in there. We, of course, told them that that couldn't be done and we had to just maintenance dredge. All these things contribute to what is out there in the cove and 1 think we have provided a large amount of data on actually what is there. A large amount of time has been spent. Let's see. The wildlife--I think if we went out there every year, or every month during the year we'd count a lot more species. Obviously that's not practical at this point in time. I think the other main point is that this is an intensive use already. The site has been disturbed. There is a swimming pool on the site already. There are tennis courts on the site. There are marine--there are boats, there are vessels there. There's no pump-out station. We are upgrading an existing facility. That point seems to be missing through a lot of this discussion. We're not putting in a new marina. There is one there already and I think that's very important, because the impacts on that cove are there, and the impacts go back historically. When we did our bottom sampling--our shellfish sampling, the bottom is covered with bricks from the brick factory--concrete rubble. All sorts of things, you know? But it is not a pristine area by any stretch of the imagination and I think that the level - of use, while some--there will be more boats there, there will be more human activity, also the mitigation factors that we built into the plan also will be upgraded to make up for 2 The last comment I have as far as the potential uses that 3-82 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 19 - Southport we said were not compatible. I think we were talking about industrial uses, and 1 believe that's in the impact statment also. If there's any questions I'd be more than happy to answer them for the Board. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to addres. the Board? John? JOHN COSTELLO, Greenport: I'm in the marine contracting business locally for the past twenty-five years. 1'd like to just address a few comments on this project. I'm not hired by anyone to be here--Land Use, or Southport, or anyone else. 1'd like to offer some of my opinions. 1 personally believe this is one area that can be developed over many, many areas in the Town. These needs are going to increase in Southold Town. People are going to want more boats. The motels we know we need. This is basically clay. We all know the history of that boat- yard. It was a clay pit. Some of the fuel oil spills. This stuff is not going to-- fuel oil doesn't permeate clay as it does sand or groundwater. The effluent. The denitrification and what isn't handled by the denitrification system is again not going to penetrate the clay and bother the groundwater down gradient of this property. It's one of the better pieces of property in Southold to develop as a marina. We all know that our standards over the past few years--or past ten-- constantly increase environmentally. We're all concerned with it. I am. I'm sure everyone here is. This is one area that has an existing boat yard in it and 1 know the site, it can be improved considerably.With the road run-off---road run- off is a problem everywhere in Southold and I'm sure it's going to be addressed. Sewage. What they have there now is not as good as a denitrification system. The Health Department is going to handle basically that part of it. I also think that dredging that parcel--that is a small area of water, small area of flow. It will increase the productivity in that area. The flow in that area, without the bulkhead- ing--and I don't see where anyone's advocating any bulkheading--with the natural shore line accelerate the flow of water and if the entrance is dredged and there's more circulation in there it will increase it. 1 don't know what the depth they anticipate putting in there, but a six foot depth--and I'm sure Mr. Penny will verify it--a six foot depth is most productive for fish habitats. Anything over six foot loses some of that habitat ability to reproduce with small fish. The coliforms--1 guess we've heard of the road run-off, we've heard of the human beings and sounds like a few people are advocating giving this back to the indians. 1'd like that too, but we all know it's not going to happen. The coliform--they've had some problems in East Hampton Town, not that we have plenty of them here. They exist where there's no people. They have a couple ponds where there's no development around and there's coliforms. I'm sure Southold and every other Town around is concerned about it and with the coliform count in this creek now 1'd think you'd be screaming to open up and dredge the entrance, get some more circulation in there. I'm not so sure 1'd eat the clams in there with the coliform what it is. I think it's one of the better parcels in Southold. I know it's one of the more expensive to develop as a marina, but it's one of the better parcels and it's going to cause less pollution than many, many areas in Southold. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, John. Anyone else like to address the Town Board? HOWARD ZEHNER: I'm the owner of Young's Boat Yard and Marina. Just two comments really. The boat yard and marina occupies approximately 3.7 acres of a 15 acre basin, so that represents a rather small portion. It comes out to about 24 percent of the basin. By all means it doesn't take up the majority of the basin as some people have led to believe. The present docks, for economic reasons, were 3-83 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 20 - Southport built on clay bars that existed before the basin flooded in the 20's and the water came up over these bars and they're quite shallow and the fixed docks were built out along these clay bars and the floating docks were off to the sides. Hence the marina is layed out very inefficiently. They have large spaces between boats. The docks were dictated by the clay bars, where we didn't have to drive very deep pilings. In fact, Fred Young built these docks by hand. He drove the spiles down with a sledge hammer on these fixed bars. But my point is that the marina lends itself to expansion. There's enormous spaces between docks, and reasonable expansion within this small area--this relatively small area of the basin, I feel will not cause any environmental damage. 1 would also like to say that I've spoken to quite a few of the property owners--not all of them--but property owners around the basin, and many were contacted by Mr. Flynn to support his opposition to the Southport DEIS. The property owners that I spoke to all refused to oppose the GEIS, except, to my knowledge, Mr. Weisman. The boat yard and marina is owned by myself, and Fred Young previously from 1950 to 1970, and the Sage Estate prior to that, created the marina, owns the inlet, maintains the inlet, owns--has a big land grant for this jetty, maintains the jetty with steel bulkheading, therefore, the marina really exists--the basin, rather, exists and is maintained by the present and previous owners. We do only have a minority interest through. We only own 3.7 acres--3.7 some odd acres of the 15 acre basin, yet we do, from all the property owners, maintain the inlet presently and have spent considerable money for the jetty and previous owners have, as I said, created the basin. Most of the property owners do appreciate this situation, hence we've had limited opposition to this project, except as I before mentioned. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Howard. Anyone else like to address the Town Board? HENRY WEISMAN: Yes, Mr. Supervisor. My name is Henry Weisman, and 1 live on the cove opposite Young's Marina, and 1 just wanted to comment on Mr. Bowman's remarks that there are no shellfish in this water. There are baymen in the cove regularly and they apparently earn their livelihood from that cove. We can observe them removing, per man, anywhere from two to three bushels of clams on tide. So I can't possibly understand how they were unable to discover or locate any clams in the cove, but I do recall Mr. Bowman being there on a weekend in January with his little boat,and he apparently spent his time principally in the immediate vicinity of the marina, but did not seem to travel around the cove. Anyone of you are perfectly welcome to come down to my property, walk along the beach and pick up whatever oysters you'd like, and I'm sure you'll find a few dozen of them in a matter of a very short time. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to address the Town Board? MR. SHEA: I'd like to address the Board briefly again. 1 was just provided with a document that 1 hope is on file with the Town Board. It's a letter dated April 1, 1986 from the State of New York, Department of State, by Larry Enoch, Environ- mental Analyst, in which he--he contends that he was essentially misquoted by the applicant in the Addendum in the dredge spoil analysis for the Southport Development. Is that letter on file? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Yes. MR. SHEA: You do. All right. One other thing. This hearing is not designed by law to record a show of hands concerning the project. If one person--one 3-84 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 21 - Southport citizen comes forward to address the DEIS, those comments have to be considered. The job of the applicant here was to prepare a legally adequate Draft Environmental Impact Statement that meets the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. We contend that that job's not been done. The Board should not be concerned with whether one neighbor showed up, two neighbors, or a thousand neighbors. The point is has the law been--has the legal standard been met? We contend it hasn't. We contend that one visit in the middle of the winter to check the shellfish at a time when Mr. Penny says is the worst time of the year to do so, is not an adequate data base for the analysis in this EIS. We contend that you should have been provided--we should have been provided--with the drainage plan so we could really assess the environmental impacts with respect to drainage. This cove is used by baymen. Mr. Penny has confirmed that. 1 don't think that that has been properly addressed by the applicant. There is lastly no comparison between the existing use. It is disturbed. We acknowledge that the site is disturbed. But- there's no comparison between the existing use and the project as proposed. This is--let's be frank and candid--this is a significant expansion of the use of the site. Eighty-two motel units and an expanded marina and a restaurant is a substantial expansion of the use. By comparison the existing use is minimal. One last point. One of the gentlemen who addressed the Board previously--1 think this is the point with respect to the impact of the contaminants described by Mr. Penny in this area. One of the impacts--we're not concerned, necessarily, abouit these contaminants getting into the cove and the permeating the bottom of the cove and getting into groundwater. We're talking about the impacts of these contaminants--these pollutants, on the water in the cove and on the benthic life in the cove--the cove's bottom. I think that gentleman misunderstood the point and I wanted to make sure that the Board was clear on that. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. MR. BOWMAN: One very brief comment, because Mr. Shea did bring up Mr. Enoch's letter. 1 believe--I spoke to Mr. Enoch today and I believe he called Mrs. Terry--- TOWN CLERK TERRY: He did. It's in the file. MR. BOWMAN: --because that letter was written in error. He made a mistake in interpreting the data, and we wanted to clarify that. COUNCILMAN SCHONDEBARE: We have a memo in the file. TOWN CLERK TERRY: Everyone was given a copy of the memo. MR. BOWMAN: Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, anyone else? Yes. MS. GORDON: At this close of this public hearing today of the SEAR proceeding, we would first like to thank the Board for the time and energy expended in this effort. Three hearings over a period of two months. And thank the Town generally for its assistance. Unfortunately it's my responsibility to say that there has been an exception to the generally professional manner in which the Town has conducted itself, and we find it's necessary to take exception to the tone of the comments put forward by the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council. We--our client will, of course, respond to its comments, but 1 don't think that we can condone by silence 3-85 - HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Page 22 - Southporr the rather abusive nature of the comments, to which our client was subjected. As to the comments you've heard tonight by Mr. Penny and Mr. Bowman, I'm not going to try to address the points specifically. They're contained in the reports that you have and will review with your environmental consultant. 1 would point out generally that many of the comments were directed at site specific. That is chemicals to be used, where the denitrification system is to be located, and the particulars of the design. As you know, what our client has applied for here is a change of zone, which anticipates the change in the use proposed by this site by the recently completed Town Master Plan, a result of fairly comprehensive studies conducted by the Town's planning consultant. And again we point out that some of the public comments would put the cart before the house. Southport has requested a change of zone. SEQR recommends a generic environmental impact statement be completed in such cases. Southport has gone well beyond the generic impact statement and has, in fact, given you information more specific than is even necessary for the zoning change. Our client does appreciate the comments of the governmental agencies and the interested general public which have helped make this analysis more complete and have given it a high standard of environmental review. Southport will of course respond to the additional comments in the Final Environmental Impact Statement so that this Board, with it's environmental consultant, can make the balancing analysis necessary--that balance between social and economic goals and environmental concerns. Thank you for your time. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else would like to address the Town Board? (No response.) If not, we'll close this hearing. Hearing adjourned at 9:30 P.M. fe, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk a 3-86 �rfd ! HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TwomEv. LATHAM. SHEA 1' KELLEY A"DONCTS AT LAW 21 w[ST SECOND STREET P O DO:so* TWWASA TWOIIET pl kl\'lltiiY.\Il.\};N'll►I:K 11"01 {T[PN(N a LATHAN JOHN I SHWA IN MS 727 2150 D NOSTH MAIN STREET CNAISTO/H[A D RELIET EAST HAMPTON NT II027 SIs-32A-1200 AIT•TURNER LAWRENCE I STOww- IAUAEEN T LICCIONE *ALSO ADMITTED IN COHNCCTIC"T April 11, 1986 AND►LOM" James Redman New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40 - SUNY Stony Brook, NY 11794 R£: Southport Development DEIS Dear Mr. Redman: This firm represents Henry Weismann and Frank Flynn intervenors in the SEORA proceedings on the DEIS for the above-referenced project. Pursuant to our phone conversation of this date, I enclose a copy of pages 35 and 36 of the Addendum to the DEIS for Southport Development. As we discussed, the project which the DEIS analyizes is an expansion of an existing marina adding the uses of an 82-unit motel, a 125-seat restaurant and boatyard facility on a small embayment located on the Conkling Point Peninsula in Southold. The embayment, just west of the Village of Greenport, empties into Shelter Island Sound. Enclosed is a copy of the tax map indicating the location of the subject site (by a red 'X") which consists of approximately 12.2 acres, 3.7 of which are underwater. One of the issues focused on in the comments on the DEIS and its addendum is the capacity of this embayment to flush itself. The embayment or cove is extremely shallow in spots and given the influx of effluent and runoff from the project, we believe that it will be significantly impacted by the project. we believe such an impact will be exacerbated by the cove's limited tidal flushing. In response to this concern, the applicant has quoted you on page 35 of the DEIS addendum that there is a 'high velocity of tidal exchange (flushing) that is found within the project vicinityO. Larry Penny, our consultant believes that you were quoted out of context and probably meant that there was a high degree of tidal flushing in Shelter Island Sound, on the bayside of the 3-87 -- HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS James Redman April 11, 1986 Page two project, rather than on the cove side of the project. This would seem only logical in'that the whole of the basin has as its only entrance a 20-foot wide channel at its southeastern end. Please review your statements as enclosed, and contact me to confirm that these statements were taken out of context. As I asked you on the phone, if your statements were taken out of context, I request that you clarify your statements and indicate with a short letter to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, the lead agency in this matter, that they were taken out of context and not intended to indicate that there was extensive tidal flushing within the subject embayment or cove. Sincerely, WristopVerelley CDK/bb encs. CC: H. Weismann F. Flynn L. Penny 3-88 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS S=CC•!C`' SL•?'AC= t..ATERS C0MZ!z.\_" "Vn_-o:•_:.ented 'Agency observations' are S0. 17: held to conclude satins-factory ,water Cualit_. in clese ;:Oxi-:ty to the s::bjject. This statement needs cone=_sore evidence.' ZS?C`:S=. Statements made in _-e Zra!t _n iro.^=ental :-:act Statement ,were based on :'e•.r York State of _:._-..-menta'- Co-.se:-,.at-;ca (`:'S:=c) c*ser.aticns or ::ate= c_ali'-• i.. the :O_tL :"_/ area. Samples have recent'-'-.- peen taken *_., sa-d ace- _ _r_- t:e s•:b f ec- '!:as-*:: area" a-d t e res_i t5 wi 11 be as s:::1 as _he: are re:e_:e: =rc1 the B_r:a. of =-e_'sis er_=_s. :. .re-:e- it :.e nctee that cc-•.ersat_:-s __: ..r. -a-es Re:! an, ::arina peso•:r:as ec:='mist :-- ::i.: -n-- --. --1: rarer =_a:- _ -t:in this area ever .%e foUn: _ sa__:_aC-orf" for 8ne__°:3 _ : _r=.