Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-83.-2-1 (3) ' ~, . , ~ . SITE PLAN Presub mis. ion ~onference (within 30 days of written request) Complete application received (within 4 months of presub, conference) Application reviewed at work session (within 10 days of receipt) Applicant advised of necessary revisions (within 30 days of review) Revised submission received Lead Agency Coordination SEgRA determination REFERRED TO: Zoning Board of Appeals , (written comments within 60 days of request) Board of Trustees Building Department (certificat.ion) Suffolk County Dep~rtment of Plannitig ' Department of Transportation -State 'Department of Transportation - County Suffolk County Dept. of Health Fire Commissioners it~~ Sent:. Received' RECEIVED: Draft Covenants and Restrictions Filed Covenants and Restrictions Landscape plan Lighting plan Curb Cut approval Health approva[ Drainage plan Reviewed by Engineer Approval of site plan -with conditions Endorsement of site'plan Certificate of Occupancy in'spection One year review P. O. D£awer A Jamesport, NY August ~5, i989 BY HAND Bennett Orlowski, J£., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Aliano, Beachcomber Site Pla~ 1000-83-2-1, 2, p~o 17 Dear Mr. Orlowski: In response to your letter of July 3, 1989 with regard to the concerns expressed by the Board: 1) The change of zone stipulations for a 200' westerly boundary set back has been accomodated in the submission to date. 2) The community well and package sewerage treatment plant are located as a result of planning with the Suffolk County Depa£tment of Health Services. These are both being designed to accomodate the proposed RR dis~rict~development as well as to supply~',futu£e ample facilities should the property be subdivided to the south. We have further contacted the Suffolk County Water Authority to discuss any proposals which they may have pertaining to this property. With these stipulations resolved, I would request a formal p£esubmission conference for this project a~ your earliest available meeting. Sincerely, HER:ml CC: Aliano Encs: Site Plan Application Filing fee Long Environmental Assessment Form 12 prints of Site Plan ,D Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 AUG 8 1989 APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN Date of Application Filing-Fee Date Rec'd New Use Change of Use Re-Use' Extension of Existing Use Revision of an Approved Site Plan (Date of Approval Other .Specify Name of Business or Site Beachcombe~ Motel Location of Site e/s DuCk Pond Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Address of Site, if available same Name o~ Applicant Nicholas Aliano Address of Applicant Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Telephone 734-6370 Person to be responsible for Construction owner Telephone 734-6370 Applicant's interest in site-check one: Owner of Land x Owner of~ Fee Title to Land Address Site Plans Prepared by. Address Under contract to purchase Telephone License No. Telephone Total Land Area of Site .Sq. Ft. Zone District RR Existing Use of Site vacant Proposed Use of Site Motel Gross Floor Area of Existing Structure(s) ,sqft. .sqft. Gross Floor Area of Proposed Structure(s) .sqft. .sqft. Percent of Lot Coverage by Building(s) % Percent of Lo~ for Parking (where applicable) % Percent of Lot for Landscaping(where applicable) per code % Datum(Specify)U.S.G.S. Other Has applicant been granted a variance and/or special exception by Board of Appeals Case Number Name of Applicant Date of Decision ~xpiration Date Will any toxic or hazardous materials, as defined by the Suffolk County Board of Health, be stored or handled at the site? no If so, have proper permits been obtained? Number and Date of permit issued NO ACTION (EXCAVATION OR CONSTRUCTION) M~Y BE UNDERTAKEN UNTIL APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN BY THE PLANNING BOARD. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK CO~ OF SUFFOLK Nicholas Aliano being duly sworn, deposes and says that he resides at in the State of New York, and that he is the.owner of the above property, or that he is the ~~ of the (Title) (Specify whether Partnership which is hereby making application; that the or Corporation) owner or his heirs, successors or assigns will, at his own expense, install the required site improvements in accordance with Article XIII of the Code of the Town of Southotd for the area stated herein and that there are no existing structures or improvements on the land which are not shown on the Site Plan; that title to the entire parcel, including all rights-of-way, have been clearly established and are shown on said Plan; that no part of the Plan infringes upon any duly filed plan which has not been abandoned both as to lots and as to roads; that he has examined all rules and regulations adopted by the Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and will comply with same; that the plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered or changed in any manner without the approval of the Planning Board; and that the actual physical improvements will be installed in strict accordance with the plans submitted. (Owner) Sworn to before me this VINC~qNT 3. KRUPSKI, JR. NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New' ¥o1~ No. 52 - 4612740 Qualified in Suffolk County' $.1 Signed (Partner or Corporate Officer and Title) 14-16-2 (2/87)- 7c 617.21 ' ) SEQR Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORInt Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an ord~bf.~,~ a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Freq~ent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis, in addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action, Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given proiect and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3~ Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions Identily the Portions of EAF completed for this project: [] Part I [] Part 2 r-IPart 3 Upon review of the information ~'ecorded on this EAF (Parts I and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the mal~itude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: [] A. The proiect will not result in any large and important impact(s} and, therefore, is one which wiil'not [] B. have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative decJaration will be prepared.* The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions /'~ '~.of Lead Agency ~(/r ~ Nam~ R~bl~ Office~Lead Aoency Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Preparer (It different from responsible officer} Date OPART 1--PROJECT INFORMA~N Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant.effe( on the environment. Please complete the entire forE, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considere as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any addition~ information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involv new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specif each instance. NAME OF ACTION Reachcomber Motel,~ite plan LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Slreet Address, Municipality al~d County) Duck Pond Road, Cutchoquer Town of Southold NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR Henry E. Raynor, Jr. (Agent for Aliano) ADDRESS P. O. Drawer A CITY/PO BUSINESS TELEPHONE (516) 298-8420 NY 11947 BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( ) Jamesport NAME OF OWNER (If different) Nicholas Aliano ADDRESS A~hle¥ Lane CITY/PO I STATE I ZIP CODE Shor~ham NY 11786 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: [Urban [:]Industrial [Commercial []Residential (suburban) I~lRural (non-farm E3Forest []Agriculture [~Other 2. Total acreage of project area: __+ 16 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non~a§ricultural) 14 acres acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) ~. acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 ol~ ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres acres Other (Indicate type) acres acres 3. What is predominant Soil type(s) on project site? topsoil, sand, c,,Iravel a. Soil drainage: [Well drained _ 100 % of site I-)Moderately well drained % of site []Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group I through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? acres. (See I NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ~]Yes []No a. What is depth to bedrock? 0 (in feet) 2 5. Approximate percentage of propo roject site with slopes: :[30-10% % []10-15% 15 % [~15% or greater 6. is proiect substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? E]Yes (~No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? E]Yes (~No 8. What is the depth of the water table? (in feet) + 10' to + 3.5' 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? OYes UNo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? I-lYes i~No 11. Does project site Contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? [~Yes [~No According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) OYes t~No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? DYes [~No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? I-lYes I~No n/a 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name 17. Is the site served by~xisting p_ublic utilities? ~3Yes ~No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? b. Size (In acres) (~Yes r~No I~Yes DNo 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? ~Yes I~No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 ~Yes ~No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? E]Yes []No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor + 45 acres. .. b. Project acreage to be developed: + 16 acres initially; + ~6 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeve!oped 0 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: (If appropriate) e. If the proiect is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing ; proposed pe~' Towt~ Code g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour + 35 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure height; width; length, pe~' Code not to j. [inear feet of frontage along a public thoroughi~are project will occupy is? 750 fL exceed 125 3 & 2. How much natural material (i.e.,~l~ck, earth, etc.) 