^.3$b. =-_S Statement is 1asema On _-e "h_21 .e-:city of =1 e.._ a =S that is ===n= w-th the ro;•:t •--- --. `a=- '=-=--t_es are the cznstr___:o- eh_.._-tired ti'-al waters het,weea Cc-%1:-;s roi-_ (Southold) and Zeahin:s 3-89 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSMTM EN MUM Point (Shelter Island) . This constriction a_=ents the ebb and flood o: tidal waters into and out of the subject basin, thus prevencin; the concentration of pollataats such as colifora and nitrates. As to a:tersticr of the existing channel entrance is-antici.ated, this high rate'of tidal exc=a-ce .ill coatin-ut aster project eom- :'_e_ion and will assure satisfactory water c__el:'•_'F.it`ia the basin. 3-90 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Taoa1Ry. i.ATHAII.SHEA k Kra_t.E1 ATT011M1Ts AT LAW as was SECOND STREET P O.SOX iN TMOMA9A T1WOM9V JR. KJVKKJJZ.%D..%VW 10WK 11901 9T1N1[N s.LATHAM JD""•sNEA MIs NORTH MAIN STR[[T CIM19TprM[R 0 E[LL[T RIMM 9N•!2!•21sp EAST"UPTON.Id T 11si7 APR AMT 9—_.TURNER APR 1 6= LAWRENCE M STORM- MAUREEN T LICCNNIE TOM CkA -ALSO AOMITT D IN CONNECTICUT AND FLORIDA April 11, 1986 Southold Town Board Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Southport Development Corp. Dear Supervisor Murphy and Members of the Board It has come to my attention that some confusion has been created regarding the applicability of the remarks of Larry Enoch, Environmental Analyst of the New York State Department of State regarding the above project. A copy of his comments on the dredge spoil analysis for Southport Development is annexed. In speaking with Mr. Enoch this day, he confirmed that all of his comments in that letter are still pertinent with only one exception. His only change is his withdrawal of the statement in No. 4 of his letter that the test methods used by the applicant were not sensitive enough to measure such small values. He confirmed to me that in all other respects, his letter still stands as valid. In addition, although I was not present, I am advised that applicant's attorney argued again at the hearing on the Addendum that a project specific EIS is not necessary and that a more general or generic EIS can be utilized since this application involves a zone change. This argument is totally fallacious given the fact that from the very initiation of the zone change application, the applicant has had a very specific project in mind. The position advocated by the applicant would result in this Board acting illegally in contravention of SEQRA and its implementing regulations. I, therefore, reiterate my arguments as set forth in my letter to the Board dated February 21, 1986, a copy of which is annexed. To wit: 3-91 HENDERMN AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Southold Town Board April 11, 1986 Page two 1. Neither the toning proposed for this site in the new waster plan nor the sone in the existing Zoning Code that the applicant requests a change to would allow the uses as proposed by the applicant. Thus, the waster plan data available does not suffice to serve in lieu of a project specific EIS. 2. The SEQRA.Handbook at page B-45 only suggests the use of a generic impact statement on a zone change when an applicant has "no specific project planned". Clearly there is a specific project planned by the applicant and a project specific EIS is required. 3. The quality and quantity of data in the EIS and Addendum is seriously flawed as pointed out by Intervenors' witnesses Larry Penny, Frederick Reuter, by the New York State Department of State and the Town's own Conservation Advisory Counsel and would be insufficient whether it was a generic or site specific EIS. By urging that the Board avoid project specific Intensive environmental review at this early stage in the development of the proposal, when the zoning changes necessary for the proposal's viability are reviewed, the applicant urges that the Board disregard the mandate and purpose of SEQRA "to incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the existing planning, review and decision-making processes of State, regional and local government agencies at the earliest possible time." (Emphasis added.) 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 5617.1(c) We respectfully urge the Board to consistently and purposefully carry out its mandate pursuant to SEQRA. To do so, it must require a full project specific environmental review at this time and require the • applicant to provide critical additional information, and corrections to the faulty analysis in its work to date, to cure the serious defects in the DEIS and Addendum. Sincerely, Chrivtbpher Kelley CDK/bb encs. cc: H. Weismann F. Flynn 3-92 - HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS S41 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS S41 t AFR 16 M6 TO: Southold Town BoardLO ,. ..,. RE: Addendum to the DEIS for Southport Development FROM: Szepatowski Associates, Inc. DATE: April 15, 1986 Ve have reviewed the Addendum to the above mentioned DEIS and find missing elements in the material. Principal missing elements are: Documentation from Fire Department Drainage plans Additional borings Water quality analysis Our specific comments are as follows: Connent 1 and Response The site encompassing Southport Development will be redesignated "Ilarine-Recreational" on the proposed zoning map per the Southold Planning Board. The present change-of-zone request to General Multiple Residence District (with a yet to happen application for a use variance for a restaurant) must be dealt with in the present S$nR process whose outcome will guide the Southold Torn Board and Zoning Board ofAppeals in making their decision. Compliance with a proposed Zoning Ordinance does not preclude the possiblity of adverse impacts of a specific proposed project. To clarify the record, that is the purpose of the present SEQR review. Co-nent 3 and Fesnonr-c Exhibit E is a satisfactory response. Comment 4 and T.es,onse The response does not elininate the possibility of "boatyard" operations or winter storage. It is reconnended that any out-of-gator repairs/t..aintenanca to%e place totally Within an enclozeu structure. Positive means to properly dis oLe of sanded paint, motor, and hydraulic oils znoulo be a part of any approvai. Simple :storage can to%e place out-of-doom within a designated area that will not encroach upon tt:e par.:ing recuirements of on-going u::es. Looking at the site plan, however, the only possible location for boat repairs and winter storage is south and east of the motel location. This of rout-se Z3 VuwG.%nwt1 Ave Por. .ro— :'102435 401 =2S•0130 3-93 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS would be a terrible •eye sore• to the clientele that they had a bay viewO from their room. Mother problem with this location for Winter storage and/or boat repairs is that this area was designated in original DEIS for a *transition and buffer area• to the so-called *dune establishment and enhancement" program. Comment S and Response The actual flow generated may,exceed 15,000 gpd since the calculations equal 15,000 gpd exactly at the outset. Site plan approval should not be granted prior to approval by SCDHS of the plans for denitrification. Comment 6 and Response The response is sufficient except that no documentation from the Fire Department having jurisdiction is supplied. This is particularly critical since access sufficient to suit the Fire Department will ultimately be required. The needs of the Department should be known now. Comment 7 and Response The response is unsatisfactory. Sage Boulevard will have to be widened to Town specifications. no project approvals should be granted until such an agreement is in place and approved by the appropriate Town authorities. Comment 8 and Response The response contradicts the response to Comment 4. In addition it is stated in Comment 4's response that the existing travel lift will remain. This as the applicant is well aware, from the spill on December 16, 1985, poses as a definite threat of a hazardous liquid leak, namely hydraulic fluid. So in stating that "the said proposal will eliminate the potential 'hazards currently existing for industrial/commercial pollution caused by compounds utilitzed in the current as well as the permitted uses of the site", is abuolutely false. One must assume boat repair may occur. (See Comment 4) In the spring a boat normally requires some sort of maintenance, be it stripping and painting the hull or at least cleaning it. What will oe done with these wastes and where will it occur? SlII�IAKSKI�115(H14111 1\('. 1•.; •.•at���i � i�wi ia�t� 3-94 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Comment9 and Re_DOAse After reviewing Dredge Spoil Analysis for Southport Development the lain concern is why was the actual lab analysis report not Included in the report. Having Land Use Co relay Eco Test Laboratories, Inc. results of the dredge spoil on Land Use Co. stationery is highly unusual. V erification of this information Is impossible unless a copy of the test analysis report is included. The method of sampling is not indicated in any of the reports submitted nor is the method of packing or time period of travel of the samples from the site to the lab for volatile organics this is essential for detection. Another comment that was not addressed in response is where will dredge material be shipped if unsuitable for upland grading and wetlands creation. It appears this might be the case since in the core sample analysis indicated a 6" - 1 ft. sand layer atop of grey clay. Clay is not suitable for site grading since surface runoff is a problem nor is clay suitable for wetlands creation for obvious reasons. Comment 10 and ResRonse Questions are raised as to the condition of the existing undergound tank. It should be tested and approved by the SCDHS prior to site plan approval. Likewise the proposed pumpout system shall have been approved prior to site plan approval. Comment 11 and Response Until a full review of drainage is completed, the SEAR questions on impact to groundwater and the Bay will remain unanswered. ro approvals should be granted nor should a final determination until the drainage questions are satisfactorily addressed. Comment 12 and Response The amount of area available for the motel appears to be overstated; number of employees understated; no loading spaces are shown; the side yard dimension is incorrect anj several other site plan details are unfulfilled. These, however, are site plan questions and do not in themselves represent significant environmental questions. Co-hent 13 and Fesnonse Satisfactory S41 S7[PAi01YSk1A%1WX*IAII11\l. 1•.urii��tl� +� S4' 3-95 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS r •y � •nr.NN ��� 1 r Q4 • `� r�.MM►fti f•tlr � i pr•fi.ffa �ff�f .. I 1 • .�YfL�f tali 1 A - PILSFO 0F0 AREA • i / i 0 - I FAnlIw. AFG t C - SEPTIC TANK APPA GWNWA Yt O11�fOf Ov7r��• •tor0.t.ff7r fm •.i• tl� r CF4 Jt ' t f dDOtT"L �cetnlG� ' x s 1 S41 SZFPATOV%SKlASS(XIATISIN(. t��u;t��:�t��at �ti�\it,i� t\ 3-96 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Comment 14 and Itenponse She location of the borings are not sufficient to reveal whether subsurface conditions can support a parking lot, or more Importantly a motel/restaurant complex. At least five more are needed. See test boring plan for proposed locations. Comment Is and Response See Comment 14. Comment 16 and Resp 11&e Satisfactory Comment 17 and Response In the response it is stated that "it is highly unlikely that water quality withing this area would ever be found unsatisfactory' for shell fishing purposes" because of the high velocity of tidal exchange (flushing) that is found within the project vicinity." This is quoted from a hearsay telephone conversation with Hr. James Redman, Tlarine R sourses Specialist III (2YSDEQ. A follow up letter should have been obtained and put in the exhibits section to verify the subject had been researched thoroughly by said specialist. A look at the area map in DEIS shows the location of property to be :est of the two points which cause these "constriction" velocities and increase flushing. Furthermore, the narina property i:: not on Southold Bay, it is on an adjoining cove which further reduces the flushing capabilities. The more removed from the main water body a marina is the slower the flushing capability of the cove. Just because flushing studies have been done on Southold Bay this does not mean they necessarily pertain to Sage cove. Cor4rient 13 and Re ponsg The applicants lack of concern for toxics existing in bay bottom sediments is unwarranted. The results found in the shellfish survey of minimal vegetation and wildlife and black silt, many times indicates ano»ic (lack of oxygen) conditions being caused by some sort of toxic in the environment. Cyurocaroons such as gasoline, will cause this situation to occur. The lead agency should consider this when tae analysis is presented because if a marina of Young's present size is stressing tl,e n::rine environment a carina increased by 1/3 the zSze could ae ti,ac much more detri"encal to the environment. The validity of t:a shellfiai, survey was Gue..cioneu uiWn only 3 hardcl.:rs ( z ercenzria, i.iercenAl.") were found in an arca i.aere on t::o occasion.: our otaff ,wa e;een Sournold cla.w..ing in cneze water:;. SAa�Y i' S71PATONSk1 ASSOCIATIS IN(-. SAI 3-97 HENDERSON AND BODWELL COMULTING ENGINEERS Comment 19 and Resp,QnKe Satisfactory Comment 20 and Response Is the Zehner permit transferrable to new owners? Are any of the permits shown in Exhibits F,1 and F-2 pertinent at all to this project? There is no indication on any plan to this linkage, Was the work under Army Permit # 10484 ever accomplished? if not, there can be no maintenance of a project never completed. Comment 23 and Response Due to previous unanswered questions, this entire Section cannot be evaluated with regard to groundwater, surface water, vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, landuse, MY Coastal zone compliance) and community services (fire protection) Cmment 24 and Response The responses (mitigation measures) are not located on the cite plan as to where specifically they are needed and located. Specifically #1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8. Comment 2S and Response A zero runoff system should become a condition of any rezoning. Comment 26 and Response The location of phragmites removal and new planting is not shown. How will phragmites then be controlled after new plantings are made to prevent re-invasion? clow are natural wetland species such as ones listed for revegetation to be transplanted and from where. Wetland creation is contraversial with regards to success rates. Has this been researched? Comment 27 and Response See response # 26. Cornent 13 and Response Satisfactory. Comment 29 ano ^eEnonz; Incomplete. ':his ftoas nor reL?ond to unLvoidc-ble ad ve:cc ir.:pacts. S41 ��� 30 mad ^e� �on::a S:.tiziactor':. S7FFAT0KShIAS%0CIAII5INC.lwr.�����t�t�t 3-98 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Conclusion and Recommendation We would recommend that a final environmental impact statement be compiled by the applicant as one document, addressing our comments, comments made at the public hearing and during the public comment period. Before determining whether the final EIS is complete to review, I would strongly urge the Town Board to allow us to examine the document. This particular project is complicated and the documentation to date has not been satisicctory. I do not wish to see the Town rendering a decision on incomplete information. S41 SnPATOWSGI MAOCIAIIS I%('. 3-99 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Southold Town Baymen's Assn. Inc. MUM POST OFFICE BOX 523 GREENPORT.LONG ISLAND.N.Y.11944 April 15, 19:6 APR 2 a 1986 �,,,,:�>�+•...t�.- Southold ibvrn Trustees b-1rico rico "e404 � �;r-r"` ' Southold Then ,Hall Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: The Southport Project -*a Dear Trustees, The MS report submitted iy the Southport project people, clai:as that no ^ere found to t::i=t In =a;e'_ e!eek. To the cnat=r , it Is a well knOw.: fact that Sage's is a productive elar.3ine, creek. Considering its spall size, this creek should be considered a very productive natural habitat. "`e wo:ld point out that any marina -)ro sect on the Southport scale will create a negative effect on sanitary certification for shellfishin- in :ale's creek. There wall also :ie a potentially ne_-ative effect on the adta- cent ?ecanic -:;ay system. Es,;ecially effected vr:uld oe the scallop prod:cin, beds r��n�in� we:heard fro.-a the en- trance of !ale's creek to teixedon and Town Earbor. This entre coastline or, Southold Bay has always been a p:o- euctive area. �ctfully,, Peters aresidezt i eve Latson secretary cc: Southold Town Council ew _'ork State De-�artnent pf ~tate Coastal 'Sana,;ement F ro_ram 3-100 fes. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS MFOR�MA11�� ���'�� �� Now Yak SbN�aoarunenl of Environmental Con"matbn Bureau of Shellfisheriesmay,4564400— Bldg. 140, SUNY a '1. +rfiv„� Stony Brook. New York 11794 yam APR 2 41986 April 22. 1986 Two"CMA W4*00 d Christopher Kelley. Esq. Twomey. Latham. Shea and Kelley Attorneys at law P.O. Box 398 Riverhead. New York 11901 Dear Mr. Kelley: In reply to your letter of April 11. 1986, 1 have discussed page 35 and 36 of the enclosure with Charles deQuillfeldt of this agency. Neither Mr. deQuillfeldt nor I have any recollection of making such statements. Our current information on the area including bacteriological water quality data are inadequate for making decisions on the sanitary quality of the area for shellfish harvesting. Sincerely, James H. Redman Marine Resources Specialist III JHR/dg Enc. cc: Mr. Charles deQuillfeldt W. Larry Penny Toon Board, Town of Southold 3-101 HENDERSON AND BODWELL COWN-TING ENGINEERS r Town Hall.53095 Main Road � ! P.O. Box 1179 Southold.Ncw York 11971 n?DI1F11 T TI aKV t►.LF.rHoea 16*%1 11"► 15161763-11111 aacsnn K m'L"ATWWS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERL TOWN OF SOUFHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON APRIL 22, 1986: WHEREAS, Southport Development has heretofore filed a petition with the Town Clerk, pursuant to Article X of Chapter 100 of the Code of the Town of Southold, for a change of zone on certain property at Greenport, in the Town of Southold, from "C" Industrial District to "M-1" General Multiple Residence District, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, the Town Board, as lead agency, determined that the action proposed is a Type 1 action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk did file and circulate such determination as required by the aforementioned law, rules and code, and WHEREAS, Southport Development did, upon request of the Town Board, cause to be prepared and filed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, all in accordance with said law, rules and code, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Southport Development at the Southold Town Hall on February q, 1986, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to speak, and said hearing was recessed to February 25, 1986 and again to April S. 1986 to provide an opportunity for comment on the Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby determine that the action proposed is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Clerk immediately notify the applicant, Southport Develop- ment, of this determination, and further request said applicant to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement, all in accordance with said law, rules and code, within sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, and incorporating therein the comments of the Town Planner, Szepatowski Associates Inc.. comments made at the public hearing, and comments made during the public comment period. Judith T. merry Cy Southold Town Clerk April 23, 1986 3-102 - HENDERMN AND BODMLL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Town Hall.53095 Alain Road P.O.Buz 1179 Southold.New York 11971 JtViTuT Thin TEUPHONt Tut\l'11 rL 0161765-1801 ncsT6u W MALnATaTrr OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOurHOLD NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Dated: April 22, 1986 Pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva- tion Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, upon receipt of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and public hearing on same, does hereby determine that the action described below is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment and has requested the filing of a Final Environ- mental Impact Statement. Description of Action Petition of Southport Development for a change of zone from "C" Light Industrial District to "M-1" General Multiple Residence District, Petition No. 269, on certain property located on the south side of Main (State Route 25) Road, on the westerly side of Sage Boulevard, Greenport, New York, con- sisting of 12.461 acres. Further information may be obtained by contacting Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Copies to: Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Board of Town Trustees Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Charles Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services N.Y.S. Department of State Szepatowski Associates Inc. Southport Development, 3-103 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 4��' wTown Hall.53095 Main Road ��j, � P.O. Box 1179 '�(# Southold.New York 11971 H'I1ITIIT TIRRI 1Fl.t►110m 74M%111 r. 014,070-111111 n6WRAN K MAL ST'T11Tcs OFFICE OF TNF TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 23, 1986 Southport Development P. O. Box 616 Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith is a second •Notice of Significant Effect on the Environment" with respect to your petition for a change of zone, which determination was the subject of a Town Board resolution on April 22, 1986, of copy of which is also enclosed. Southport Development is hereby requested to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement for submission within sixty days of the date of the aforesaid resolution. Whereas your office has already obtained the comments of the Town Planner, Szepatowski Associates, Inc., a copy of the minutes, and other comments contained in the change of zone file, I do not think it is necessary to transmit them to you again. However, if you wish to review the file again, you are welcome to obtain copies of those documents referred to in the resolution free of charge. am enclosing a letter dated April 15, 1986 from the Southold Town Baymen's Association, Inc. pertaining to Southport. Very truly /yours, 7-1 Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures (3) 3-104 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SECTION IV DETERMINATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEOLOGY AND SOILS The proposed project will not affect the geology of the site or the surrounding area. The soils present on the site consist of Made Land Ma and Cut and Fill Land CuB which were either placed by mechanical means or altered in the course of previous land uses. The soils will be further modified by the proposed project as necessary for a ' construction. Such modifications will include the placing 3 and regrading of toposil for the establishment of lawn areas, Iremoval and/or regrading of subsurface soils for the construction of the sanitary disposal system and the proposed drainage system. The operations will be discussed in the appropriate sections of this report. Another modification required by this project involves the dredging of the marina portion of this property. This operation will necessitate the disposal of dredged material either on-site in the upland portions or off-site at a suitable location. The high clay content of these soils, as evidenced by the former brick making operation on the site, will likely require the addition of supplements or amendments to allow the material to be used for construction. It is also expected that due to the requirements of the sanitary and drainage disposal system, some of the soil will not be suitable and will have to be disposed of off-site. Disposal of this material will require the approval of the Town of Southold, at a location to be determined or proposed by the applicant. TOPOGRAPHY The topography will be affected by the construction of this project. The marina portion will be dredged and the existing spit near the center of the basin will be eliminated 4-1 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS to allow for better flushing action as well as a more efficient marina pattern. The upland portion of the site will also be modified to accomodate the proposed development. The Sanitary Disposal System will require a portion of the southeast corner of the property to be filled approximately seven feet. The area where the building is to be constructed will also be filled. Parking and lawn areas will be regraded to achieve positive overland flow and to allow for the containment of storm water runoff within the project' s boundary. (see Surface Water Hydrology) . None of these modifications will have any significant impacts on the topograpy of the site. GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY Ten test holes were augered across the Southport Marina Site in an effort to better quantify the locations and elevations of the groundwater underlying the parcel. These soils tests , numbered P-1 through P-10 , found that the groundwater elevations in the northern portion of the property is at approximate elevation of 4. 5 feet above sea level. This groundwater is perched and is created by having porous sand overlaying an impervious clay underlayer . When this situation exists, the rainfall which lands on the ground surface percolates vertically through the porous sand and is trapped by the relatively impervious clay barrier. The water then fills the voids within the sand and the water level rises until an escape path is found. The elevation of this escape path would approximate the elevation of the perched groundwater. A profile of the soils information is enclosed as Section A-A on Page 4-4. If the clay barrier did not exist, the elevation of the groundwater would approximate 0. 5-1 feet above sea level due to the parcel 's proximity to Southold Bay, the Marina Basin and the inlet to the east. In fact, a water table elevation 4-2 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTINO ENGINEERS SOIL BORING LOCATION PLAN 1 � \.. OLIO 1 �\ El I ♦T-e♦ -+T-6 + / T-+ z Z - SOUTHPORT RESORT AND MARINA GREENPORT NEW YORK 4-3 12 P- 10 - P �3 RS i I O '\ TOPSOIL L Z ` v m z i v GeOUND WATER m � r z 2Z ,� iy j Z. Z n � � I SECTION A - A HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS of this range is found in Boring B-1 in the northeast corner of the site. Apparently, this boring was located beyond the clay barrier and in a normal, for Long Island, sand layer . With the exception of the northern portion of the parcel, the remainder of the site soils are found to be predominantly clay. No indication of any groundwater elevations could be found due to the hardness of the clays encountered. The proposed Sanitary Disposal System will be located over the perched groundwater in the northern portion of the parcel. This artificial watertable elevation will be respected insofar as the design of the Sanitary Treatment Facility is concerned. Therefore, site development should not adversely effect the groundwater under the parcel. SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY Under the current Town of Southold Regulations, there must be a zero stormwater discharge from this site into the marina basin or into Southold Bay. Additionally, the stormwater runoff from a 6 inch rainfall must be retained onsite. This requirement is easily met on the more normal sites in the Town of Southold via the use of stormwater leaching rings or recharge basins. These facilities collect and store the stormwater runoff and allow it to slowly percolate vertically through the subsurface soil into the groundwater regime and thence laterally to Southold Bay or Long Island Sound. The Southport Resort and Marina site differs from a typical Long Island parcel in that portions of the subsurface soil consist predominantly of clay. This clay is impervious and prevents the downward movement of surface runoff. In the areas where there are sand stratas overlying the clay, the sand itself fills with water and creates an artificial water table, very much of the way a bowl forms a water level. The 4-5 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS bowl fills with water because no water can precolate through the impervious bottom. The water in the bowl rises until water starts to spill over the edge. This spillover determines the water elevation in the bowl. On the Southport Resort Site, the sand/clay interface acts as the edge of the bowl and sets the artificial water table elevation. Soil probes across the site indicate that this artificial water table elevations is at approximately 4 . 5 feet above sea level . As the ground water passes over this clay/sand interface, it drops down to the true groundwater elevation which is approximately 0. 5-1 feet above sea level . In the areas where no sand strata overlays the clay, there is no artificial water table. Instead, surface water enters the clay in miniscule amounts and over very long periods of time , works its way through the clay to the underlying sand strata many feet below the surface. It can be stated that there is no practical water movement through the clays due to their extreme density. Therefore, in severe storms, much of the rainfall on these areas is transferred directly into runoff and enters the surrounding surface waters. It is still practical to develop the Southport Site under the above stated conditions. One method of development would be to treat the artificial water table elevation as unchangeable and construct drainage leaching rings above this water elevation. This would require the use of an inordinate amount of of shallow drainage rings ( 1-2 ' depths ) or the filling of the site to elevation 12. 5 and above and utilizing a lesser number of 4 ' deep drainage rings. Another method for the disposal of stormwater runoff is to lower or eliminate the artificial water table in the areas of the proposed drainage leaching rings. This would allow the placement of the bottom of the rings at a significantly lower elevation and permit the development of the site to elevation 9 and above. This would be at approximately the 4-6 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS elevation the site would be developed if it were a typical Long Island site without the existing clay barrier . In order to lower the artificial water table, a transport medium or conduit must be installed to connect the artificial water table with a pervious strata or other water table at a lower elevation. A soils investigation, consisting of probes and augers, was undertaken to see if the existing sand in the dunes along Southold Bay extended northward under the clay towards the motel area of the site. These auger holes indicated that the dunes themselves consist of clay (probably placed by mechanical means ) which have been covered by sand in an acretion process. Only a small continuous sand strata was found to extend from Southold Bay northward into the site. It was deemed more practical to connect the transport system into the marina basin rather than disturb the existing sand dunes along Southold Bay. The proposed transport system will consist of a ten foot wide, four and one half foot deep trench lined with filter fabric and filled with broken stone. The irregular shape of the broken stone will create a large void area (60% or more) which will permit the transport of stormwater runoff. The filter fabric surrounding the stone will filter any water entering the system as well as preserve the integrity of the voids by preventing the entrance of silt and fine sand particles. The transport system will be composed of two elements. The first , with a bottom elevation of 2 . 5 feet above sea level, will transport the storm water across the site to a location approximately 75 feet from the marina basin. Here, the second transport system will connect the first system, at a bottom elevation of 2. 5, with the marina basin, at a water elevation of zero. The second transport system is in effect a series of short fingers which will release the water at a slow rate into the marina basin. This system duplicates a 4-7 C �- 'caw► S 'ta�► -4 p I - N ic z I Q z 00 MAMMA r, �I (� O I 8 ' �--J� c _JUI�VIJI� O 0 ` O .0 O n z '^ J�L ° A�TEL I n=i --- 000000 Ty-— 0000 V -foarytw-0 Aoy SOUTHPORT RESORT AND MARINA OREENPORT NEW YORK F/LTE,P F,.�B�P/C �•Osr /.PO.v f•P.O�IE w�r.•,� G.P'orE ' fYit//S.5/EO G•P.�Of T =IIMEN � o . • . /� ° a ¢ ° 'O34 • e n D 4 �C r pf7ffc ti Z G.Po�.vo k/•4rE"�P EL. o•s? � Z A s M STORM DRAINAGE DISPOSAL DETAIL HENDERSON AND 80DWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS typical Long Island Site composed of sand wherein the fresh groundwater meets the salty marina water in a shoreline interface. The transport system will reduce the water table elevation along its path to elevation 2. 5 feet above sea level. Therefore, it is proposed to place the required storm drainage leaching rings alongside the length of the transport system. These rings will be four feet away from the transport system with an identical bottom elevation. The four foot distance will consist of selected sand which will both allow the passage of the water as well as provide a high degree of filtration. It is proposed to utilize the voids within the transport system as reservoir storage as water can pass between the drainage leaching pools and the transport system. Therefore, the transport sytem will provide dual use both to store stormwater runoff and to transport the runoff to its _ discharge points along the marina. This is much the way the natural ground water regime functions acting as both a storage reservoir and a transport system. The voids within the broken stone will approximate 60% of the total volume of the transport system. To be conservative, it will be assumed that the voids comprise 50% of the total area . Also , half of the storage will be provided in typical drainage recharge rings while the other half of the storage will be placed within the transport sytem. A tentative design for the project would be as follows: Gravel Pavement 104,000 S.F. X 80% R.O. X 6" Rainfall = 41,600 Cubic Feet Buildings, Walks & Pools 49, 500 S.F. X 90% R.O. X 6" Rainfall = 22,275 Cubic Feet 4-10 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Tennis Court 13,000 S.F. X 90% X 6" Rainfall = 5, 850 Cubic Feet Grass & Landscape Areas 139,500 S.F. X 20% R.O. X 6" Rainfall = 13,950 Cubic Feet Totals. . . . . .306, 000 S.F. . . . . . .83, 675 Cubic Feet As half of the storage is to be provided in drainage rings, the number of rings are as follows: 83 , 675 Cu . Ft . X 50% - 100 . 88 Cu . Ft. = 415 L . F. of 12 ' diameter drainage ring. Provide 95 12 ' Dia. X 4. 5' Deep Rings. . .Vol = 43, 125 Cubic Feet The remaining volume, 40, 500 Cu. Ft. is to be provided in the first transport system. Volume Provided 2, 000 L.F. X 10 ' X 4. 