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? I~Yes E]No I-IN/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation?, F~Yes E]No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [~Yes will be removed from t eh~site? tons/cubic yards lawn & landscaping,~ EJNo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 0 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years 01dj or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? ~iYes il]No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 18 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated 1 (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 ~ month c. Approximate completion date of final phase month 1990 year, (including demolition). year. · d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? I-lYes E]No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? r-lYes [~No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 50 ; after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 5 If yes, explain 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? F'lYes ~]No 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? f~Yes r-INo a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? E3Yes [~No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing Water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain domestic sewerage ~]Yes t~]No 15. 16. 17. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? [:]Yes Will the project generate solid waste? [3Yes ~]No a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? [3Yes F-INo c. If yes, give name ; location d. I~lNo Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? If Yes, explain l-lYes I-INo Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. I~ yes, what is the anticipated site life? Will project use herbicides or pesticides? l~Yes E3Yes (~No tons/month. years. 18. 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? [:3Yes 20. will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? E~CYes ~No If yes , indicate type(s) electricity ~No i-lYes I~'lNo 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 23. Total anticipated water usage per day gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local State or Federal funding? I-lYes If Yes, explain gallons/minute, per SCDQHS I~No 4 25. Approvals Required: Type Submittal Date City, Town, Village Board ~]Yes ~]No City, Town, Village Planning Board ~Yes ~]N~ City, Town Zoning Board I-lYes ~]No City, County Health Department [~Yes ENo Other Local Agencies I~Yes UNo Other Regional Agencies [DYes ~No State Agencies [qYes ~No Federal Agencies EYes ~No site plan water & sewer SCPC C. Zoning and Planning Information I. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? EaYes UNo If Yes, indicate decision required: [Dzoning amendment I-Izoning variance [Dspecial use permit Esubdivision :[]site plan [qnew/revision of master plan [qresource management plan Eother 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? RE 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? RR 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ~qYes 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ~/~ mile radius of proposed action? RR and R40 E]No 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ¼ mile? :~2]Yes UNo 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many 1ors are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? [DYes (~No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? E~Yes [~No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? I~Yes [DNo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ~]Yes UNo . a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? [~Yes I-'lNo. D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. - E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sp(;~nsor Name Henry E. Raynor, Jr. · Date August 15, 1 Signature ~-) . ~,, · Title Aqent. for Aliano If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complele the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 ToWN CLERK TOWN OF souTHOLD Suffolk County, New York phone 516-765-1801 Southold, New York 11971 RECEIVED OF ~~'~ 44618 Date .~~_~ 19 ~ Dollars $ - For i~~- ~ ~ ..... ~ ' ~ Judith T. Te~, Town Clerk TOWN' CLERK County, New York 516 - 7§5-1B01 TOWN OF Sou'rHoLD N.° '3:~412' Southold, N. Y, 11971__~. ~ ~d~ ~u~ T. Terry, Town Clerk TOWN CLERK Town o~ ~o~.o,.0 4 4 0 ~> 8 Suffolk County, New York Phone 516-765-1801 Southold, New York 11971 ~ - ~ ~ ~2' '7 i /~ Date~.~-~, [-~ ~9~ Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk TOW~ C~.~.~ 4 5 91 9 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Suffolk County, New York Phone 516-765-1801 ~ Judith T, Te~ To~lerk Cash ~ Check~D[ ~ --t ~ V --~ - ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK Town of Southold Southoid, New York 11971 Phone: 516-,765-1800 RI;:CEIVED OF:__ ~~ ~Ca~T 69330 057825 JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK RECEIPT Town of Southo~d Southold, New York 11971 ~Z~-/~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lfl~i~GROUP Hoh~.hef, Mc. lm~don & MurrelL P.C~ * Hol~m~cher, M~ck~ & Murrell, Inc. H2MConstructlon~t,~c. · H2ML~bs, lnc. ACEC Me~nber 5-5 Broad Hollow Road, Melville, NY 11747-5076 (516) 756-8000 · Fax: (516) 694-4122 July 29, 1991 ~. Nicholas Aliano 3800 Duck Pond Road Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935 Re: Engineering Report Beachcomber II Water Resource/System WATR 89-07 Dear Mr. Aliano: As promised we have made a few revisions to the draft report and enclose herewith eight (8) copies of the subject engineering report with exhibits and plates. We again apologize for the delay and if you wish to perform any additional work we will be pleased to accommodate your needs. .Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL P.C. Samuel C. McLendon, P.E., DEE Consultant I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATER RESOURCE/SYSTEM BE C R CUTCHOGUE. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~-~/LY 1991 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATER RESOURCE/SYSTEM CUTCHOGU~. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE LOCATION AND BACKGROUND EXISTING FRESH WATER RESOURCES WATER REQUIREMENTS WATER SYSTEM TABLE I - WATER REQUIREMENTS/CONSUMPTIVE USE/ ALLOWABLE FLOWS AND UNITS EXHIBIT A - WATER ANALYSES EXHIBIT B - COST OPINION FOR NON-COMMUNITY TWO WELL SUPPLY SYSTEM PLATE I - AREA PLAN PLATE II - SITE PLAN & LAYOUT i PAGE NOt 1 1 4 7 9 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATER RESOURCE/SYSTEM B~ACHCOMBER II CUTCHOGUE. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JULY 1991 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this study and report is to advise the owner and others dealing with the proposed development of a 14.1 acre site adjacent to the existing Beachcomber Resort Motel. This report will refer to the project as "Beachcomber II" and its various options, including consideration of the existing five cabana/motel units and swimming pool on the 14.1 acres. This report will review the estimated available water resources at the project site, the available water quality data and projections, the permitted residential density under the available options, and will discuss various water system alternatives with appropriate recommendations. Cost estimates or opinions are presented for comparative purposes to assist in making decisions. I~CATION AND BACKGROUND The proposed project is located Road and east of Duck Pond Road (a Depot Lane) and extends to the south shore of All of the subject area is within Section 83, in an area north of Oregon continuation northerly of Long Island Sound. Block 2 as shown on I I I I I I I the Suffolk County Real Property Tax Map. Lot 2 (12.3 acres on the Tax Map) is primarily (9 acres) within RR (M-l) density residential. Lot 17 (33.8 acres on the partially (5.1 acres) within RR (M-l) Zone. The acres of Lot 2 and 28.7 acres of Lot 17, is residential. The total area in the two lots Zone for high Tax Map) is balance, 3.3 zoned two-acre is show-~ as 46 acres, subject to actual surveys and deeds. Plate I shows the other existing subdivisions and 4, while Beachcomber I is in Blocks 1 in Block 2, Lot i with 2.1 acres. These areas and the project site are shown on Plate I. There is already some development in the area consisting of: (a) the Beachcomber Motel fronting on Long Island Sound on property (Lot 1, 2.1 acres) separate from but adjacent to (north and west) of the proposed project; (b) existing partially built single family subdivision on the east side of Duck Pond Road to the west and southwest of the proposed project; and (c) another subdivision north of (b) but west of Duck Pond Road and extending to Long Island Sound. The total potential single family homes in (b) and (c) is 55 on about 50 acres. Most of the nearby area to the south, east and west is residential/agricultural with a two-acre zoning and is currently under cultivation. The existing Beachcomber Resort Motel (Beachcomber I) property is owned by others than the owners of the proposed