5 ' X 50% Voids = 45,000 Cubic Feet The following preliminary drainage plan indicates the location of the transport and storage systems as well as the drainage ring locations. This plan indicates that there is more than sufficient room withing the project site to accomodate for the required storm drainage runoff. The use of the drainage system as proposed will preclude the possibility of any significant impacts on the surface waters in the vicinity of the site. 4-11 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AIR QUALITY 4 The proposed project will cause a slight increase in air-borne pollutants. This will be due primarily to exhaust emissions from additional automobile activity in the vicinity and to a lesser extent, from additional boating activities associated with the enlarged marina. These increases would not significantly effect the overall air quality on the site or the surrounding area. In addition, the initial construction of this project will cause a deterioration in air quality. The principle cause for this will be from dust and other particulates associated with the construction operations and equipment. This impact will be of a temporary nature and will not present any significant long term reduction in air quality. VEGETATION The proposed project will have a minor impact of the site's vegetation. The report prepared by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists , Inc . contained in Appendix D, contains a detailed discussion of the existing conditions, impacts, and mitigation recommendations. As brought out in the D.E. I.S. and it's Addendum, wetland and ornamental plantings will be incorporated into the development. These plantings , if planned correctly, will fully mitigate any adverse impacts to the site ' s vegetation caused by the proposed action. It is therefore recommended that as part of the Site Plan Approval review process , detailed planting plans and details be prepared, submitted , and reviewed by the appropriate Southold officials or consultants. FISH AND WILDLIFE As with vegetation previously, Terrestrial Environmental 4-12 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Specialists, Inc. has prepared a report contained in Appendix D that discusses the existing conditions, impacts and mitigation recommendations as they relate to fish and wildlife resources on and around the site . This report concludes that no significant impacts to these resources will be realized if the project is completed as proposed . In fact, some positive impact to the aquatic species utilizing the basin may be anticipated due to the increased flushing potential of the basin as a result of the proposed marina reconstruction. It should be noted that there has been some correspondence and concern as to the impacts of the proposed development on commercial shellfishing within the basin. The above referenced report points out that while some species (namely hard clams) exist in the basin, they are not present in sufficient numbers to be considered commercially important. Additionally, since the entire basin is privately owned and taxed, the public and/or any commercial operation has no right for fishing, shellfishing, anchoring, or touching bottom in any way, without permission of the owner(s) (Howard Zehner, Pers. Comm. ) . In fact, only surface activity is permitted by right, and this could be controlled per U. S . Supreme Court decision, that public access to navigable private waters is not automatic without "Just Compensation" to the owner(s) . Futhermore, Young 's Boatyard & Marina owns the basin inlet , holds a valid maintenance permit for same, and has a N.Y.S. Land Grant (Howard Zehner, Pers. Comm. ) for the jetty which protects the inlet. Based on this information, public and commercial shellfishing issues should not be considered as impacts relating to the proposed development. 4-13 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS WETLANDS The small areas of wetlands along portions of the basin in the vicinity of the marina will be impacted during construction. These areas are not significant in terms of size or quality habitat. As stated in the D. E. I . S . and Addendum, areas along the basin' s shore and the beach area along Southold Bay are proposed for Wetland creation/enhancement by the planting of appropriate vegetation . This can more than mitigate any impacts on wetlands that occur during the construction phase of development to assure that this program is successful and compensates for any disturbance to existing wetland vegetation. It is recommended that a specific program of wetland planting be submitted and approved during the Site Plan review process. Creation and restoration can be accomplished effectively if proper plant material ( species appropriate for such projects are available commercially) is specified, and if installation and initial maintenance are performed properly. TRAFFIC The proposed development will have an impact on the traffic in the area. Traffic on Sage Boulevard itself will be increased significantly by the project . The proposed traffic generated by the site on Sage Boulevard will be more than double the existing volume (108% increase) based on the data supplied in the D.E. I .S. Since all traffic on Sage Boulevard must also use route 25 , this highway will also be impacted , but to a lesser degree. Not only is the increase in traffic volume a much smaller percentage of the total (approximately 19%) on Route 25, but the road itself has a much greater capacity than Sage Boulevard. The New York State Department of Transportation 4-14 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS has already stated (letter of December 6, 1985) that they do not feel the proposed project will have a significant impact on Route 25. The adequacy of Sage Boulevard to serve this project as well as adjacent properties, has been questioned by several reviewers of the D.E. I.S. and it's Addendum. Although the Traffic Report by Dunn Engineering states that with some minor improvements, this road will be adequate to serve the area, it is recommended that prior to the time of Site Plan approval , the Southport Development will enter into an agreement with the adjacent property owners to improve Sage Boulevard. The minimum recommended improvements would include the widening of the pavement to 24 feet and resurfacing the entire roadway from Route 25 to at least the easterly entrance to the Southport project. LAND USE AND ZONING The present zoning for this site, "C" Light Industrial, is not appropriate for the proposed development, and therefore a rezoning to "M-1" General Multiple Residence has been requested. This zone most closely fits the Southport Development project, but a use variance for the restaurant will still be required. In addition, Southold is presently revising its Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan, and it has been reported that the subject property will be designated as "Marine-Recreation" when these revisions are completed this fall. Since the revisions have not been finalized and it cannot be determined if the speculations about this site will become a reality, only the current zoning as it relates to this project will be discussed. There are many different aspects to the land uses associated with this development. In order to completely discuss these aspects, the subject action will be subdivided into two separate topics, the marina function and the 4-15 O �g rAn•n a L Aw.a' •�� AIO�wMI d/dl�l[MI .IJb 4 AKAPW,~di.4.4.W.WW /w.1 1 AC/1LM/OW.NMNY J~AN, m 1 Z Imo- .000*M yI IAO 00 A+"/Am AWM v \ /yV// L1Mwwy A"ff~lAJAAMM Jwwe%~a v .Ar m m r �I7MNrV7'(//w1 I NM�� /M.-M. O A071YL I180Y,0PW" .M AMM~ D Aoma Aw/aIv dr dmmnw 0 a � m MAMMA 1" dAWCAWV c 2 I mac+ o YI 2I I Z Q � 1 N M y�AMI soz/rAt7Lp "y SOUTHPORT RESORT AND MARINA OREEMPORT NEW YORK HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS motel/restaurant use. The site plan on page 4-16 should be referred to, for a clearer understanding of the following discussions. The present marina use will remain. However, the entire layout of slips, docks, and boardwalks will be changed to accomplish a more orderly and efficient use of the Southport Development ' s portion of the Basin. The site plan, as recommended, shows a total of 113 boat slips as compared to the 121 that were proposed in the D.E. I.S. The reduction of eight slips is recommended in order to allow for a setback from the property line and to assure that the boats utilizing the facilities have adequate space for maneuvering. Winter storage of boats will be allowed and can be accommodated for approximately 60% of the users. This will take place on the western most parking area (see site plan) where it will not interfere with the parking space for the on-going motel and restaurant use. The existing travel lift will remain in its present location and is a potential source of pollution if a leak occurs. However , any such problems can be contained quickly and corrected since an operator must be present when this is in use. Furthermore, since this is an existing feature of the present marina, the proposed project will not cause any impacts due to its use. No normal maintenance or repair of boats will be permitted on-site with the exception of minor emergency repairs. All annual maintenence of boats and repairs other than as stated above must be performed at another location that has the proper facilities. No such facilities will be provided or made available at the Southport Development. It is recommended that the underground fuel tank that exists be retested and certified by the N.Y.S.D.E.C. and/or the S.C.D.H. S. prior to granting of Final Site Plan approval . This will ensure the adequacy and integrity of this facilitiy. A pump-out facility for use by the docked boats 4-17 3 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Y at the marina will be provided. As stated in a letter from s Mr. A.P. Foster of Custom Cesspools, Inc. , such a facility will be practical and the material can be disposed of at the Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant. No dumping of sewage from boats will be tolerated, and this will be strictly enforced by the Southport Development. Any violation of this regulation will be cause for immediate expulsion from •the marina, and since quality docking space is generally at a premium all over Long Island, such actions f will not cause any economic hardship or unused docking space p at the proposed facility. Like the fuel tank, the pumpout facilities will require the necessary approvals prior to Site Plan approval . Dredging needed for the marina reconstruction, as well as the docks and floats, etc. , will require the approval of all applicable local, state, and federal agencies. These approvals must be obtained prior to any construction of these facilities. As recommended in the flushing observation study (Appendix A) , the spit near the center of the marina area is planned for removal as part of the proposed marina reconstruction. This will allow for not only a more efficient marina layout, but will also improve the flushing action in the basin , particularly in the vicinity of the marina. As previously stated elsewhere in this report, any dredged material that is not suitable for use in the upland portion of this development, must be disposed of off-site at a suitable location. The motel/restaurant portion of the proposed development will require a major change to the existing land use. All of the structures , the tennis courts and the pool will be removed with the exception of the old Brickworks "Chimney" which will be preserved and incorporated into the overall Site Plan and architectural style. The recommended Site Plan that follows provides for 78 motel units (a reduction of 4 units from that stated in the D.E. I.S. ) , a 125-seat 4-18 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS restaurant , a small bar area ( 10 seats ) as part of the restaurant operation, two tennis courts, a pool and patio area, and parking for 238 cars. The parking provided can be broken down as follows: Marina (1 Space per Slip) = 113 Motel (1 Space per Unit) = 78 Restaurant (1 Space per 5 Seats) = 25 Bar ( 1 Space per 5 Seats) = 2 Employees = 20 TOTAL: = 238 The parking area proposed for use as winter boat storage would encompass 110 spaces , thus providing for adequate parking for the remaining land uses during these periods. Also , even though the storage procedure will necessitate using only the eastern entrance to the site for ingress and egress, the internal driveways will still provide efficient and adequate vehicular circulation for the on-going uses and facilities for both patrons and delivery services. The reduction in motel units and parking spaces as recommended allows for somewhat larger setbacks along the eastern property line and also provides more space for the Sanitary Disposal System and the possible future expansion of same in the north central portion of the property. Other features of the proposed development, i .e. Sanitary Disposal System, Storm Water Disposal System, Topsoil Spreading, Buffer Plantings, Wetlands Creation and Enhancement, and Pump-Out Facility are either covered in the appropriate sections of this report or will be specifically detailed during the Site Plan review process of this development. The proposed project is in compliance with the New York State Coastal Management Program, (CMP) policies that apply to such a development. Specifically, the following CMP 4-19 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS policies apply to the site and the proposed action is consistant with them: POLICY 1: Restore, revitalize, and redevelop deteriorated and under utilized waterfront areas for commercial, industrial, cultural , recreational and other compatible uses. POLICY 2: Facilitate the siting of water dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent to coastal waters. POLICY 4: Strengthen the economic base of smaller harbor areas by encouraging the development and enhancement of those traditional uses and activites which have provided such areas with their unique maritime identity. POLICY 5: Encourage the location of development in areas where public services and facilities essential to such development are adequate. POLICY 8: Protect fish and wildlife resources in the coastal area from the introduction of hazardous wastes and other pollutants which bio-accumulate in the food chain or which cause significant sublethal or lethal effect on resources. 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. 4-20 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS POLICY 12: Activities or development in the coastal area will be undertaken so as to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion by protecting natural protective features including beaches, dunes, barrier islands and buffers. POLICY 14: Activities and development including the construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures, shall be undertaken so that there will be no measureable increase in erosion or flooding at the site of such activities or development, or at other locations. POLICY 17: Non-Structural measures to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion shall be used whenever possible. POLICY 19: Protect, maintain, and increase the level and types of access to public water-related recreation resources and facilities. POLICY 21: Water dependent and water enhanced recreation will be encouraged and facilitated, and will be given prority over non-water related uses along the coast. POLICY 22: Development when located adjacent to the shore will provide for water-related recreation whenever such use is compatible with reasonably anticipated demand for such activities, and is compatible with the 4-21 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS primary purpose of the development. POLICY 25: Protect, restore or enhance natural and man-made resources which are not identified as being of statewide significance, but which contribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area. POLICY 33: Best management practices will be used to ensure the control of stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows draining into coastal waters. 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. POLICY 35: Dredging and dredge spoil disposal in coastal water will be undertaken in a manner that meets existing State dredging permit requirements, and protects significant fish and wildlife habitats, scenic resources, natural protective features, important agricultural lands, and wetlands. POLICY 37: Best management practices will be utilized to minimize the non-point discharge of excess nutrients, organics, and eroded soils into coastal waters. 4-22 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 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. POLICY 41: Land use of development in the coastal area will not cause national or state air quality standards to be violated. POLICY 44: Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and preseve the benefits derived from these areas. The remaining CMP Policies are either not applicable to the proposed development, or the project will not have any effect on the stated policy. The above policy statements have been excerpted from "State Coastal Policies" prepared by the New York State, Department of State, Coastal Management Program. Therefore, while the development will have an impact on the land use and zoning of the site, the recommended modifications as stated in this report should preclude any significant impacts, and furthermore the proposal is consistant with the New York State Coastal Management Program. COMMUNITY SERVICES This project will not have any significant impact on Community Services. Letters from the Police Department and the Fire Department dated January 28, 1986 and March 3, 1986 respectively, both state that the proposed development will not cause these departments any significant impacts. The other Community Services are either not impacted at all 4-23 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Library, School System) , or are discussed elsewhere in this report. WATER SUPPLY There is sufficient public water available for the proposed development as per the Village of Greenport Board of Trustees Resolution, adopted April 18, 1985. This water will be provided by the Greenport Municipal Water System. SEWAGE DISPOSAL As the test holes and auger probes indicate, the Southport Marina site consists of sand overlaying clay with an artificially high water table elevation in the northern portion of the parcel being at approximately elevation 4. 5. Boring B-1 indicates that the ground water in this location may be at the more normally expected elevation of 0. 5' to P . As the sand lenses at this location may be isolated from the remainder of the parcel by clay strata, it is deemed necessary to have the Sanitary Disposal System for the Southport Resort and Marina designed and built utilizing the upper water table elevation of 4. 5' . The Sanitary Disposal System will be of the nitrogen removal type, designed and constructed with the approval of the Suffolk County Health Department. The sewage will flow by gravity from the motel complex to a septic tank near the north end of the project. After initial treatment in the Septic System, the sanitary effluent will be pumped to the upper filter bed and then flow by gravity to the lower filter bed , the nitrogen removal system and the final disposal pools. It is anticipated that the resulting effluent will have a total nitrogen concentration of well below the 10 parts per million (10 ppm or 10 mg/1) New York State Drinking Water Standard. 4-24 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS t SANITARY SEWER DISPOSAL PLAN_ _ � arc Zo 0z O d OO L �0 aI � / � �1✓ AIHN JTi jry Vim\ / a0 QOIp 9 IC'LOQ[Oiv 4-25 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS This Nitrogen Treatment System has been required for projects of this nature for the past five years . It is currently considered standard design for flows below 15,000 gallons per day and early reports indicate that the tested treated effluent meets or exceeds the design criteria standards. The design flow for this project will be less than the 15, 000 gallons per day listed in the Addendum to the D.E. I.S. Due to the artificially high water table elevation in the northern end of the site, the Santiary Disposal System will necessitate the filling of the existing ground. It is anticipated that the ground over the disposal rings will be at elevation 11. 5 and the ground over the filter bed will be at elevation 17. 5. The granular material to form this fill will be brought in to the project from a local offsite source. The filter bed and disposal ring areas will be shaped to create a pleasing landscape appearance and planted with shrubs or other shallow rooted type of vegetation and blended into the remainder of the project. As this method of sanitary treatment is currently the standard , and must comply with the Suffolk County Health Department standards, it is not anticipated that its implementaion will have any significant adverse effects on the groundwater regime. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The site, as presently developed, is served by private carters for the removal of soild waste. This material is disposed of at the Town of Southold Landfill located north of Middle Road (County Route 27 ) in Cutchogue. The proposed development will be served in the same manor , although an increase in the amount of solid waste generated will occur . The amount of additional solid waste 4-26 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS originating at the site during the summer months may be estimated by assuming a generation rate of 5 pounds per day per motel unit, 5 pounds per day per boat slip, 8 pounds per day per restaurant seat, and 2 pounds per day per employee ( ref . Dept. of the Navy) . Using the 78 motel units, 22 additional boat slips, 125 seat restaurant, and 20 employees, the following calculation may be made: Motel 5 Lb. X 78 = 390 Lbs/Day. Marina 5 lb X 22 = 110 Lbs/Day. Restaurant 8 lb X 125 = 1,000 Lbs/Day. Employees 2 lb X 20 = 40 Lbs/Day. Thus, the total increase in solid waste estimated for the development is approximately 1 , 540 pounds per day or three quarters of a ton. This increase will not have a significant impact on the Cutchogue Landfill as they presently handle about 100 tons per (Ray Jacobs Pers. Comm. ) day during the summer . In the off-season, this development would be expected to generate about half of the above amount, based on the figures for the Cutchogue Landfill for that period of the year. ELECTRIC POWER The Long Island Lighting Company will provide the electrical power for this project. No significant impacts to 4-27 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS LILCO or their other consumers will be caused by this development. VISUAL RESOURCES The proposed development will have a significant impact on the area' s visual resources. Since most of the existing structures on the site will be removed and replaced by a fairly large motel and restaurant complex, the visual character of the property will be completely altered. This transformation must be viewed in a subjective manor since architectural style is a very personal matter. The existing visual character of the site is dominated by the old brickyard buildings and the present marina configuration. Visually, the proposed marina will differ very little from that which exists presently . The motel-restaurant complex will be vastly different from the structures that are in existence currently. The proposed building will occupy slightly more of the site' s area and will be located toward the southern end of the property to take advantage of the view onto Southold Bay. Additionally, the site will have a fairly extensive network of access drives, parking areas, and vehicular service drives. These areas will not be paved with impervious material however , but with gravel or crushed stone. In the off-season, the western-most parking area will be used for dry storage of some of the boats utilizing the marina. This will have an additional visual impact on the site during these times. The construction of this development, as proposed, will not significantly alter the views of adjacent properties towards either Southold Bay or the Basin containing the marina . These views will remain essentially as they are presently , even though the view of the property will be altered considerably. 4-28 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES There are not known historic or archaeological resources that would be impacted by the proposed project. Since the property had been extensively modified by the brick making operation that was previously present, any such resources, if they even existed, were likely destroyed or significantly altered during that period. DEMOGRAPHY This project will have a minor impact on the demography of the Town of Southold, but due to it' s nature of transient use, no permanent impact will occur . The total population of Southold in the 1980 cencus was 19, 172. The present estimated population for 1985 is 20, 229 (1986 Long Island Almanac) . This project with it' s additional 22 boat slips , 78 motel units , and 125 seat restaurant, might add, on a temporary basis, 300 people to the population of the Town of Southold. This represents only a 1. 5% increase, which is not deemed significant, especially in light of the fact of it ' s non-permanence. On a more local basis, the 1985 estimated population of the Greenport-Southold Area is 8, 614. The projected temporary increase created by the proposed project represents an increase of 3. 5%. Again, this is not deemed to have any significant impact on the area. NOISE The project will have an impact on the noise levels on-site and in the surrounding area. The more intensive use of the property will necessarily generate additional noise. This noise will be primarily from three sources, additional 4-29 1 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS vehicular traffic, increased boating usage, and the motel use. Additionally, during the construction phase, elevated noise levels can be expected during normal working hours. These noise levels, while they may cause some inconvenience to surrounding property owners during these time periods, F will be of a temporary nature. Also, they will not be r occurring at night or on weekends, when they would be most objectionable. MITIGATING MEASURES Mitigating Measures are proposed and discussed in the appropriate sections of the F. E . I . S . , and these specific subtopics should be consulted for this information. Furthermore, the D.E. I .S. and Addendum offer additional discussion and detail pertaining to the proposed Mitigation Plans. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The proposed project does not simply involve a d short-term use of committed resources. Structures made of steel, concrete, and glass can be expected to last 100 years or more and can even be rebuilt on the same site , if necessary or desired. It is not expected that these structures will ever become obsolete or surplus in view of the general population. There will always be demand for marina space and a motel/restaurant complex in the increasing trend for water-oriented recreation and leisure activities. Vegetation which will be removed from the site represents a commitment of a natural resource. However , this will be offset by the additional plantings that will be installed in conjunction with the development of this project. Loss of some of the habitat for wildlife represents 4-30 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS an irretrievable commitment of a natural resource, but it mostly affects those species that are adaptable to other habitats nearby and that are tolerant of most human activities. Some habitat may actually be improved by the development of this project (See Appendix D) . Development of this project will irreversibly and irretrievably commit the short-term use of various resources during the construction period. These include the use of electricity for operating tools and machinery and for lighting; the use of gas, oil and diesel fuel for operating construction equipment and for the delivery of building material, and the human resources of manpower for the construction itself. Long-term commitment of building materials including wood , concrete, steel , glass and others will also be necessary for the development of this project. The quality of these materials and energy committed will be in keeping with those used for the development of high quality structures such as those proposed. None of these commitments will have a significant impact on the site, the surrounding area, or the region as a whole. EFFECTS ON THE USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY The project will require both short-term and long-term expenditures of various kinds of energy. In the short-term, the energy consumption will be caused by the construction operations directly . This will involve electricity and various fuel sources for operating tools and machinery either directly or indirectly , i . e. , fuel consumption of trucks delivering building materials. Long-term energy consumption will primarily involve electricity and fuel oil used in the normal operation of the marina and motel/restaurant complex. The project will cause an increase in traffic by the population using the facility, and this will result in a increase in the use of gasoline and to a lesser extent , 4-31 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS diesel fuel. Additionally, the expanded marina facilities will result in an increased use of marine fuels. The design and construction of the buildings themselves will take into consideration all of the latest advances in fuel efficient building technology. Use of such things as superior insulation and double glazed windows will all be maximized to the fullest extent possible to reduce the amount of energy consumed by occupancy of the buildings. No siginificant impacts on the use or conservation of energy will result from the construction or operation of the proposed development. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Although the D.E. I .S. and it's Addendum do not fully discuss all the possible alternatives to the proposed project, it seems that the economic analysis presented on pages 65-68 of the Addendum justify a mixed use type of project if the marina is to be upgraded and maintained. The fact that this report is recommending a reduction of 8 marina slips, makes it even more important for the project sponsor to be able to generate income by some means other than the marina site. The alternatives presented and discussed are the only ones that the project sponsor has the ability , desire , resources, and economic means to consider. Since the proposed action has been shown not to significantly impact the site or the surrounding area in any way that can' t be mitigated successfully, the proposed development is a reasonable and proper use for the property. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS No significant growth inducement will be realized by the construction and operation of the proposed development. The 4-32 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS motel/restaurant will encourage additional tourist activity to some extent, although this would not be expected to be significant in and of itself . No permanent population increase will occur as a result of this project , but the seasonal influx will bolster the local economy during these periods. 4-33 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS APPENDICES HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS APPENDIX A FLUSHING OBSERVATION STUDY AND SUPPLEMENT EXPRESS DREDGING SYSTEMS, INC. P O BOX 564.HOLDEN.MA 01520 617-792-1164 FLUSHING OBSERVATION STUDY YOUNG IS MARINA SAGE ROAD GREENPORT, TOM OF SOUT80LD, SUFFOLK COUN'T'Y, NY JUNE 9-10, 1986 John C. Roberge M. Sean Burnett For TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPDCIALISTS, INC. RD 14 Box 388 Phoenix, New York 13135 By EXPRESS DREDGING SYSTEMS, INC. Neal J. Gruber, P.E. P.O. Box 710 Brewerton, New York 13029 CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 SITE DESCRIPTION 2 3 STUDY CONDITIONS 5 4 INSTRUMENTS & EQUIPMENT 7 5 SURFACE DROGUE MOVEMENT 10 9 JUN - P.M. EBB 10 JUN - A.M. EBB 9 JUN - P.M. FLOOD 10 JUN - A.M. FLOOD 6 ENTRANCE THROAT CONDITIONS 20 BATHYMETRY VELOCITY DATA 7 OBSERVATIONS & ANALYSIS 23 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE 1 LOCATION OF STUDY SITE 3 2 SITE DETAILS 4 3 STUDY TIDE AND WIND CONDITIONS 6 4 SURFACE DROGUE 8 5 EBB FLOW DROGUE MOVEMENT, 9 JUN 86 11 6 EBB FLOW DROGUE MOVEMENT, 10 JUN 86 14 7 FLOOD FLOW DROGUE MOVEMENT, 9 JUN 86 16 8 FLOOD FLOW DROGUE MOVEMENT, 10 JUN 86 17 1010 - 1140 9 FLOOD FLOW DROGUE MOVEMENT, 10 JUN 86 19 1145 - 1257 10 EMBAYMENTTHROAT VELOCITY CHARACTERISTICS 21 11 HISTORICAL WIND DIRECTION DATA 26 1 . INTRODUCTION Based upon discussions between Mr. Roy Slack, Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. (TES) and Mr. Neal J. Gruber , Express Dredging Systems, Inc. (EDSI) , a program to identify the flushing characteristics of the Young's Marina Development Site located off Shelter Island Sound, Southold, NY was identified. This program included: .Soundings of the embayment entrance throat section .Vertical velocity profiles in the throat section .Tidal stage history .Surface drogue study .Periodic wind observations The purpose of the program was to observe and characterize the flushing capabilities of the embayment . Velocity measurements, tidal stage history and the embayment throat cross section data were used to determine the tidal prism. The surface drogue study was used to characterize the tidal flushing effects as well as to qualitatively identify the effects of wind on water movement within the embayment . 1 2 . SITE DESCRIPTION The Young's Marina Development Site is located within a man-made embayment to the east of Hashamomuck Pond on Conkl ing Pt. , Southold Bay in Shelter Island Sound, approximately 2.5 miles southwest of Greenport , Suffolk County, NY. The site location is shown in Figure 1 . The embayment , which encloses the study site, is shown in Figure 2. Based upon the Mean High Water Line (MHW) approximated from the New York State DEC, Tidal Wetlands Map No. 718-550, the embayment has an approximate surface area of 848,000 sq. ft. or 19.47 acres. Several predominant physical features of the enclosed area include: ( 1 ) a land spit running approximately westerly from the existing marina site into the embayment and (2) shallow submerged bar formations which define the northeast and northwest quadrants of the embayment. The embayment is a former landlocked clay pit, which supported a large brick works located at the current marina site. The bottom includes several isolated deep holes created by excavations in the past. The bottom is littered with bricks and small cobbles. The embayment surface is exposed to unimpeded wind fields originating from all directions. There are no promontories or natural wind screens which would influence the study site. Winds from the south have an open fetch of approximately 2 miles across Southold Bay before affecting the embayment reach. 2 .4+4' �w r s f [low ISLAND SOUND r' � GARDIIN1W BAY J mr SEE pp= ate�' •.�w��{,,,, Pond 4 SHELTER ISLAND s3thal Bay y Bay i FLUSHING OBSERVATION STUDY N Young's farina Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY • 1:80,000 APPROVED BY SCALE: DRAWN BY iQ \ DATE:9-10 JUN 86 Kamm DREDGM SYS'IFMIS,ING. REVISED FIGURE 1 LOCATION OF STUDY STtS DRAWING NUMBER ,. ED6I -- j - fir• Dfi.{'��'�'` s�... ...v,Ay;; " _ ww 01 Y Pvpax. 2tal Srfam Area 843400 eq. ft. (19.Q Acanl. DOCK 4 ti •':•' =•. DOCK _, LEGEND DOCK 1 -SNAlcw Area: J` Ft= 71M FffiPHB MP 4��. NEW Yc-k DBr a -- Yep 718-M) Mxlm Map No6 4 ✓�^ _ _ ; SO T EKE BAY FLUSHING OBSERVATION STUD Young Is Marina Greenport, Town of Southoldi Suffolk County# NY SCALL-lo 3 220E APPROVED BV: DRAWN BY jcr FXPRFS►S DREDGING SYSTEM,Im. � DATE:9-10 JON 86 REVISED FIGURE 2 SITE DETAILS DRAWING NUMBER EDSI 3 . STUDY CONDITIONS The flushing observation study was conducted over two days, 9-10 June 1986. The weather was generally fair with temperatures ranging between 68 F and 86 F. No precipitation was observed or measured. Winds were intermittent from the North and Northwest and generally light throughout the study. Predicted tides , based upon the NOAA predictions on New London, CT and corrected to Lat. 410041, Log. 72025' (Southold) were to run between 2.1 and 2.6 ft in range with the following schedule of high and low: 9 Jun: H.W. 1216 L.W. 1816 10 Jun: H.W. 0014 L.W. 0705 H.W. 1259 L.W. 1901 The observed tide and wind conditions at the study site are identified on Figure 3. Observed tidal ranges were approximately equal to the predicted ranges. However, the observed times for high and low water were approximately one hour later than the predicted times. Tidal observations were taken at the embayment mouth and at the boat dock located adjacent to the travelift at the interior of the marina. Both tide staffs were in agreement and there was no measurable time difference between tidal fluctuations in Southold Bay (mouth) and the embayment. 