project property (Beachcomber II). For general information, it is noted that 36 motel units, three apartments and a 50-seat restaurant exist at Beachcomber I. The Beachcomber I well was I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I redrilled in 1990 to obtain acceptable quality water. It is located near the southeast corner of the motel. All of the existing and proposed single family homes in (b) and (c) above are supplied by individual private wells. Beachcomber I is supplied by a non-community water system with a single well (No. 1) near the southeast corner of the motel. The existing five cabana/motel units and pool within Beachcomber II project site are supplied by a non-community system single well (No. 2) system located about 200 feet southeast of the swimming pool. The two well systems are interconnected for reliability and standby, each to the other. There have been some reported water problems at Beachcomber I but these have been resolved as noted in tests by the owners and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) during the past year (see Exhibit A, Water Analyses). In June 1990, Well No. i was replaced with Well 1R near the old well to a depth of 50 feet. High chloride content in the older well (No. 1) may have been due to salt water intrusion resulting from weeks of excessive well pumpage caused by leaks in the piping system for the pool. Because of prior Aldicarb problems, the well is equipped with two 20-inch diameter by 5 foot high granular activated carbon (GAC) filters for removal of organics. Recent analyses indicate that the GAC filter is no longer needed for temik but remains as a safety precaution and for removal of other organics. Well No. 2 for Beachcomber II was reconstructed from a test well also in June 1990 by increasing its depth from 60 to 100 feet. This deepening I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I corrected a severe iron problem and resulted in good quality water. High nitrates had been detected in one of the test wells constructed in 1989 but recent tests show less than 4.0 mg/L compared to a limit of 10.0 mg/L. Some organics, up to 4.0 ~g/L of dichloropropane and 11.0 ~g/L of aldicarb, had been detected but most recent tests show very little (2.0 ~g/L or less) of aldicarb but increases in dichloropropane. Changes in the existing GAC system will be made to correct this problem. In the event this should change, there does exist the GAC treatment unit to remove organics. EXISTING FRESH WATER RESOURCES Water resource available is defined as that which can be developed without exceeding the chloride (salty water) level prescribed by Drinking Water Standards. The project site is near the northern edge of the water budget area included in Zone 3 of the North Fork of Long Island. This zone extends from Mattituck Creek in West Mattituck to Hashamomack Pond (between Southold and Greenport). Reference is made to three water resource studies: (1) CPWS-24, Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C.; (2) North Fork Water Study, ERM Northeast; and (3) Suffolk County Water Resources Management Plan, Malcolm Pirnie and Divirka & Bartilucci. The fresh groundwater in the Town of Southold is salt water most areas, exposed to interfaces on the sides, as well as underneath. In the salty groundwater and fresh water are in dynamic I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I balance and approximately conform with the Ghyben-Herzberg principle. This principle approximates the location of the salt water/fresh water interface at a depth of 40 times the elevation of the water table above sea level, based on a specific gravity of salt water of 1.025. According to the 1990 Suffolk County water table contour map, the water table is located about 3 feet above sea level on the site. Using the Ghyben-Herzberg principle, the salt water/fresh water interface is located approximately 117 feet below sea level (120 feet below water table). Water recharge from precipitation is estimated at 1.0 million gallons per day (MGD) per square mile or 1,563 gallons per day (GPD) per acre. Permissive sustained use (safe yield) is estimated at 0.35 MGD per square mile or about 35 percent of recharge. This is equivalent to 547 GPD per acre of recharge area. The gross area of the project site, including the residential/agricultural property south of the proposed development, is 46.1 acres (Tax Map) as shown on the enclosed Cutchogue area plan. Discounting the northerly 2 acres, the water budget area would approximate 44 acres and provide an average annual recharge of 58,772 GPD. Of this, 24,068 (say 24,000) GPD is available for consumptive use (safe yield). The other two-thirds is needed for underflow during low recharge periods to preserve the fresh water/salt water interface. It is obvious that recharge of treated wastewater at points north of 5e ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the wells best preserves and utilizes the water resources available. The Suffolk County Water Resources Management Plan (WP2~P) used an "area averaging approach" to evaluate potential impacts of consumptive use on fresh water lenses in wastewater areas and as a result concluded that these areas also contributed to the available water resources. The WRMP reported the ERM Northeast estimate of permissive sustained yield from the budget area in Zone 3 (Mattituck Inlet to Hashamomuck Pond) at 4.9 MGD. The total consumptive use estimated for the year 2000 was only 4.0 MGD of which 2.8 MGD is for agricultural use. The report indicated two approaches for estimating the influence of shallow wells on the North Fork. The Theis Drawdown distance which indicated that for a 1-foot drawdown, the radius would be approximately 10 feet for a well pumping rate of 200 GPM. The recharge balance calculation indicated a radius of 1,510 feet for a 200 GPM rate and 1,070 feet for a 100 GPM pumping rate. With water levels ranging from approximately 3 to 5 feet above sea level on the project recharge area the calculated ealt water interface would be approximately 120 to 200 feet below sea level. A major change of 1-foot in water level would reduce each by 40 feet making the salt water interface at 80 to 160 feet below sea level. Since proposed well depths are reco~u~ended at 60 feet below sea level, the bottom of the well would still be 20 6e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I to 100 feet above the resultant salt water interface. The further south the wells, the more obvious that safety exists. WATER REOUIREMENTS Water requirements are estimated based on the following criteria: Motel unit area of 400 square feet (or less) 100 GPD Motel unit area of 400 to 600 square feet 150 GPD Single family home 350 GPD Irrigation (consumptive use) - Motel unit 20% Irrigation (consumptive use) - Single family home 40% There are five existing small motel/cabana units on the north edge of the project site and a single family farm house on the south edge of the acreage included in the site recharge area for the project. The existing zoning on the 14.1-acre (RR or M-l) area would permit, at 4,000 square feet per unit, up to 153 units or 148 more than present. A preliminary proposal was developed by S. Hyman for 147 more units in 12 buildings. The Town of Southold Planning Board has stated that public water and public sewerage are required for this density. Calculations have been prepared to show how many units can be constructed base on SCDHS criteria or rules relating to discharged wastewater flow per acre. Including a covenant that the 32 acres of low density residential area would not be developed until public water was available, a rate of 300 GPD per acre would be allowed. The total allowed flow would be 13,830 GPD for 46.1 acres. Subtracting the five existing cabana units at 100 GPD and the one single family home at 350 GPD, the I I I assignable flow from proposed added unit flow on the 46.1 acres would be 12,980 GPD. With estimated SCDHS criteria wastewater flow of 150 GPD per motel unit (400 to 600 square feet), the allowed additional number is therefore 86 units. I I I Since each acre of the covenant area would add two units, an added area of 30 acres would be required for the 61 more units that zoning would allow on the 14.1 acres. If this were done, the result would be 152 (5 + 86 + 61) on the 14.1-acre site but an added 32 acres (plus the 32 for a total of 64 acres) would I I I I require a covenant. The other alternative for the added 62 units allowed by zoning would be a central sewage or wastewater treatment facility, though not part of this study. With a central sewage treatment system, the full amount permitted by zoning (153 units) could be used for development without adjacent land covenants. The additional cost for the 62 units would probably exceed I I I $550,000. as an estimated cost for a sewage treatment plant for 153 units. If the low density residential area is not placed under a covenant until public water is available, the allowable units on the 14.1 acres would be only 30 units, the existing five units at I I I 100 GPD plus 25 new units at 150 GPD. This flow would total 4,250 GPD compared with an allowed flow of 14.1 x 300, or 4,230 GPD. Regardless of what final plans are approved, the water resources developed should be upstream (south) of the treated I I wastewater recharge. This will minimize any potential adverse effect Dy utilizing the treated wastewater as a major portion of the fresh water underflow required for equilibrium (see Table 1). The 27,800 GPD maximum month average need would translate into an estimated maximum day need of about 55,000 gallons and a peak hour need of 105 GPM. Since more than half of this would potentially be allocated to the 62 future motel and 16 single family homes, it is likely that a 105 GPM system would be able to supply the needs of the proposed 86 additional units and the adjacent area motel and single family units which may wishwater service. WATER SYSTEM As indicated in the Water Resources and Water Requirements sections, there is adequate water supply with respect to salt water intrusion, for any extent of development possible under existing zoning regulations. Water quality with respect to agricultural chemicals must be periodically evaluated and monitored and, if required, treatment systems provided and maintained. The most likely cost effective and permissible development plan will consist of the construction of the number of units permitted by the SCDHS regulation which limits the wastewater flow to an average of 300 GPD per acre. Utilizing the entire area of parcels B and C of 46.1 acres, the allowed water or wastewater flow would then be 13,830 GPD. With five existing 9. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I motel/cabana units at 100 GPD and one single family unit at 350 GPD, the remaining assignable flow is 12,980 GPD. With a size of about 600 square feet per proposed unit, and 150 GPD per unit, the allowed number of units would be 86, which with the six existing units would total 92. All of the new units would be constructed within the RR or M-1 zoned area (14.1 acres) but the 32 acres of residential/agricultural zoned area would be under covenant to restrict any development until such time that public water were available in the area and to the project. If an additional~ recharge area were acquired (e.g., part of Lot 16 to the east), the full 148 added units could be available at 4,000 square feet per unit. The added acreage would approximate 30: (153 - 93 units at 150/300 or one-half acre per unit or 30 acres for 60 units). The total development would then be 152 units (including 5 existing) on 14.1 acres plus 32 acres (1 house) and 30 acres of covenant watershed area, for a total watershed area of 73 acres. This option does not exist under present proposals. The development plan for 92 units would require two wells (one as standby) each with a capacity of about 60 GPM constructed as part of a central but non-community type water system. We propose, however, that 105 GPM well supply be developed to provide reserve for adjacent areas, if needed. A 3,000-gallon hydropneumatic tank with pressure controls ranging from 40 to 60 psi, providing about 400 gallons of useable storage would be constructed in a manner to provide water treatment contact time. 11. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This contact time would approximate 10 minutes based on a flow of 105 GPM and a water content in the tank of about 1,050 gallons. This would be helpful for chlorine contact in the event of a bacteria problem. Any other treatment required such as granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption/filtration would precede the hydropneumatic tank. Based on present water quality data, nitrate removal would not be required. Since the water needs will be very seasonal, it is recommended that the existing 25 GPM well (No. 2) be retained for base load, and that two 95 GPM wells be constructed. The new well plant is proposed to be in the southerly portion of the RR zoned property (lot zoned part of Lot 17) and with a non-pollution protection radius into the low density area to the south. It is proposed to place the two wells about 60 to 100 feet apart and at least 200 feet from potential pollution sources, requiring a site of about 4.5 acres, but less with non- pollution easements. The well depth proposed is about 110 feet at a ground elevation of about 50 providing a well bottom elevation of about 60 feet below sea level. The existing well (No. 2R) which was converted to a supply well for the existing units and pool is at a 100 foot depth from a ground elevation of about 39 feet or at an elevation of 61 feet below sea level. The water quality of the 100-foot well is excellent as shown in Exhibit A at the end of the report. This well is about 600 feet east-northeast of the proposed wells. 12. I I I I Even though there is no indicated present need for treatment other than emergency chlorination, it is recommended that space, controls and piping arrangements be provided for a second GAC unit in the event that pesticides show an increase in the new I I I wells at a later date. Should nitrates (from agricultural fertilizer) become a problem, the well depth would be changed to utilize a lower nitrate level stratum. As noted above, though not part of this project, it is considered prudent to include additional water supply capacity in I I I the non-community system to be able to assist the existing motel development (Beachcomber I) north of the proposed project (Beachcomber II). This would require about 35 percent added supply on the maximum day but probably less of an increase during the maximum hour. In order to allow for potential increased density by zoning above the 92 units noted, an increase is planned to provide 95 GPM in each of two wells (one spare). I I I These would be capable of supplying a peak hour rate of 136,800 GPD for a maximum day average rate of 45,600 GPD and for an average maximum month day of 22,800 gallons. This would equate to a design standard (SCDHS) equivalent of 152 units at 150 GPD. These requirements are above that available from the existing 25 I I I GPM Well No. 2. The preliminary cost opinion for the two well stations is $170,000. as shown in Exhibit B, including piping headers within project site to permit future fire hydrants where feasible. The next alternative as a possible plan includes utilization I I of the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) as the water 13. I I I I purveyor. Were it not for the presence of the Town of Southold sanitary landfill to the southeast, negotiations could have permitted the dedication to SCWA of a well field on the southerly portion of Lot 17 just north of Oregon Road. This would have I I I permitted the SCWA to develop a satellite well field and system for this area, including this project. (It is noted that with the much smaller well capacities and use, the potential effect of the landfill on the proposed non- community well field is less likely to be a problem). I I I This alternative could be rather-costly, dependent on decisions to be made by SCWA. The amount of water piping required from Oregon Road along existing roadways to the project entrance is 3,400 feet. Approximately another 3,000 feet (or less) westerly on Oregon Road may be desirable to extend the piping to a potential SCWA well site sufficiently distant and angled from the landfill. Another 5,000 feet would be required I ! I to reach the existing well site on Alvahs Lane south of CR48 owned by Village of Greenport). Assuming that Beachcomber II costs would relate to Oregon Road site, a 12-inch water main cost approximate $200,000. Presumably there (now the for 6,400 feet would would be contract I I I provisions that would permit partial recovery by Beachcomber II if other development needs are supplied by this main. The SCWA would also require at least a portion of the cost of a satellite well plant to be paid by Beachcomber II. If such cost sharing were based on capacity need and that 60 GPM is needed for the 93 I I units, Beachcomber II may pay 60 of 300 GPM (expected SCWA well 14. capacity) or 20 percent. If the SMA plant cost were $500,000., I Beachco~er_ II at 20 percent would be $100,000. The .total_ with this alternative would be $300,000. plus the on-site distribution I which should approximate $40,000. including backflow prevention I protected ~-inch se~ice. The total would then be $3~0,000. compared with the $170,000. projected for a non-co,unity but I central system. . The final costs should be reviewed after prelimina~ I approval by SCDHS, the TOM of Southold and SCWA. . I If the SMA satellite system and the added- cost of public central wastewater treatment is justified by the additional units I approved, SCWA supply plus a sewage which could then be the water treatment plant would be proposed. The treated wastewater I recharge should be placed at a point or in an area least likely to impact the existing, private wells for single family homes. I This location would be In the northeast section of the 32 acres. _ I The new wells would be at a new SMA site and the existing wells relegated to irrigation. I After review and approval by the SCDHS, it is reco~ended I Respectfully submitted, HOLZ~CHER, Mc~N~& ~RRELL, P.C. I ~ Samuel C. McLendon, P.E., D ~.%~.~:~ Consultant ~ ~ ~' ~A\ 15. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATER ANALYSES I I I I W YS BEACHCOMBER I & II EXHIBIT A I WELL OR SAMPLE I.D. 1 i DATE 6/14/88 LAB HD I SC 750 I NO3 -N 6.4 Cl 100 I SO4 76 Fe 0.15 I Mn None Cu 0.4 I Na 69.3 I Hardness 88 pH 5.6 I Zinc -- Organics 11 I Other Heavy Metals None I T denotes "Test" well 1 1 8/26/88 10/3/88 HD H2M 639 235 5.5 *6.0 129 40 6O 0 0.16 0.27 0.35 0.02 0.31 -- 69.2 -- 88 88 5.5 6.7 None -- 1 7/19/89 7/20/89 HD 2990 3.7 922 182 0.16 0.42 0.11 379 6.3 None *.12 1T 11/9/89 H2M 649 2.0 142 15.5 4.17 6.2 1 H2M indicates H2M Labs, Inc. HD indicates Health Department ECO indicates ECO Test Labs * Reported as 0.6 ** 7 Aldicarb, 5 Chloropropane 0 0 I-4 U I I 0 I I I I I I I I~ I I 0 0 I I oo L~ I '~ I rn I ~ 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT B COST OPINION FOR NON-COMMUNITY TWO WELL SUPPLY SYSTEM I I COST OPINION FOR NON-COMMUNITY TWO WELL SUPPLY SYSTEM I I I I I I Wells - two (2) 6" diameter (100' depth - 10' screen length) Pumps - two (2) 95 GPM at 200' TDH (7.5 HP) Building - 16' x 25' x 10' (manufactured) Electrical - three phase service Motor/pump controls Lighting & miscellaneous Engine/Generator Set - 20 KW GAC Units & Pipe - two at 4' diameter x 8' Blowoff pits & pipe Chlorination $3,000. 