5 Ism tl3917/1N ONIMYtic SMIIVAS2 SW UNIM @1K Z ]cnis £ 32MIA ,Si oasu►�tl .DII'SWS SAS D IIDOZW SSZHdXS 99 NW OT-6 'arra AY NMrtlO -X�� :71vas :As 03AOtlddr AN 'Aaurbo'J 311[o330.S 'PTOLr4noS To SRL ':poduaaa O eupw O'&mox _ R AMW NOI.LVAIC SH0 DN3HM 1d R i i I 20 2m w 1 x 44 : X44 j O � 3 44 l I �I1 i ! rL P-4o Ai - -- � PA � > � 4JW i 8 � H 084MI 'HOLTVA2M WCEM 4 . INSTRUMENTS & EQUIPMENT The flushing observation study was conducted using several standard instruments and elementary field equipment. These Included the following: .Neutrally buoyant surface drogues (50) .Lineal tide staffs (2) .Hand held anemometer .Propeller velocity meter The surface following drogues were constructed as shown in Figure 4. The 18 in long white ash shaft was made neutrally buoyant by adding lead counterweights to the bottom. The drogue was vertically immersed in the flow field to a depth of approximately 16 in. The top 2 in of the shaft extended above the water surface and displayed the drogue number for identification. Tidal history was read throughout the study on two lineal staffs set at arbitrary datums. Water elevations was recorded by observers as a function of time. Tidal elevation readings were accurate to ± 0. 25 in. 7 u�Q � 16 - in 2-in K rt — - — — — — — — — — Emma — m 'n' 00 �I lil NFLUSHING OBSERVATION ST UVr Young's Marina m rte Town of Southold, Suffolk Corm NY ^ APPROVED ev 'llf� SCALE:' EXPRESS DREDGING SY��,DC• DRAWN BY DATE: 9-10 ` UN REVISED FIGURE 4 J SURFACE DROGUE DRAWING NUMBER EDS1 A hand held anemometer was used to monitor local wind speeds. Wind direction was estimated from a hand held compass. The anemometer was a weighted flap type with an accuracy of + 0.25 mph. The instrument was held over the technician's head or attached to a clear view vertical post . The water current meter was a hand held propeller type with an operating accuracy of 0.1 ft/s. Sensor range was 0 - 5 ft/s. The meter was capable of displaying an instantaneous or a 45 sec average output . 9 5 . SURFACE DROGUE MOVEMENT Surface following drogues were placed at predetermined locations throughout the embayment at the estimated peaks of two ebb and two flood tide cycles. Drogue movement and consequently near surface water movement was observed to be significantly influenced by the presence of any instantaneous wind field. The strongest sustained water velocities were observed to be through the embayment throat or entrance on both the ebb and flood cycles. Attempts to monitor subsurface velocities with the electronic propeller velocity meter yielded no measurable flows within the embayment confines. Details of the various drogue motion studies are described in the following sections. The drogue position tracings are shown in Figures 5-9. The times of position readings are shown, while the direction of travel is Indicated by the arrow at the end of the dashed vector . 9 JUN 86 - EBB FLOW CONDITIONS Drogues were placed throughout the embayment during ebb tide, approximately one hour before peak low, between 1821 and 1847 on 9 JUN 86. The measured wind speed during this phase of the study ranged between 1-7 ft/s, measured approximately 6 ft above ground surface, 220 feet south of the Young's Marina Travelift . The wind was consistently out of the NW. Drogue movement patterns are shown in Figure 5. Each of the drogue vectors, with the exception of that placed near the 10 • = / 1832 • . - 1905 _ P 18V i / IBM •. I �i i lMD + 7839 186 01915 01847 J* 11925 � ;C f j'• ]907 ]9M ' i joicvt4 I �i .7uUTEKW BAY ' FLUSBIM OBSERVATION STM �. Young's Marina rt, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY scutE A"MOVE : 1 = 140 D DrDRAWN Gr jCt '.. DATE EXPRESS DREDGING SYS'T'EMS,INC. OtEVISCO FIC X= 5 • EBB FL at DROGM MOVEMEIM, 9 JUN 86 (MAW MG MU109E11 Note : Significant Niel Wind Field EDSI embayment throat, was oriented nearly parallel to the wind axis. Drogue velocities ranged between 0.05 ft/s and 0.58 ft/s. The flow vector through the embayment entrance was the highest in magnitude and appeared to orient itself along the channel axis. Surface velocities within the NE and NW quadrants even under the influence of the NW wind, were typically under 0.1 ft/s. Drogue velocities in the reach between docks 1 and 2 were on the order of 0.2 ft/s. The three drogues shown between docks 1 and 2 were beached by the wind driven water movement. Not shown by any drogue motion, was a slight current which ran westerly from this reach, parallel to the levee and towards the embayment entrance. This water movement was visually tracked by following floating trash which consisted of grass, seaweed and several plastic bottles. This clockwise movement was also noted when following the drogue which moved from between docks 2 and 3 (west of the travelift) , under dock 2 and was eventually beached. There was a general clockwise rotation within the marina reach. 10 JUN 86 - EBB FLOW CONDITIONS Additional ebb flow drogue motion observations were taken between 0430 and 0647 on 10 JUN 86, during the ebb cycle which immediately followed the previous ebb observations. The significant difference between these observations and the 9 JUN 86 results was that there was no detectable wind during the ebb cycle on this day. 12 Drogue patterns are shown in Figure 6. Drogue motion through the entrance was oriented approximately parallel to the entrance channel axis. The speed of the drogues passing through the throat and entrance channel ranged between 0.7 and 1.28 ft/s. Flow between docks 1 and 2 appeared to split at a shoreline nodal point located approximately midway between the two structures. To the west of the nodal point drogues were observed to flow in a clockwise direction, eventually orienting themselves parallel to the shoreline and moving towards the entrance. East of the nodal point, the drogues defined a general counter-clockwise rotation, beneath dock 2, over the submerged shallow spit upon which dock 2 was constructed, across the travelift and eventually deflected by the extensive impermeable spit which includes the dock 3 structure. This latter counter-clockwise rotation appeared to be an extensive eddy which split from the flow mass exiting the NW and NE quadrants of the embayment. Drogue motion in these upper reaches was generally directed towards the inner channel constriction. Velocities were typically under 0.1 ft/s in these areas. It can be speculated that the formation of the eddy in the dock 2 area is primarily a result of shedding of flow from around the dock 3 spit tip. Elimination of this spit would likely reduce the possibility of this eddy formation. 9 JUN 86 - FLOOD FLOW CONDITIONS Initial flood flow drogue patterns were observed on 9 JUN 86. These observations were initiated near to the mid-tide range. A slight wind from the NW was noted at the beginning of the flood observations, but diminished as the tidal cycle approached near peak. 13 f' •� / 0436 I • 0647 • • • / S _ u 055 T506•�-_----- ------- 062D 0 0437 •. . •.' •,• • . • • . . ., • • • • .' '•' 1 • • MIS • / • • • �CM1, Orifi M'�PO- OSB - o0 • 0 � / 625 0451 + tl t CEM ` � , � 098k-.. � • 0434 -•0433 f0535 Nib �-- i ti' / � ;Y •ice r � / 1 / �05C$ • 0510ol i. 004% 043D 0523• j t 1 •—. .-•• / •' - r i ' 0932 t 0517 i ; yi '! P 1 t 60m ' ,f r.' C 4 1 �•�.� 1 0429 cf BAY � y i ' FLUSHING OBSFRVATICH STUDY Young's Marina i,T rt Town of Southold, Suffolk Cam , NY y ocAm 1'= 401 A/►Aoveo�r: DIIAVMOV ]Q DATE 10 JUN 86 EXPRESS DREDGING SYSTEMS,INC• AIMED `y ~ FIGURE 6 ' EBB FUN DROGUE MOVEKMr, 10 JUN 86 (MAMING NOME" - Note : No Wind Effects EDSI Drogues placed within the inlet throat, as shown on Figure 7, were unifromly distributed throughout the embayment by the flooding tide. Velocities ranged between 0.11 f/s and 0.16 ft/s in the near entrance reach and diminished to under 0. 1 ft/s as the drogues entered the inner embayment. No significant drogue movement was detected within the NE and NW quadrats. Flood water, entering through the embayment entrance channel appeared to unifromly disperse throughout the entire embayment system. 10 JUN 86 - FLOOD FLOW CONDITIONS ' Drogues were placed throughout the embayment to track the flow patterns created by the midday flooding tide of 10 JUN 86. The drogues were initially placed between 1009 and 1024 and tracked through 1259, approximately one hour before peak flood stage. Wind from the N was measured at 1-2 ft/s between 0920 and 1125 and diminished to between 0-1 ft/s between 1200 and 1320. The drogue patterns for this tidal cycle are shown on Figures 8 and 9. A comparison of these two figures demonstrates the significant impact which even a moderate wind can have upon the embayment circulation. The drogue patterns shown on Figure 8 reflect the influence of the steady N wind upon the surface water circulation in the early to mid range of the flooding tide. A general clockwise rotation was evident within the southern half of the embayment and throughout the Young's Marina reach. The strongest velocities were evident in the entrance channel reach immediately inside the embayment. Maximum drogue velocities in this reach were between 0.29 and 0.32 ft/s. Maximum drogue velocities in 15 ism 91-09M PUTM ON : OICW w3emnN omimvma I 98 NW 6 'JMMGAOW ZDMW MOIA GODU Ckl (3.3f.m.4m 90 Nnr 6 :uva omfswzim OULDMIM ssaam As NIAVVGaas I AG C3AOM"V lozz �-ml: lv XH ,,F4urbco XlojjnS *Pj[OW4noS jo up-qL I:poduaa•fi� wtrraW u,6urkoX AaRTS NDI"AMEW OW XW GrJOELUM griz % % % % I %% 09luz cezz PM cmz s. (EEZ z9m OTEZ • .4 *.a • • s 1056 i llm •� • i •1 l 9 1 1034 ♦ • '• • ••• '•• • • . •1034 _ _ _ _ • ia32 / '•'. 1035 • •• ••••• 1 • i / 1 i / �' • 1M7 91 •1021 1036 I • lC54 ' wn47 r' •� - - - - - _ . 1017 • •IMS t- •-- - - - - - ].031 1 _ 1009 1015 t 1 1 10331 - `♦`•_ _ • lml lame 1014 > �1d31 1003 1013 Q� 1m .�- rr ��yJ��•��/�p����� per{/ ,� -.�- ., _ y i♦ SCUTE10 J) [X11 -Zt....,-y - _ ' :'.. . FLUSHING OBSERVATION STUDY Young's !farina Greenport, Tam of Southold.. Suffolk cotmty, NY scum: 1"= 140' 1 nr►Ilovto B. oIRAww sr icr 'r osn.10 JUN 86 EXPRESS DREWM SYSZfflLS,lnWC• Iltvlsco FIGURE 8 ••r FLOOD FLOW DROGUE MOVEMENT, 10 JUN 86, 1010-1140 � ; o"•wlwc worsts 1� Note Wind Effects FSI the NE quadrant were approximately 0. 1 ft/s. A significant reduction in the wind intensity was noted at approximately 1145 during this same flooding cycle. As the influence of the N wind diminished, an immediate change in drogue trajectories was observed. The wind was nearly undetectable after 1205 and the resulting drogue patterns are shown on Figure 9. No eddy or rotational movement of the water mass was detected when primarily influenced by the tidal flow and not by a wind field. Drogue velocities between 0.1 and 0.35 ft/s were noted in the entrance reach. A strong flow, with an average velocity of 0.21 ft/s, was tracked from the entrance side of dock 1 , through the reach between docks 1 and 2 and beneath dock 2 running approximately parallel to the shoreline. 18 . 1156 • 12x) •_ •.• - - •r _ 1258 . - 1157 •- - - • 1215 • 1223 171,0 • ___ _-►•12�i7 11r n •, -___•- _ _ __ .. _- -••1257 � • 1215 •�-- 125 1ZL3 APO 122D 17 r' `. 1 ` 1147 SO IBOLD BAY > FLUSHING OBSERVATION SRIDY Young's [Karina Greenports Town of Southoldj, Suffolk County, NY SCALE: 1'= 140' &J"OVED By DIIAMIN BY jcr rWRESS DREDGING SYS EMS j INC:. GATE 10 JUN 86 REVISED LJ FIGURE 9 FLOOD FLAW DROGUE MDVEM NPS 10 JUN 86, 1145-1257 \. DRAWING NUMBER t Note : Wind Diminished EDSI 6. ENTRANCE THROAT CONDITIONS A detailed determination of the embayment entrance bathymetric and flow characteristics was conducted as an integral part of the flushing study. The geometry of the throat section of the entrance channel was determined. Velocity profiles at two locations within the entrance throat were measured at both the mid-flood and mid-ebb tidal stages. BATHYMETRY The embayment throat section was measurd by lead line, referenced from the measured low water datum, on 10 JUN. The approximate trapezoidal section shown on Figure 10, is slightly skewed to the west which results in a shallower section slope on the eastern side of the entrance channel . The western side of the channel is stabilized by a driven sheet pile bulkhead. Maximum depths in the channel range between 8 ft and approximately 10.5 ft depending upon tidal stage. The channel bottom appears to be stable and is armored with bricks and cobble. Grasses are well established in the intertidal zone on the eastern shoreline of the channel . No evidence of channel meandering was observed. 20 Elevation Above Channel Bottom Ft O PW N W lob LA 0% -1 OD to Observed Higher High Water, 10 JUN, +2.6 ft N Q w LIQ 0 Datum, L.W. 0710, 10 JUN u+ 1 EAST WEST I 1 2 N v� I r 4 A 5 �, • �j �• �' 7 8 O 9 O I 0 20 40 60 s0 100 r ►Iq Distance From Horizontal Reference, ft ; N w HMBAYMINT THROAT SELTION I rr FLASHING OBSFRYATICH STUDY (� N Young's Marina Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY � V APPROVED BY .Cr • SCALE: Nam DRAWN BY W EXF tFFS.S SYS MIINC. N' DATE: 9-10 JUN 86 REVISED • FIGURE 10 O EMI"E T THROAT VELOCITY CHARACTERISTICS DRAWING NUMBER EDSI VELOCITY DATA Velocity profiles at two stations within the throat section were determined at both the mid-flood and mid-ebb stages. This data is plotted on Figure 10. The profiles are generally uniform with typical flood velocities ranging over depth of between 0.34 and 0.48 ft/s. Ebb velocities were slightly higher, ranging between 0.32 and 0.65 ft/s. Visual observations of the flow patterns through the entrance channel identified several significant events. During flood tide, horizontal flow distribution across the throat section appeared to be generally uniform. However, during the ebb tide, an eddy extended from the eastern shoreline of the throat to approximately the 35 ft horizontal reference station of Figure 10. This eddy zone was essentially quiescent, with no measurable velocity over the entire 4 ft depth. This zone represents approximately 15% of the throat cross sectional area. 22 7. OBSERVATIONS & ANALYSIS The embayment , which includes the Young' s Marina development site, is characterized by its unique geometry and by its unimpeded exposure to the prodominant local wind conditions. Water surface elevations within the embayment are primarily driven by the astronomical tides affecting Southold Bay. Surface water transport within the embayment, as traced by the drogues in this study, is highly affected by local instantaneous winds. The wind field dominated the tidal induced motion during both the flood and ebb cycles of this study. The tidal excursions noted during this study were typical of this site, and representative of normal daily conditions. TIDAL PRISM The approximate surface area of the embayment is 848 ,000 sq. ft. ( 19.47 acres) . The maximum range of the tide observed during this study was 31 in ( 2.58 ft) , while the minimum range was 25.5 in ( 2. 12 ft) . The tidal prism is that volume of water which enters and subsequently flushes from the embayment during each tidal cycle. The maximum tidal prism of the embayment was 2 , 187 , 800 cubic feet , and the minimum tidal prism was 1 ,797 , 700 cubic feet . ENTRANCE THROAT CONDITIONS The embayment entrance throat has a cross sectional area of approximately 345 sq. ft. at low water. At higher high water , 23 the wetted cross section includes an area of approximately 620 sq. ft. Based upon the tidal prism approximation, the time averaged tidal velocity at any profile through the throat during flood would be approximately 0.20 ft/s and the maximum time averaged profile velocity would be approximately 0.28 ft/s. This is in general agreement with the observed velocities measured in the entrance throat . These computed velocities would be valid for ebbing conditions if the ebb flow through the throat was uniformly distributed. However, the stagnant zone observed during the ebb cycle incorporates approximately 15% of the throat cross section. The computed ebb velocities would be approximately 15% higher than the flood velocities. This was verified by the field measurements . EMBAYMENT CIRCULATION Water movement within the embayment appears to be influenced by three primary factors : 1 ) Astronomical tides 2) Local Winds 3) Westerly oriented interior spit Ebb flow, unaffected by wind, was observed to move uniformly through the study area with the exception of the formation of a large eddy to the south of the interior spit. Removal of this spit could reduce the formation of this eddy and thus ensure uniform flushing of the embayment. 24 Flood flow was observed, during those intervals with no wind effects , to move through the embayment entrance and flow uniformly into the embayment. Flow appeared to be skewed towards the developed marina reach and was not measurable in the upper reaches of the NW quadrant. Local winds were observed to significantly influence the movement of surface water within the emayment during both ebb and flood flows. Wind effects should be taken into account for any flushing considerations in this embayment. Figure it includes typical directional wind roses for the Brookhaven National Laboratory located approximately 30 miles west of the study site. The wind rose is a graphical depiction of the frequency of wind direction. On an annual basis, the winds which effected these studies could be expected to occur approximately 17% from the NW and 10% from the N. The data contained in these illustrations is a summary of hourly readings taken between Aug 1948 and JUL 1951. While not adequate for design purposes, this data set does indicate the presence of significant winds at the study site. These winds are the primary driving force for circulation within the embayment. The spit, which includes the Dock 3 structure and runs in a westerly orientation into the embayment, also impacts circulation and flushing in the system. Ebbing tidal flow from the upper NE and NW portions of the empayment is constricted through a 25 NNW NNW N NNE NNE NW 25 NE NW 2% NE 15 15 WNW ENE WwNW ENE W 7% E W 0% E WSW ESE WSW ESE aNi SW SE SW 'SE SSW S SSE SSW S SSE Wind Direction Rose, 37-ft Level Wind Direction Rose, 37-ft Level ANNUAL JUNE From: Nagle, C.M. 'Climatology of Brookhaven National Laboratory, 1949 Through 1973', Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, November 1975 FtdSHING OBSERVATION STUDY Young's Marina Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY Note: Periods of Calm are Noted APPROVED BY: at Center of Rose. *CALM None DRAWN BY cr DATE-9-10 JUN 86 EXPRESS DREDGING SYSI4�LS,INC. REVISED FIGURE 11 HISTORICAL WIND DIMMON DATA DRAWING NUMBER EDSI relatively narrow reach at the tip of the spit. Shedding of flow from the tip is a likely cause of the eddy which was observed between docks 2 and 3. Removal of this spit could be the most significant influence on generating uniform flow through the embayment. This could enhance flushing of the system. 