9,000. 4,000. I I I I I I Hydropneumatic tank & controls Piping, Mechanical, Meters Contingencies SUBTOTAL . Engineering & Design Inspection & Miscellaneous SUBTOTAL . Piping - Well Field to Project Buildings PROJECT TOTAL . EXHIBIT B $ 19,000. 7,000. 29,000. 16,000. 4,500. 12,000. 4,500. 3,500. 6,000. 8,500. 15.000. .$125,000. 12,000. 8.000. .$145,000. 25.000. $170,000. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~0 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowsk~, Jr., Chaicman George Ritchi¢ Latham. ,Ir. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCO'I~F L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 December 4, 1992 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Expansion of Beachcomber Motel E/s Duck Pond Lane, on Long Island Sound Cutchogue, N.Y. SCTM 9 1000-83-1-2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: On November 2, 1992 the Planning Board adopted a resolution which requires your client to write a draft environmental impact statement for the Beachcomber expansion. In our notification letter, we asked that you let staff know when your environmental consultant would be available for a scoping session. Since we have not heard from you, we have gone ahead and set up meeting dates that are convenient for our consultant and staff. Please call the office and let my secretary, Holly, know which of the following days is most convenient for you: December 16 and 18 at 2:00 P.M. Any weekday at 2:00 P.M. during the month of January except the llth and 12th. Sincerely, Bennett Or±ows~i, or. Chairman Please see next page for list of agencies copied with this letter. cc: Board of Trustees, Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, Southold Building Department, Southold Highway Department, $outhold Department of Health Services, Suffolk County - S. Costa, V. Minei, P. Ponturo Planning Commission, Suffolk County - F. Dowling New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Stony Brook, K. Munze New York State Department of State, Mohabir Persaud Suffolk County Water Authority - M. LoGrande, E. Rosavitch Groundwater Resources Committee, Southold Planning and Zoning Committee, Southold ~- t~-IL~ NUMBER :: i&75~00-00108 ~ own ~ .............. ~ ~. ,.,. J ·-' ..... ::::::::::::::::::::::::: : < F/N~ ~ :::::::::::::::::::::: :: :: :: : :: ~ ~EEE::~::::~:::::::::~::::~::~:~N~j~::::~:~:~::::::~::~H ;:.~N;~:.~:.~CLA$$: ::.r:: IJnti~.l:odN~:.;:; ~:::.~::::~G~NERIC EIG: :: N :~::::::}T~ ~TITLE: ~Be~ohoombep Motel ~ I .................. ~:'. ~ :.~]::~::~::~:~[:~ :: ~ [Ype L :: ~ ? :~'~'ON INVOLVED: ~N~ ~ESCRIPTZON:~J~Co~stnUct 86 motel unJ IMPORTANT File Number: P1--473800--00108 To the Lead Agency The ebove infonmetion conf~rms that l:i].ings on the deecribed Positive Declaration were officially received by, and entered in the SEeR Repository on the d~te(s) shown in the box he~ded DATE RECEIVED above, The l~test filing i% indicated by the most recent d~te in theft box. The d~te ~nd time ~n the second )ire show when this For' coprections op questions contract Chsr-]es, Loci<row, (518)&57-222i, -Fo,~n of SOU'FHOLD 5,3095 Main Road-P.O. $outho] d, NY 11971 Box 1179 Not ice Complet ioniiiiiiiiiiiii!ii / / ged To Neg Deci]iiiiiiii!iiiiii]iiiiiiiii! / III / / File Number : P1--473800--00107 Use the above number in all c©rrespondenoe about this action! ~tion confirms that filings on the described ~ere officially received by, and entered im the SEQR Repository on the date(s) shown in the box headed DATE RECEZVED above. 'the latest filing is indicated by the moat recent date that box. The date and time ~n the second line show when this document w~a printed, Please check the information above carefully. For corrections or questions contact Charles Lockrow, or write to: SEOR Repository NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs 50 Wolf Ro~d, Room Albany, NY Town of SOUTHOLD Planning Board 55095 Main Road-P.O. Southold, NY 1~971 Box 1179 SO[;R ;' PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 4,. 1992 SCOTI' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York I 1971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel S/E/C L.I. Sound and Duck Pond Pond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM#1000-83-1-1,2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, November 2, 1992. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and as lead agency in its review of this Type I action finds that the action may significantly effect the environment, and makes a determination of a Positive Declaration. In the interest of arranging a mutually convenient time for a scoping session as quickly as possible, please let the Board's secretary, Holly Perrone, know which afternoons will work best for your client and his environmental consultant. Enclosed please find a copy of the Positive Declaration for your records. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encl. CRAMER, VO'.ORHII~,, ~;¢~,'~SOCIATES Mr. Bennett Orlowski, .Ir. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Review of Beachcomber Motel Long EAF SCTM No. 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue Dear Mr. Orlowski: October 29, 1992 As per the y.our request, we have completed a preliminary review of the above referenced project in accordance with your request. Tasks and completed activities are identified as follows: Review Part I LF_MF The parcel has been field inspected by CVA, and the LEAF has been reviewed and amended as necessary. A copy of same is attached. Prepare Part H LEAF The Part II LEAF checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional information concerning our findings is included below. Environmental and Planning Considerations The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site and area have been consulted. The project involves site plan approval to construct 86 units on a 14.1 acre parcel on t.he east side of Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, New York. The proposed site plan Is included with the application and was prepared by Barrett, Lanzisera, Beckman and Hyman, project no. 8630, last revision 5-1-92. The subject site is primarily vacant with the exception of an existing pool, cabana, bocci court, miniature golf, and basketball area which is present in connection with adjacent lands operated as the Beachcomber Motel. All but the bocci court are proposed to remain. The site contains a flat meadow area surrounding the recreation complex. Southwest of this area is a deciduous woodlot which includes slopes well in excess of 35 percent. East of the recreation area is a slope including deciduous woodlands and xeric-oriented flora, with unstable soils and slopes in excess of 25 percent. There is a small apparently man-made pond located ].n, the western part of the site, which includes sunace water and is surrounded primar;ly by common reed. The proposed project calls for construction of 86 motel units accessed from a circular pattern driveway which surrounds the recreation complex. A total of eight buildings are proposed of which five will contain 12-units, two will contain 9-units~ and one x~ill contain 8-u~ts. Seven of ,t. he ,buildings have a footprint .of 30'x.120' and o.n.e building will have a tootprint of 30 x80. It is noted that the 9-umt. buildings (buildtngs 1 and2) have 6-units, which appear to be 2-story, and could function as apartments having 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Page I of 3 Beachcomber Motel Long EAF Review floor areas of 1,200 square feet. All other units appear to have floor areas of approximately 600 square feet. The proposed project represents a major increase in intensity of use of the parcel. The Part II Long EAF (attached) provides an Outline of several areas of significant environmental impact expected as a result of th.e project, and should be used in connection with this letter as a guide in addressing significant environmental issues. Based on our review, we believe that an Environmental Impact Statement is appropriate in order to assess impacts, provide a means of x.n. ter-a~ency coordination, and explore mitigation measures and alternatives. A brief d~scusslon of anticipated impacts follows: 1. Buildings 1, 2 and 3 are located in a steep slope area (> 25%). Grade transitions of 20-25 feet are apparent across the length of buildings 2 and 3, and buildings 1 and 4 have grade transitions of 10-15 feet across the length of the buildingn This area is considered to be sensitive due to coarse erodable soils. The area must be avoided or developed in an extremely sensitive manner. As proposed significant excavation and associated soil de-stabilization is expected, and development would require extensive structure retalnment or other measures to allow construction as proposed. The area is somewhat proximate to Long Island Sound, and de- stabiliTation could have ramifications in terms of transport of sediment to the existing site and potentially to the Sound. Additional consideration should be given to design in thia area to minimize loss Of vegetation, and reduce erosion and sedimentation. Design alternatives should be considered. The project involves construction of 86-units on 14.1 acres. SCDHS indicates that motel units in excess of 400 square feet have a design flow of 150 gallons per day (gpd). This would result in a flow of 12,900 gallons per day which exceeds the allowable flow for 14.1 acres (4,230 gpd). The H2M report addresses this issue through temporary sterili?ation of adjacent lands of the owner until such time as public water supply is available, however, this should be incorporated into the site plan review process in terms of acreage proposed for use. In addition, the allowable flow would effectively bo doubled if public water supply is available, therefore, the design flow would still exceed the allowable flow based on 14.1 acres, therefore, some portion of the adjacent lands must remain undeveloped in perpetuity. As indicated, the H2M provides some insight into these issues; however, coordination with SCDHS through the site plan review and EIS process would bc beneficial. The applicant may indicate that usc is seasonal and thercforc sanitary flow and water use is lcss than design flow;, however, once constructed the use pattern may change and the Town and SCDHS should address potential use based on design flow. In addition to design flow and density, sanitary system design should bc considered in terms of dispersal of saultary waste, depth to water and design constraints for units in 15 foot elevation area, and nitrogen load with transport of contaminants to Long Island Sound. Water use issues arc critical in the Town of Southold. Thc H2M report provides insight into intended water supply. The report however is not consistent with the site plan, depicting alternate access roads and well field location which do not correspond with the site plan. In addition, due to the anticipated significant water use, potential movement of the salt water interface, need for well pumping control and distribution, water quality, and integration with the Beachcomber I project, discussion of water supply issues should be incorporated into thc EIS Page 2 of 3 Beachcomber Motel Long EAF Review process for inter-agancy review and more detailed analysis by the lead and involved agencies. The project will result in the removal of perhaps up to 2 acres of vegetation in a sensitive slope area. In addition, depending upon the location of the water supply system, additional acreage, possibly in the steep slope heavily wooded area may also be removed. Proper design, and clearing limitations should be considered. The significance: of the small man-made pond should be considered and appropriate setbacks observed. The impact on infrastructure and community services should be determined. The project will produce approximately 65 vehicle trips per hour during peak traffic hours on Saturday. The ability of the surrounding road system to accommodate increased traffic should be determined. The area roads are local/rural in chasacter, and there are constraints noted in terms of horizontal and vertical ali?mant and traffic control signage on Duck Pond Road. Other demand for community services should be determined in connection with a motel nsc of this intensity. In summary, the above paragraphs provide greater insight into environmental issues, and in connection with the Long EAF Parts I and II, form thebasis for a Determination of Significance. It is our recommendation that a Positive Declaration be issued in order to assess impacts, provide a means of inter-agency coordination, and explore mitigation measures and alternatives. If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours~ Page 3 of 3 PLANNING BOA._RD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-I938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQa POSITIVE DECLARATION Notico of Intent to Pt pare a Draft ElS Determination o' Significance SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 1197t Fax (516) 765-1823 Lead.,tgency: '/tddre~s: Plann ng Board of the Town of .S. outhold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. I ',ox 1179 South >Id, New York 11971 Date: November 2, 1992 .Thls notice is is.sued pursuant to Part 617 of the in:olementing re~.,latfon$ pertalninz to Article 8 (State Environmental Qual'ty RevUe ~) of the Envlronmentaf~Conservanon Law~ · , The lead agency has determined that tee pro¢osed ac, tion described below may have a ~{g. mflcant .~ff~ct on the environment and that t D~aft Environmental Impact Statement Will De preparea. ~ Title of Actlon: SEQR Status: Project Descrlpt[on: Beachcomb~ r Motel II ~ype I action The project, &ich is the subject of this Long EA_F involves a request fos site plan approval to construct 86 motel .units on a 14ol acre parcel. Th? proposed project calls ~ mr construct on of 86 motel umts accessed from a circular patv rn driw*~.'ay wh!c.h, surrounds the recreation co, n)p!e3. A. oral of .eight bu!Idmgs areproposed of which five w: II contain 12-umts, two will contain 9-units, and one.will ..'on,rain ,8,-units. Seven 9f th~bui!dlngs have a footpnnt o ,3,0~120 a. nd one building will have a foo!pr!nt of: 0 xg0'; It is noted that ,'he 9-unit buildings (bu,ld:ngs 1 ,:nd 2) naye 6-units, which a~peax to be 2- story, and ce tld function ~ aoartm,mtn fi~.ving floor a_.rea-s of 1,26 ! square, feet, Ail othe;'u~it$ a~-p~ar t-~ have · hoer areas e. approxmmtely 600 square feet, Beachcomber Motel II S£OR Determination SCTM Number: District 100f - Section 0S3 - Block 01 -Lots 1, 2 & 17 Location: The site of t,~e subject application is located on the east side of Duck Pot I Lane and the Long Island Sound in Cutchogue, ~4'ew York. Reasons Sulc~porttng This Determination: This determination is issued in full coast leration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11 the Long Environmental :Assessment Form Parts I; II and the following specific reasons: The !r.roposed project represents a m,jm increase in intensity of use of the parcel. The Part !I Long EAF provides an outlir e of several areas of si~:nificant - environmental i?npact expected as a renu t of theproject. B~ect on review, it has been d.etermined that an Envi:'omnental Impact Statement is appropriate in order to asses.,; ~mpacts, provide a means of inter- ~genc3' coordination, and explore mitigation measures and alternatives. Buildings I, 2 and 3 are located in a stee'~ slope area (>25%). Grade transitions of 20-25 feet are ap£?rent a. cross the length of buildings 2 and 3, and buildings 1 and 4 have. grade transmons, of 10-15 feet e. cro: i the length of the buildings. Thfs area is consulered to be sensItive due to coarse, rodable soils. The area must be avoided or developed in an ~xtremely sensmve man ~er. Aq proposed s~gmftcant excavatmn and associated sol! de-stabilization is expepte 1, and de' ve.ropment would require extensive structure retamm?nt or other measures t ~ allow construction as l~roposed. The area is so.n,ew.hat proximate to Long Island Sr und, and .de-sta. bi!~zat!o'n cbuld have ram~f:icat~ons in terms of transport of sed meat to the exutma site and ¢otentia!Iv to the Sound. Additipnal c.onsideration she ~Id .be given to design in this a'rea to ' minimize loss of vegetatmn~ and reduce t ros:on and sedimentation. Desian alternatives shouldbe considered... The project involves construction of 86-u ~its on 14,.1 acres. SCDHS indicates that motel units in excess of 4.00 square feet h ~ve a design flow of !50 gallons per day (gpd). This would result maflow of 12,9)0 gall.o.ns.per day which exceeds the allo.w, able flow for 14.1. ayres (4,230 gpd). A prehmmary r.eport su.b. rmtted by the apphcant addresse, s this issue through tel ~porary a. erilizauon of adjacent lands of the o-vnet until such t~me as public water SUl: ,ply is available, however, this should be incorporated.., into the site plan review pre cess. in terms of acrea, g 1~. Pe ro osed for use.. In addmon, .... the allowable flow would elf, ctively be doubled available, therefore, the deaga flow svou: :I st)ll exceed the allowable flow base'°on. 14.1 act.es, therefo.re, s.ome portion of the adjacent lands must remaln undevelooed m perpetuity. Coordmat:on w~th SCDHS fl rough the site plan rev:ew and EIS ~)ro' cess would be beneficial. ' In addition to design flow and density, o l)raft Efts should consider sanitary system desigr~ should be considered in lerms of t ispersal of sanitary ,s, aste, depth to water Beachcomber bio:ti II SEQR Determination and design constraints for units in 1~ foo~ elevation area, and nitrc~n lo~d with freeport of contaminants to ~n~ Island ~ound Wate~ use issues ~e critical in the Town ff Somhold. A pr~!imina~ w~ter us~ report submitte~ by the applicant ~rovidcs inila;~t intoin~end~d wa~r ~uoply. ~ r~port however ~s not consistent wi'th the site pr: n, d~plctin! alternai~ access road~ and well field locatio~ which do not correspond w~ ~h the ske ~lan. In addidov~ ~ue to the anticipated s~gniflcant water use, ootenfi: I movement of the salt water interface, need for well pumping control an~ distril ution, water qual!tv, and integration Mth the Beachcomber I prbject, discussion of war :r supply i~sues shduld ~e incorporated into the ElSprocess for inter-agenq review a ~d more detailed analys~s by the lead and involved agencies. .~ ~e ~rojec/will result in the removal ofi erhaps ~p to 2 acres of vegetation in a sensaive sl?~} ~ea. In addition, depend ag ~on the location of the water supply system, addmon~ acreage, possibly m.tht steep slope heavily wooded ~ea may also be removed. Proper design, and clearing limitations should be considered. ~e significance of the small man-made poM ~hould be comldered and appropriate setbac~ obse~ed.. ~e irapact on infr~tructure and commu ~ity s~,ices should ~ determined, ~e ~roi~ct will produce aoproximately ~ vel:icI~ t~ip: per hour during peak traffic hours ~a ~aturday. ~ abif~{~ of the surround~ ~g roafl system to a~commodate incre~ed traffic should be determined, ~e area r; ,ads ar~ loca!