27 SUPPLEMENT TO FLUSHING OBSERVATION STUDY YOUNG'S MARINA SAGE ROAD GREENPORT, TOWN OF SOUTE30LD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY JUNE 9-10, 1986 QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF PROPOSED MARINA PLAN John C. Roberge M. Sean Burnett for Terrestrial Environmental Specialists , Inc . RD 1 , Box 388 t Phoenix, NY 13135 by Express Dredging Systems, Inc . Neal J. Gruber, P . E. P. 0. Box 710 [ c Brewerton, NY 13029 ' E QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF PROPOSED MARINA PLAN The proposed marina plan for the Southport Resort includes the development of approximately 3.6 acres of the embayment for up to 120 slips. The plan calls for removal of the existing land spit which presently includes the dock 3 structure and the submerged bar formation beneath dock 2. In addition, the marina will be dredged to maintain minimum depths throughout the facility. The plan is shown on Figure 1. based upon the observations made during the two day, 9-10 June 1986, flushing observation study; flushing of the project area will likely be improved compared to existing conditions, by the implementation of the development plan. This conclusion must , however, be qualified due to the relatively limited duration of the study. Removal of the existing land spit will reduce and possibly eliminate formation of secondary flows such as the eddy observed on the 10 June 1986 ebb tide. Tidal water flow, during both flood and ebb, will be made more uniform in the NE sector of the embayment . This uniform flow will improve the flushing characterisitcs within the improved marina system. Wind effects can be significant within the existing embayment. During the two day observation study, winds from the north and northwest were noted to dominate the tidal induced flows. As shown in the attached appendix, winds during the boating season can be expected to oringinate from all directions. There is a predominate SW wind field at the Brookhaven site during May-September. If this predominance were noted at the marina development site, there could be further significant wind effects upon the flushing characteristics of the study site. No absolute conclusions of wind effects can be made based upon the Brookhaven historical data. It is recommended that a meteorological station, monitoring wind speed and direction, be established at the development site. Further hydrodynamic studies, i.e. drogue studies, of the embayment circulation should be correlated with these real time conditions. The effects of wind and astronomical tides upon the flushing characteristics of the system and upon the new plan could be further studied and absolutely defined in a physical or a mathematical hydraulic model. FC7 / ► f► 1 1 / { MARINA 1 N \� MOTEL SOUTHOLD BAY QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF PROPOSED MARINA PLAN Supplement to: FLUSHING OBSERVATION STUDY APVROVED•t: scALt None 001AwN n jcr DAM EXPRESS DREDGING SYSTEMS]INC. �msco FIGURE 1 MARINA PLAN 0"Aw►go MuwEA ? EDSI e i f APPEMIX Monthly Wind Direction Data From Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY Source: Nagle, C.M., "Climatology of Brookhaven National Laboratory, 1949 Through 1973", Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY November 1975 M • Mfr set[ spr Mt tyr . K No K I� .tiC •/ t@NW I1 cr[ WNW •�, cN[ WSW [SE Wsr ESE sW s[ s. K S" 1 SSE Uv ss[ ;< s Hind direction rose.37-ft k.cl.Jan. Wind direction roe.37-b level.Feb. M A NNW NNE M►r ' ti � K Nr K ��• w °r: r4• . AYE CALM = _ALM W ! % w 5% E wsr � � [SE wSw � J ESE /P�� So SE S1► SE Us SSE SSM SS- S S Wind direction rose.37-ft le%vl.%tar Wind direction rose.3,-h level.Apr IN, N •aw, NNE wr ME �r vE rr � NE r -•. WNW,16, [NE WNW f E c � W _ice r :A► if E i NSA ESE �. S! S. SE i SSM 1 SSE SSW 1 SSE S S Wind direction rose.37-ft Icvel.\fay. ��'ind direction rose.37-ft level.Jun • M M owe ma twee Old I "D K tow K ttrww LNE ww LNE i i CAJO :4Jr E R E 111 1 / � I WSW ESE WSW t•� ESE so / fE fw ► fE ssw SSE sSw SSE i f Kind direction rose,37A le el.Jul. Wind direction rose.37-b k+el Aug. M h wft NNE IAVw M[ IA � vw NE warn 04 ENE C4N JlY w •21 E �C% i WSW ESE w5• ESE H SE Sw SE SS% SSE SS* SSE S f Wind direction rose,37-ft lend.Sep. Wind direction rose.37-h Irel.Oct. w w tww NNE NNY1 NNE 3- 4r !%E M• •NE w ♦% » tSM ' SSE w5•X ESE SM S: Sw SE SSw SSE SSw I SSE S f Wind direction rose.37-h level.\o►• %Vind direction row 3;-ft level.Dec - - - -- — . — - r - - - HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS APPENDIX B SOIL BORING LOGS HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING LOGS FF;OJECT Southport Marina DATE May 1, 1986 LOCATI0:4 PROJECT N= HOLE 141 F DEPTH SOIL DESCF.PTION CONDITIONS AND REMARKS TO P-1 0 1' TOPSOIL, Brown-Gray 1' 2' SAND, trace Clay - Light Brown 2' 6' CLAY, trace Sand, Light Brown No Water P-2 0 4" TOPSOIL - Gray 4" 1' CLAY, some Sand - Light Brown 1' 3' Moist SAND, trace Silt & Clay some Gravel After 3 Hrs Groundwater at 3' 3' 4' Saturated SAND with some Clay - Tan 4' 6' Gray CLAY, firm, minimal trace of Sand, very wet P-3 0 4" SAND - Brown 4" 8" CLAY - Red Brown 8" 2'-6" SAND, trace Gravel - Red Brown After 2= Hrs Groundwater at 3'-4" 2'-6' 6' Course SAND, some Gravel moist to wet - Light Brown P-4 0 4" GRAVEL, some Sand 4" 1'-3" SAND and Clay - Red Brown 1'-3'I 1'-8" SAND, trace Clay - Brown No Water 2'-3" CLAY, some Sand - Brown 2'-3' 3'-4" CLAY, trace Sand - Dark Gray 3'-4' 5'-6" Light Gray CLAY, some Brown Sand 5'-6 6' Brown 6 Gray mottled CLAY trace of Sand. HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING LOGS rrOJECT Southport Marina GATE May 1, 1986 LGC/..TICV PROJECT N4 10LE Ul CEPTm SOIL DES'.F,PTIO►: CONDITIONS LAND REMARKS P-5 0 6" Brown TOPSOIL 6" 1'-3" Red Brown SAND mixed with Clay and Bricks 1'-3" 2' Orange SAND After 2 hrs Groundwater at 3'-3" 2' S' Orange Brown coarse SAND, trace Clay and Silt Damp at 3', wet at 4'. 5' 5'-6" Dark Brown SAND, saturated 5'-6" 6' Gray Brown mottled CLAY very firm P-6 0 V-V Fill material - Brown CLAY trace of Bricks No Water 1-6" 2' Brown CLAY, very hard 2' 2'-6" SAND and Silt, Trace Clay - Red 2'-6" 4' Brown CLAY, very hard Unable to augger further P-7 0 8-1 Sandy TOPSOIL Upper 2'-8" all fill material 8" 1'-6" Brown CLAY, some Sand Gravel and Brick 1'-6" 2' SAND, trace Clay - Brown No Water 2' 2'-8" Gray Brown CLAY, some Brick 2'-8" 3' Wet SAND 3' 4'-6" Gray CLAY, very hard 4'-6" 4'-9" Brown CLAY, very hard Unable to augger further HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING LOGS rF.o,'E CT Southport Marina May 1, 1986 LGC„T 1�'4 DATE PROJECT Np LIHOLE 1'$ OCrTM SOIL DESCF:PTIO►� BZCFA T CONDITIONS AND REMARKS P-8 0 3" CLAY, some Brick No Mater 3" 1' Tan SAND, same Brick 1' 3'-6" Gray CLAY, trace Gravel and Brick, very hard iron oxide @ 3' 3'-6" 4'-6" Brown CLAY, very hard Unable to augger further P-9 0 3" TOPSOIL 3" 9" SAND, some Clay, trace Silt After 1 hour groundwater at 2'-9" 9" 3' Coarse SAND - moist - Red Brown 3' 4' Tan wet SAND, fine at top, coarse at bottom 4' 5' Gray Brown mottled CLAY, very hard Unable to augger further P-10 0 4" TOPSOIL After 1 hour Groundwater at 2'-6" 4" 3'-6" SAND, trace Silt 3'-6 6' Tan SAND, saturated HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING LOGS PROJECT Southport Marina GATE June 2, 1986 LOCATION PROJECT N! HOLE N! DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION CONDITIONS AND REMARKS FROM TO - T-1 0 61. TOPSOIL 6" SAND and Clay - Brown 4' 71 CLAY and Brick - Brown After 3 Hrs Groundwater at 8'-7" 7' 8'-7" SAND - Brown 8'-7" 11' CLAY - Gray T-2 0 4" TOPSOIL 4" 3' Sandy CLAY - Brown 3' 6'-6" CLAY - Gray 6'-6" 7'-6" SAND - Brown No Water 7'-6" 11'-6" CLAY - Gray T-3 0 4" TOPSOIL 4" 2'-6" Sandy CLAY - Brown After 3 Hrs Groundwater at 8- 2'-6" 6'-6" CLAY and Brick - Brown 6'-6" 8' SAND and Brick 8' ill CLAY - Gray T-4 0 4" TOPSOIL 4" 2'-6" Sandy CLAY - Brown 2'-6" 5'-6" CLAY - Brown No Water 5'-6" 5'-10' SAND - Light Brown 5'-10' 11' CLAY - Gray HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING LOGS PROJECT Southport Marina DATE June 2, 1986 LOCATION PROJECT N! HOLE Nt -FROM TO DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION CONDITIONS AND REMARKS T-5 0 4" TOPSOIL 4" 3' Sandy CLAY - Brown 3' 7' CLAY - Brown No Water 7' 11' CLAY - Gray T-6 0 4" TOPSOIL 4" 5'2" CLAY - Brown 5'-2" 5'-8" SAND - Light Brown No Water 5'-8" 11' CLAY - Gray T-7 0 4" TOPSOIL 4" 3'-10" CLAY, some Sand - Brown 3'-10 41-1011 SAND - Light Brown No Water 4'-10 11' CLAY - Gray T-8 0 4" TOPSOIL 4" 3' Sandy CLAY - Brown No Water 3' 11' CLAY - Gray T-9 0 4" TOPSOIL 4" 11' Brown CLAY - very hard No Water HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS APPENDIX C TECHNICAL DESIGN OF STORMWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS SOUTPORT MARINA TECHNICAL DESIGN OF STORMWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM INTRODUCTION The site in question consists of approximately 306,000 square feet of which approximately 167,000 square feet will be covered with impervious surfaces (pavement, roofing, tennis courts, etc) and the remainder landscaped. Soils on the site are predominantly clay, and will not permit the use of conventional stormwater leaching rings without some modification. PROPOSED SYSTEM Surface water discharge of storm water is not permitted. Consequently, some means of developing subsurface flow and disposal of storm water (similar to a conventional leaching system in good sands) must be developed. One extreme approach that could be taken would be to remove the unsuitable material from the site to the necessary depth and replace it with sand, and then construct a conventional leaching pool system. Because of the hydraulics of groundwater flow, this would require excavation and fill below the pools in order to provide a sufficiently large flow area. The proposed system is a modification of the above, with excavation and sand fill around leaching rings for a distance of 5-10 feet. The stormwater entering the pools will have to percolate through the sand. The proposed transport of water will be accomplished by means of a subsurface gravel drain. This drain will be placed parallel to and about five feet away from the leaching pools (please refer to the storm drainage plan) . It will essentially function as a very large 1 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS french drain. The gravel will be wrapped in filter fabric which will prevent the migration of sand into the gravel voids. This drain will have a cross sectional area of 45 to 50 square feet (10 feet wide by 4. 5 feet high) and will have a very slight slope, with bottom elevation starting at 2. 5 and decreasing to 2.0 at the collection point about 100 feet from the shoreline. From this point, the drain will slope rapidly so that the drain will intersect the shoreline at or below the water surface. It is also proposed to use the horizontal drain for a portion (50 per cent) of the required storage. BASIS FOR DESIGN Quantity of Stormwater Design Storm ( 6 inch rainfall ) Gravel Pavement 104,000 Square Feet @ 80% Runoff = 41, 600 Cubic Feet of water . Buildings, walks, Etc. 49, 500 Square Feet @ 90% Runoff = 22, 275 Cubic Feet. Tennis Court 13,000 Square Feet @ 90% Runoff = 5, 850 Cubic Feet. Grass and Landscaped Areas 139, 500 Square Feet @ 20% Runoff = 13,950 Cubic Feet . Total = 306, 000 Square Feet. . . . . . . . . . . 83, 675 Cubic Feet of water . 2 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS Provide 50% of the storage in leaching pools ( 41 , 840 Cubic Feet) . This results in 415 feet of pool or 92 pools required. Number Provided = 95 pools for 43,125 cubic feet. Balance to be provided by drain = 40,550 Cubic Feet. At a porosity of 50 per cent, 81,100 cubic feet of drain are required, or 1,800 lineal feet. Actual quantity provided by layout = 2,080+ lineal feet. SUB-SURFACE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS Ths sub-surface drainage system was designed by means of calculations using Darcy's Law: Q = K i A or q = K i H Where Q = Flow, Cubic Feet/Day q = Flow per unit width, Cubic Feet/Day K = Hydraulic conductivity (permeability) , feet/day i = Hydraulic gradient, i.e. , change in head per unit distance traveled, dh/dx. H = The Piezometric Head, relative to impervious boundary. A = Cross Section Area, Square Feet. For unconfined flow between two points, this formula can be arranged to give: 3 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS q = R ( hi - h22) 2L Where hl and h2 = the head at two points , and L = horizontal distance traveled. ASSUMPTIONS Several assumptions have been made in this analysis: 1. Hydraulic conductivity of sand = 100 ft/day, achievable with medium to coarse sand. 2. Hydraulic conductivity of gravel = 10 , 000 ft/day, requiring clean gravel which will not crush and fill voids when placed. 3. Mathematical rigor : in the examination of changing flow between two areas the assumption has been made that the time weighted average flowrate is equal to the simple arithmetic average flowrate (minimum plus maximum divided by 2) , which is essentially maximum flowrate divided by 2. EXAMINE SYSTEM BEHAVIOR The system must store flow from a 6 inch rainfall and then dispose of this flow within a reasonable time period. In order for the gravel drain to serve as effective storage, the water must be able to travel fairly quickly through the sand and into the gravel drain. Assume an intense rainfall , where the pools fill up rapidly: 4 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS hl Max - 4. 5 Feet h2 Min = 0 Feet L = 5 Feet R = 100 Ft/Day q Max = 202 Ft3/Day q Min = 0, since hl will equal h2 when the system is filled. q Avg. = 101 Ft3/Day Therefore, Q Avg. = (101) (2, 200 Lineal Feet) = 222, 200 Ft3/Day. Volume of Runoff = 83,700 Ft Volume to be transferred to gravel for storage = 83, 700 X 0. 5 = 41, 850 Ft3. Approximate time required = 41,850 x 24 = 4. 5 Hours 222,220 NOTE: During this period, some water will start flowing out of the gravel drain, but it will be shown that this is a relatively slow process . Any outflow from the drain will speed up the transfer from leaching pool to the drain. EXAMINE FLOWRATES THROUGH GRAVEL DRAIN Starting at the shoreline and working backwards; assume the flow is evenly distributed through four 10 foot wide outlets (or an equivalent cross sectional area, such as two 10 foot wide outlets and one 20 foot wide outlet) : 5 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 83,657 - 4 - 20,920 Cubic Feet Per outlet Examine final 70 feet to shoreline: Case 1) -Assume flow is uniform, drain slopes to shoreline q = Rih Case 2) Assume flow is not uniform, drain is depressed to elevation -2 q2 2 = h1 - h2 2L UNIFORM FLOW , i = 2 ft/70 ft = 0. 0286 h q,ft3/Day Q, ft3/Day 1 ft 286 11, 420 2 ft 572 22,840 3 ft 858 34, 320 4 ft 1,144 45,680 NON-UNIFORM FLOW, bottom of drain is flat at elevation of -2, cross section of water varies: h2 = 2. 0 ( Sea level , with drain bottom at elevation -2) h1 h 1 2 q,ft3/Day Q,ft3/Day 5 25 1, 500 60,000 4 16 857 34, 300 3 9 357 14, 280 2. 5 6. 25 161 6,430 6 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS hi in this case, refers to elevation of -2; an hl of 5 would mean el 3. 0. The preceding calculations indicate that the terminal portion of the drain (sloped or depressed) will be adequate. In the case of uniform flow, a flow depth of two feet will carry the water away in a period of about (83,600 - 22,840) 3. 6 days. Since the average flowrate would be about one-half of this, one week would be required for drainage. In the case of non-uniform flow, a greater cross sectional area is available and the same flow is achieved with a water surface that is about 12-14 inches lower . Next, examine upper portion, which carries less flow but is flat. Section A-B ( refer to Storm Drainage Plan) - Length = 70 feet; upstream contribution = 1,050 feet; volume to be passed 1050 X 83,600 = 42,000 Cubic Feet 2085 Based on a depth of 2. 0 feet at point a , use the non-uniform flow formula: q = k (hit - h22) , h2 = 2. 0 2L h2 hl q Q 2 3 357 3,570 2 4 857 8, 570 1 4 1,071 10, 700 1 3 571 5,710 This section, A-B, appears to be limiting and should be widened to 20 feet. 7 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS APPENDIX D ASSESSMENT OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE SOUTHPORT MOTEL & MARINA SITE An Assessment of the Natural Resources of the Soathport Motel & Marina Site Prepared for: Henderson & Bodwell 120 Express Street Plainview, New York 11803 Prepared by: Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. R.D. 1, Box 388 Phoenix, New York 13135 August, 1986 TABIE OF CONI'EWS r Page K f i IlNIRODLIMON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 t TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 AQUlATIC RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 t s Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 IMPACTS AAD IMPACT MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Terrestrial Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 i i t s R h E LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Page Figure 1. Project Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 2. Existing Upland Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table 1. Wildlife Observed on Southport Site . . . . . 