/m[al m character, ~d ther~ are ecnstralnts noted in terms of horizon~ al and vertical ahgnment and traffic control slgnate on Duck Pond Road, Other d~m ~nd fo~ c?nmonky ~e~ic¢s should be determined in connection with a motel ul e of th;s intensity, For Further ]Information: Contact Person: Address: Phone; No.; Bennett Orl¢',vski, Jr. Chairman, P: arming Board Town of Sou hold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1177 Town Hall, } lain Road, $outhold (516) 765-19~;8 Copies of tht~ Notice Sent to: Commission~?Depaxtment of Environmental C mservat(on Regional Office-New York St.ate thc Departme~ t of Environmcnta! Conservation Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Ap licant , "c Su~f~olk County Department of Heahh Ser',~ es Suffolk Cour...0 Departm. e.nt of Planning NYS Legisla,:,-ve Commission on Water Resour~ ~ Needs for Long Island Southol~Town Board of Zoning Appeals Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Building Department Page 3 of 3 C RA'M EFt, S Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095-Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Review of Beachcomer Motel Long EAF SCTM No. 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue October 29, 1992 ~OLD IOWN pI),NNING BOARD Dear Mr. Orlowski: As per the your request, we ,have comple; ed apreliminary review of the .above .~efer.enced project in accordance with your requ ~st. Tasks and completed activities are ~dent~fied as Ifollows: Review Part I LEAF The parcel has been field inspected by C.' 7A, and the LEAF has been reviewed and amended as necessary. A copy of same al attached. Prepcag Part II LEAF The Part. II LEAF ch. ecklist .h. as .been c?n pleted and is also attached. Additional information concermng our findings is ~m luded below. Environmental and Planning Conskterati. o~ ,, The parcel has been inspected and .eh%r( amenta3 references concerning the site and area'have been consulted. The project .w ~olves meplan approval to construct 86 units on a 14.1 acre parcel on t.he. east sid '~ of Duck Pond R6ad, CutchoTae, New York. The propose~] site plan ~s included with. the application and was prepared by Bar~rett, Lanzlsera, Beckman and Hyman project no. 8630, last revision 5-I-92. The subject site is primarily vacant with t' ~e exception of an existing pool, c.abana., bocci court, miniature golf, and bazketbal! area which is present m c.onnect~on w~th adjacent lands operate~ as the Beachcom 3r Motel. All but the bocct court are t>rot>o:~ed to remain The site contains a i!at meadow area surrounding the recreation complex. Southwest of this area ~s a decl, luou$ woodlot which ~nc~udes slopes well m excess of 35 percent. East of the recreati, m area is a. stope including deciduous woodlands and x. efic-oriented flora, with, ~mtable soils and slopes in excess of 25 percent. There ss a small apparently mar .made pond located m the western part of the site, which includes surf,'ce wate'r and is surrounded primarily by common reed. The pFopqsed projec, t calls for cor~tructk n of 86 motel units accessed from a cir.cular pattern driveway which surrounds the tee 'cation complex. A t.otal of e~ght buildings are proposed of which five will contain 1.'. -units, two will contain 9-unlts, and o.n.e will contain 8-nulls. Seven of the buildings h, vea footprint of 30.'x.120' and o.n.e building will h,~ve a footprint of 30'x80'. It is fiote, [ that the 9-uni! buddings (buildings 1. anc[2) have 6-unlts, which appear to be 2-story, :nd could function a~ apartments hawng fi4-2 NORTH COUIqTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Page I of 3 Beoch¢omber Motel floor areas of 1,200 square feet. All othe: units appear to have floor areas of appro:dmately 600 square feet. The proposed project represents a major increase.!n intensity o.f use of t. he. pa, r..cel. The Part II Long EAF (attached) provid~ s an outline ot severat areas ot s~gmncant environmental impac, t expected ~ .a r,esui ! ?f thp pro. jec.~ and sho.uld be us.e.d !n connection ~'ith t.his letter as. a gmae m a ?r.essmg stgnmcant en_v~ronment.at issues, Based on our review, we beheve that an I mvtronmental Impact statement ~s. a ro riate in order to assess impacts, provide a means of rater-agency coordination, PP~ P " ' ~- ' ..... t .ann explore mmgatton measures and a~t~ rnattves. A brtef discuss,on of ant~c~pa ed tmpacts follows: 1. Buildings 1, 2 and 3 are located in a stecF slope area (>25%). Grade {ransltlons of 20.~5 feet are apparent across the length of buildin~; 2 ~ad 3, and buildings 1 and 4 have grade transitlo~ of 10-15 feet across the length of thc bulL' lugs. This area is considered to be sensitive due to coarse erodable soils. The area must be: voided or developed in an extremely sensitive manner, As proposed significant excavation ~d a~' ~odated soll de-stabilization is expected, and development would require e~ens~ve strt :ture retalnment or other measures to allow construction as proposed. The area is so~ ~ewhat proximate to Long Island Sound, and stabilization could have ramifications in t rms of transport of sediment to the e~ting slt~ and potentially to the Sound. Additional con~' &ration should be given to design in this area to minimize loss of vegetatlon, and reduce ¢ o$1on and sedlmentafio=. Design al~cmatlvcs should be eoasldered. Thc project involves constructloa of 86-u, its on 1.4,1 ~cees. SCDHS ~dlcatcs that motel tmlts in excess o~ 400 squat feet have a design fl w of ~0 gallons ~r day (gpd). ~is would result ~ a fl~' of 1~ gallons ~r day whi~ exce ~ds the allowable flow for la,1 acres (4~ ~). ~e H2M report address~ this issue Ihrou~ :cmpora~ steri~z~tlon of adjacent lands of tbe o~er unt~ such t~e ~ public water supply h r ~lable, however, this should be in~r~rated into thc si~e plan rc~cw pro,ss in terms of a~c~ ~e pro~d for use. la addltlo~ ~he all~able flow would effectively ~ doubled ~ public wa~ :r supply ~ available, therefore, the des~ flow would sti~ e~ed the ~able flow based on 1 ~.1 a~es, therefore, some ~rtlou of the ad]a~nt lands m~t remain undevelo~d ~ ~r~tui~. ~ ~ted, the H2M pro,des some ~i~t ~to these ~ues; however, ~rdlnation ~th SCDe S throu~ t~e site plan renew ~d EIS press would ~ ~nefidal. The applicant may indicate that use is se; sonal and therei'ore sanitary flow and water use is less than design flow;, however, once eoustru¢ cd the use pattern may change and the Tows and SCDHS should addrc~s potential usc bas :d on &sign flow. Ia addition to design flow and dens ty, sa utary system des,gu should be eonssdered ua terms of dispersal of sanitary waste, depth to watt- and design constraints for units in 15 toot elevation ' area, and nitrogen load with transport of :ontam~nants to Long Island Sound. Water use issues are critical h~ tho Tow~ .~f Southold. Thc H2M report pro'ides insight into intended water supply, The report howe '~r ts not consistent with the site plan, depicting alternate access roads and well field Ioca ion which do not correspond with the site plan. Ia addition, duc to thc anticipated s~gnlflcaa t water use, potcntla! movement of thc salt water interface, need for well pumping control tad distribution, water quality, and iategratloa wi~h the Beachcomber I project, diseusslon of wa~ :r supply issues should be incorporated iago the ENVIRON MENT~t/ff~G CONSULTANTS Page l~achcomber Motel Lo~ FAF Revl~ process for ~ntcr-agcncy rcvlcw and more detailed analysis by the Icad and bwolved agcndes. The project will rc.sult in thc removal of F ;rhaps up to2 ac, rcs of vcgctafion ia a sensitive slope area. In addition, depending upon thc Io~ %tlon of the water supply system, additional acreage, possibly ia the stccp slope heavily woode¢ area'may also be removed, Proper design, a~d gearing limitations should be considered. The signil'icance of the small man-made t~nd should be coosldcred and appropdato setbacks c ~scrved. Thc hnpact on i~frastructure and commu tity services should be dctcrmlncd. The project will produce approxlmat¢ly 65 vehicle trips IX ,' hour during peak tratlle hours on Saturda!t. The ability of thc surrounding road system to ~ccommoda~n i~crcased traffic should be detcrmlned. The area roads are local/rural in &erect, r, and there arc constraints noted ia terms of horizontal and vcrtkal alignment and tral ~ic control slgnagc on Duck Fond Road, Other demand for community scrvlccs should b dotcrmincd iu connection with a motel use of this intev, slty, In summary, the above paragraphs ptovi, tegreater insight into environmental issues ~a.nd !5 connecnon wxth the Long E. AF?a~rts I E d II, form thebas]s for a DetermmaUon of ~gntncance. It is our recommendation that a ~ ~sitive Declaration be issued in order to assess impacts, provide, a means of inter-agency eoordlnation, and explore mitigation measures and alternattves. If you have any questions or wish any fur :her input v.4th regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Charles $. Voorhis, CEP, AICP CRAMER, V(~, ~/ASOCIATES · ENVIRON MENT~-"'"~.L'k~'~f~G CONSULTANTS Page 3 of 3 ENVIRONMENT~G CONSULTANTS Mr. Bennett Orlowsld, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Review of Beachcomber Motel Long EAF SCTM No. 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue Dear Mr. Orlowski: October 29, 1992 As per the your request, we have completed a preliminary review of the above referenced project in accordance with your request. Tasks and completed activities are identified as follows: Rev/ew Part I The parcel has been field inspected by CVA, and the LEAF has been reviewed and amended as necessary. A copy of same is attached. ~hepare Part II LEAF e Part H I .