5 Figure 3. Existing Cove Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Introduction This report provides an assessment of the natural resources (vegetation, wildlife, shellfish, and fisheries habitat) for the site of the proposed Southport Motel and Marina complex (Figure 1). The report is partially based upon observations made by staff members of The kind Use Company, Henderson & Bodwell, and Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. and was prepared by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. Terrestrial Resources Vegetation 1he upland portion of the site is approximately 9 acres. Much of the upland portion of the project site has been disturbed by previous development and site use. Natural vegetation (Hardwoods arra Shrub) is limited primarily to the northeastern, eastern, and part of the southern margins of the site. As indicated in Figure 2, a hardwood area extends around much of the northeast and most of the east border of the site. These hardwoods are less than 5 acres in total area, most of which lies outside the site boundary. Shrub areas are found along the site entrance from Sage Boulevard and of the dune area along the south side of the site. In addition, foundation plantings and other landscape plantings provide some habitat. The shrub areas and the plantings around the buildings ever about one acre. The hardwoods areas contain Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) , Slack (merry (Prunus serotina), Oaks (Quercus spp.), Sassafras (Sassafras albidum), and Willows (Salic sp.) . The shrub areas and borders of the hardwoods contain sumac (Rhus sp.), Arrowwood (Virburnum sp.), Greenbrier (Smilax sp.), Wild Crape (Vitis sp.), Honeysuckle shrubs (Lonicera sp.), and Poison Ivy (Rhus radicans). The shrub strip along 1 • • MEN NEW in aa.. �■■� ��----- is ■■1 ■■■■■■■owl ■■■i im■os■■■■■i OEMion, ■■■ , •�� eta -` # j j � � r 1 1 By Inc. ® SAGE OLVD. I ` . L,�s SOUTHOLD BAY Zoo o zoo- , scale ra Z00'± f..t Figure 2. Existing Upland Area the beach area on the south side of the site is predaninately Poison Ivy, Bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica), Sumac and Common Reed (Phragmites australis). Fbredune vegetation and vegetation along the water's edge includes Ccimon Reed, Beach Grass (Amro ila sp.), Cord Grass (Spartina. alterniflora), and Salt Hay (Spartina patens) . Iandscape plantings include Juniper (Juniperus sp.), Autumn Olive (Elaeagus umbellata), Bush Honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.), and Apple (Pyrus malus) . Much of the central portion of the site is lawn and/or grasses and herbaceous weeds. Unpaved roadways and parking areas of compacted soils with little vegetation surround the buildings, pool, and tennis courts. Buildings, roadways, parking areas, the pool, and tennis court occupy approximately 3 acres of the site. Wildlife Table 1 lists the wildlife species that have been observed on the site. While many more species can be expected to occur during different parts of the year, the species observed are characteristic of developed shoreline areas with isolated stands of trees arra shrubs. Bird species that nest on the site include the House When, American Robin, European Starling, Song Sparrow, House Finch, and House Sparrow. Mute Swans and Mallards also nest on the small islands in the cove. In all liklihood, Blue Jays, Gray Catbirds, Northern Mockingbirds, Yellow warblers, Red- winged Blackbirds, and Cannon Grackles nest on or adjacent to the site. While the only mammis observed on the site were the Eastern Cottontail and the burrows of Eastern Moles, other small mammals should inhabit the wooded portions of the site. Gray Squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) and Eastern Chipmunks (Taenias striatus) should be crnmon in the hardwoods on the site. Species such as the Raccoon (Procan lotor), Striped Skunk (Mephites me 'tes), and White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) would also be expected to occur on the site. The Raccoon 4 Table 1 Wildlife Observed on the Southport Site (a) Birds Winter Spring Suer Great Egret (Casmerodius albus) x Snowy Egret (EE recta thula) x Green-backed Heron (Butorides striatus) x Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) x x x American Black Duck (Anas rubripes) x Mute Swan (Cygnus olor) x x x Oldsquaw, (Clangula hyeaalis) x Ring-billed Gull (Carus delawarensis) x Herring Gall (Carus argentatus) x x Conon Tern (Sterna hirundo) x Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) x Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) x Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata) x American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) x House Wren (Troglodytes aedon) x x Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) x Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) x American Robin (Turdus migratorius) x European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) x Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) x Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) x x Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) x x Conon Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) x x House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) x House Sparrow (Passer dcmesticus) x Manals Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) x Eastern Mole (Scalopus aquaticus) x a. Winter sightings by land Use Company (1986): spring and saner sightings by TES and Henderson & Bodwell staff. and Striped Skunk probably forage along the shoreline of the cove and Southold Bay regularly. %bile no amphibians or reptiles have been observed cn the site, common species such as Fowler's Zbad (Bufo woodhouseii fowleri) , Northern Spring peeper (Hyla c. crucifer) , Eastern Box Turtle (Terrepene carolinensis), and Eastern Garter Snake (Thamnophis s. sirtalis) should occur. Amphibians could not successfully breed in the cove because of the salinity and the presence of fish. The wetland areas across Sage Boulevard to the east of the site should provide habitat for a number of amphibian arra reptile species. Aquatic Resources Shellfish Figure 3 illustrates the cove, the placement of existing docking facilities, the location of the small island areas, and the location of gravel bars adjacent to the islands and shoreline. The cove is approximately 16 acres in size, of which about one-fourth is within the project boundary. The cove provides shallow water habitat for a variety of shellfish. The most abundant species appeared to be the Atlantic Ribbed Mussel (Modiolus demissus) which was common during spring and summer along the shoreline, especially near the inlet. This species, along with Blue Mussels (Mytilus edulis) and Eastern Oysters (Crassostiea virginica), are also found around the dock pilings and in other shallow water areas with rocky substrate. A particularly important cammercial species in the region is the Hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria). During February 1986, The Iand Use Company performed a shellfish survey of the northern portion of the cove (Land Use Company 1986). only three Hard Clams were found during the sampling. Vile the time of year might reduce the effectiveness of the sampling to some extent, mare clans would be expected if a substantial population existed in the area sampled. 6 P."m By TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS„ Inc. N - LOCATIONS W OF HARD CLAM POPULATIONS 200 0 200 Was r=200 ± fw Figure 3. Existing Cove Area Habitat suitability in the cove accounts for the small numbers of Hard Clams sampled. In areas where there is a high percentage of waste brick in the substrate, Hard Clams would find little suitable habitat. In addition, densities of Hard Clams are inversely related to the percentage of silt-clay in the substrate since silt and clay in the substrate affects clan growth (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Thus, since the cove was created by the mining of clay to produce brick and much of the substrate in the cove is clay or a silt-clay mix, it is not unexpected that Hard Clan densities would be low. ' i Overall, the areas of the cove that contain soft sediments would support small numbers of clams. Sykes and Hall (1970) demonstrated that soft sediments were the principal factor limiting the abundance and diversity of benthic mollusks. Extremely hard substrate containing bricks and large cobble, would also limit the abundance and diversity of benthic mollusks. Some suitable habitat does exist in the sand and gravel bars adjacent to the small islands. Figure 3 indicates several areas where Hard Clams can normally be found (Zehner, pers. calm.) . The density of Hard Clans is also a reflection of current velocities. Velocities of 30 to 50 an/s are considered optimal for the Hard Clam (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). The current velocities in the cove are far below this range (EDSI 1986). 2lubidity also affects the growth of Hard Clams. In shallow water areas around marinas, the growth of larval and adult clams would be inhibited by turbidity resulting from normal marina activities. Thus, the small number of Hard Clams found in the immediate vicinity of the marina is not unexpectd. Thus, while a variety of shellfish occur in the cove within and adjacent to the existing marina area, habitat conditions in the area are not conducive to supporting very large populations. Toile there are undoubtedly areas of suitable habitat within the cove, and Hard Clams can 8 be taken in these areas, the cove as a whole does not represent good habitat for this species. Two other species of estuarine macroinvertebrate are also common in the cove. Fiddler Crabs (Uca sp.) and Periwinkles (Littorina sp.) are found along the shorelines. The crabs are concentrated in the cove near the marina, while the Periwinkles were most common along the beach bordering Southold Bay. Fisheries A large number of fish species could potentially occur in the cove. Studies in coves on nearby Gardiner's Island (Reisman and Nicol 1973), shallow water estuaries of Long island (Briggs 197% Briggs and O'Connor 1971), and on sportfishing in the inshore waters of eastern Long Island (Briggs 1968) provide data on the fish species that are typical of the shallow bays and small inlets near the study area during the summer months. The species that are most common include: American Bel (Anguilla rostrata) Atlantic Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) Atlantic Needlefish (Strongylus marina) Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) Mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) Striped Killifish (Fundulus majalis) Atlantic Silverside (Menidia menidia) Tidewater Silverside (Menidia beryllina) Eburspine Stickleback (Apeltes racus) Northern Pipefish (Syngnathus fuscus) Bay Anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) Scup (Stenotonis ch ) Silver Perch (Bairdiella chrysura) Northern Kingfish (Menticirrhus saxatilis) Striped Mullet (Mugil cephalus White Mullet (Mugil curema) Sumner Flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) White Perch. (Moran americana) Winter Flounder (Pseudopleuonectes americanus) Northern Puffer (Sphoeroides maculatus) 9 Very few people fish in the cove, since sportfish are not common (Zehner, pers. caam.). During the winter months when the cove freezes over, fishermen do take American Eels. Most of the fish observed in the cove are small baitfish (Killifish, Silversides, Sticklebacks, Sheephead Minnows, and Anchovies, etc.). During the late spring, summer and fall months, small Bluefish ("snappers") enter the cove on the tide to feed on schools of these baitfish arra some Sumner Flounder are also presnt. Flounder are rarely fished for in the cove (Zehner, pers. conn.). Atlantic Menhaden, referred to locally as bunker, have been observed in the cove. Mr. Howard Zehner, who has owned the property for 16 years, has observed a large school of Menhaden on only one occasion (Zenner pers. comm.) . Some juveniles of other sportfish species undoubtedly enter the cove. However, the cove would not be considered as good nursery habitat because of the lack of aquatic vegetation and marsh habitat which are important to young fish. 10 Impacts and Impact Mitigation Impacts associated with the development of the Southport Motel and Marina complex can be classified as: 1) terrestrial (vegetation, wildlife, and wildlife habitat) , or 2) aquatic (shellfish and fish habitat). There are, however, several aspects of the project that while occurring in upland areas could have more profound impacts upon the aquatic resources. 7.bese aspects, site drainage and waste treatment, are discussed in the aquatic resources section of this report. Terrestrial Resources Development of the project will directly impact existing wildlife by elimination of habitat. Elimination of such small areas of hardwoods and shrubs will not, however, significantly impact wildlife populations of the area. Sane reduction in the level of impact will be achieved by avoiding unnecessary clearing of hardwoods near the boundaries of the site and by the planting of sane landscape shrubs once the new project is cm planed. The amount of hardwoods will be reduced as a result of the project, but the amount of shrub habitat would remain nearly the same, or possibly increase slightly, as a result of project landscaping. During the construction period, increased noise levels will result in many animals avoiding the site. This impact is, however, temporary. one the project is completed some wildlife species will avoid the immediate project area because of increased human activity as well as changes in habitat. Most of the species that occur on the site regularly, however, will continue to occur on site although the number of individuals of some species will be reduced. The small strip of wetlands vegetation existing along the edge portions of the cove adjacent to the marina will be partially impacted during construction. Fbllowing oipletion of the project, wetland vegetation will be planted at the water's edge and allowed to grow and 11 spread naturally. Species to be planted will include Cord Gass (Spartina alteriflora) and Salt Hay (S. patens). Sane grading along the bank near the marina should allow for more wetlands vegetation than now exists to eventually became established. Aquatic Resources Direct impacts upon aquatic resources will result from the construction and operation of the marina. Dredging and other marina construction activity will eliminate sane habitat. Much of the habitat in the immediate vicinity of the existing dock contains waste brick fran previous site use and therefore has a reduced value to fish and shellfish when compared to natural substrates. Iess than 4 acres of the 15 acres in the cove would be directly impacted by project construction. Some additional area would be impacted by increased turbidity and sedimentation during the construction period. In areas where the existing substrate is daminated by waste bricks, the substrate may be more suitable for shellfish once the project is complete. Such beneficial impacts would, however, only affect a small portion of the basin and should not be considered significant. one positive impact that will be associated with the construction of the proposed marina will be the resultant increased flushing of the cove. As noted by ESI (1986), removal of the existing land spit will result in a more uniform flow that will improve the flushing of the marina area. Improved water circulation will improve the aquatic habitat, although such positive benefit will be limited. The removal of the land spit will also result in a slight increase in the amount of aquatic habitat. During construction, noise, vibrations, turbidity and other factors will cause some fish species to avoid the construction area and possibly the cove as a whole. Ihis impact would be temporary, with the fish returning after construction. Since the cove is used very little for fishing, this temporary disturbance would not represent an impact to the utilization of the resource. 12 Cperation of a larger marina facility than currently exists could result in more pollutants being introduced into the cove. Die potential of this type of impact is, however, reduced by the increased fluffing rate which will result from removal of materials that presently obstruct tidal flow into and out of the cove. The size of the proposed marina has also been reduced from the original plan by removing eight slips along Ube western boundary of the site. The septic system for the proposed motel and restaurant complex could represent a potential threat to the water quality of the cove. Ewan with the improved flushing that would result from project construction, the water quality of the cove would be impacted if materials from the septic system leach into the cove. Because of the small size of the cove, significant nutrient loads would not dilute, therefore resulting in enrichment, which would not only have a negative long-term impact upon both fish and shellfish, but, by affecting the aesthetics of the cove, would also have a negative impact upon the project itself. The septic system, as proposed, has taken this possibility into consideration. By designing a system with a less permeable side towards the cave, the Applicant has reduced the potential for nutrient enrichment of cove waters. Site drainage can also potentially affect the cove ecosystem. A decrease or fluctuations in the salinity of the cove resulting from freshwater storm runoff would result in a gradual change in the ecosystem of the cove. In general, those organisms that can tolerate such variation would become the dominant species. Such a resultant change, which would probably be reflected as a decrease in species diversity, would represent an adverse impact to the system as a whole. By eanplying with Town requests for zero runoff of stormwater, the potential for this type of impact is eliminated. 13 Literature Cited Briggs, P. T. 1986. gie Sport Fisheries for Scup in the Inshore Waters of Eastern Long Island. New York Fish arra Game Journal. 15(2):165-185. Briggs, P. T. 1975. Shore-zone Fishes of the Vicinity of Fire Island Inlet, Great South Bay, New York. New York Fish and Game Journal. 22(1):1-12. Briggs, P. T. and J. S. O'Conner. 1971. Comparison of Shore-zone Fishes Over Naturally Vegetated and Sand-filled Bottoms in Creat South Bay. New York Fish and Came Journal. 18(1 ):15-41. Express Dredging Systems, Inc. 1986. Flushing C)bservation Study Young's Marina, Sage Road, Greenport, Zbwn of Southold, Suffolk County, NY. Express Dredging Systems, Inc. 1986. Supplement to Flushing Study Young's Marina, Sage Road, Greenport, Zbwn of Southold, Suffolk County, IN. Land Use Company. 1985. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development, Southold, Newyork. Land Use Company. 1986. Addendum to Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southport Development. Reisman, H. H. and W. Nicol. 1973. The Fishes of Gardiner's Island, New York. New York Fish and Game Journal. 20(1):25-31. Schaefer, R. H. 1967. Species Composition, Size and Seasonal Abundance of Fish in the Surf Waters of Long Island. New York Fish and Came Journal. 14(1 ):1-46. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Hard Clam. U.S. Department of the Interior. 14