~AF checklist has been completed and is aiso attached. Additionai information concerning our findings is included below. Environmental and Planning Considerations The parcel has been inspected and environmentai references concerning the site and area have been consulted. The project involves siteplan approval to construct 86 units on a 14.1 acreparcel on the east side of Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, New York. The proposed site plan is included with the application and was prepared by Barrett, I_anzisera, Beckman and Hyman, project no. 8630, last revision 5-1-92. The subject site is primarily vacant with the exception of an existing pool, cabana, bocci court, miniature golf, and basketball area which is present in connection with adjacent lands operated as the Beachcomber Motel. All but the bocci court are proposed to remain. The site contains a fiat meadow area surrounding the recreation complex. Southwest of this area is a deciduous woodlot which includes slopes well in excess of 35 percent. East of the recreation area is a slope including deciduous woodlands and xeric-oriented flora, with unstable soils and slopes in excess of 25 percent. There is a small apparently man-made pond located in the western part of the site, which includes surface water and is surrounded primarily by common reed. The proposed project calls for construction of. 86 motel units accessed from a circular pattern driveway which surrounds the recreation complex. A totai of eight buildings are proposed of which five will contain 12-units, two will contain 9-units, and one will contain 8-units. Seven of the buildings have a footprint of 30'x120' and one building will have a footprint of 30'x80'. It is noted that the 9-unit buildings (buildings 1 and2) have 6-units, which appear to be 2-story, and could function as apartments having 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 lh~ 1 of 3 Beachcomber Motel Lena EAF a~ew floor areas of 1,200 square feet. All other units appear to have floor areas of approximately 600 square feet. The proposed project represents a major increase in intensity of use of the parcel. The Part II Long EAF (attached) provides an outline of several areas of significant environmental impact expected as a result of the project, and should be used in connection with this letter as a guide in address~ si~onificant environmental issues. Based o.n our review, we believ, e that an En.vi.r. onmental Ir.n. pact Statement is appropriate in order to assess impacts, prowde a means of rater-agency coordination, and explore mitigation measures and alternatives. A brief discussion of anticipated impacts follows: Buildings 1, 2 and 3 are located in a steep slope area (> 25%). Grade tra~itious of 20-2~ feet are apparent across the length of builai,? 2 and 3, and buildln? i and 4 have grade trnn~ifious of 10-15 feet across the length of the bulldln~. ~ area is considered to be sensitive due to coarse erodable soils. The area must be avoided or developed in an extremely sensitive manner. As proposed ~i~iflcant excavation and assoc/ated sod de-stabili~,~tion is expected, and development would require extensive structure retalnmeot or other measures to allow construction as proposed. The area is somewhat proximate to Long J~land Som~d, and de- stabili7atiou could have ramifications in terms of transport of sealme~nt to the existin~ site and potentially to the Sound. Additional consideration should be given to design in this area to minimize lo~s of vegetation, and reduce erosion and sedimentation. Design alternatives should Thc proje~ involves constructinu of 8d-unlts on 14.1 acres. SCDHS indieatcs that motel units in excesa of 400 square feat have a design flow of 150 ?llous per day (glXI). ~ would result in a flow of 12,900 gallons per day which exceeds the allowable flow for 14.1 acres (4~.30 gini). Thc H2M report addresses this issue through temporary stcriliT~tion of adjacent lands of thc owner until such time as public water supply is awilahle, however, this should be incorporated into thc site plan review process in terms of acreage proposed for use. In addition, the allowable flow would effectively be doubled if public water supply is available, therefore, the design flow would still e~r. ceed the allowable flow based on 14.1 acres, therefore, some portion of the adjacent lands must remain undeveloped in perpetuity. As indicated, the I-I2M provides some i~slght into these i~ues; however, coordination with SCDHS through the site plan review and ElS process would be beneficial. The applicant may indicate that use is seasonal and therefore sanitary flow and water use is less than design flo~ however, once constructed the use pattern may change and the Town and SCDHS should address potently! use based on design flow. In addition to design flow and density, e.~nitary system de~i? should be considered in terms of dispersal of sanitary waste, depth to water and design constraints for units in 15 foot elevation area, and nitrogen load with transport of goutamlnant$ to Loug Island Sound. Water use issues are critical in the Town of Southold. The H2M report provides insight into intended water supply. The report however is not consistent with the site plan, depicting alternate access roads and well field location which do not correspond with the site plan. In addition, due to the anticipated si?iflcaot water use, potential movement of the salt water interface, need for well pumping control and distn'bution, water quality, and integration with the Beachcomber I project, discussion of water supply issues should be incorporated into the EIS CRAMER, V~ ~[~SOCIATES ENVlRONMENT~G CONSULTANTS Pa~e 2 of 3 Beachcomber Motel process for inter-agency review and more detailed ~.*ly~ by thc lead and involved agencies. Thc project will result in thc removal of perhaps up to 2 acres of vcgctatlon in a sensitive aiope area. In addition, depending upon the location of the water supply system, additional acreage, possibly in the steep slope heavily wooded area may also be removed. Proper design, and clearing limitations should be considered. The si~ificance of the small man-made pond should be considered and appropriate setbacks observed. Thc impact on infrastructure and community services should be determined. Thc project will produce approximately 6~ vehicle trips per hour during peak traffic hours on Saturday. The ability of the surrounai-g road system to accommodate increased traffic should be determined. The area roads arc local/rural in ,-h*racter, and there are constraints noted in terms of horizontal and vertical ali~-mnt and traffic control *i~*$e on Duck Pond Road. Other demand for commnnily services should be determined in connection with a mo~el use of this intensity. In sun~. axy, the above paragraphs provide greater insight into environmental issues, and in connection with the Long EAFParts I and H, form the basis for a Determination of Significance. It is our recommendation that a Positive Declaration be issued in order to assess impacts, provide, a means of inter-agency coordination, and explore mitigation measures and alternatives. ff you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. ENVIRONMENT~G CONSULTANTS Page 3 of 3 14-16-2 2/87)--7c Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review " FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOI /I t ~ni~T.m0TOWN ' · ~ -- sOU'[HOLD TO · ':~: PLANN NG BOARD - Purpose: Th~ full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an or erl~'manner, whether a proiect or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. · Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project ~nd its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3." Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is ~ikely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: Part 1 Part 2 ~Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this FAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magJtude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: [] A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. [] B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONFD negative declaration will be prepared.* X may one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact C. The project result in on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. * ^ Conditioned Negative D~claration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Date 1 _ Ti~e of Resp~.nsibl_e Officer - SJg ute of PrepeTer (If different from responsible officer) PART 1--PROJECT INFORI%..-ION PrePared by Project Sponsl~) NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete' the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considere~~- as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additiom[, information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION D~oho~mh~r Mnf. el Site Plan LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality snd County) r~l~k Pnn~] Rn;~. Ol(-.~h _o?~e~ To!4rl of Southold NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR ~nry E. Ra_vnor. Jr. (Aoent for Aliano) AODRESS BUSINESS TBLEPHONE §16 ) 298-8420 I STATE ZIP CODE NY 11952 CITY/PO Mm{-{- ~ ~-llC~' NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE Nicholas Aliano ( ) ADDRESS Ashley Lan~ CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE shoreham NY 11786 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION ~ 1. Present land use: ClUrban l-]lndustrial I-IForest I-1Agriculture 2. Total acreage of project area: 14.1 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) 3. What is predominant soil type(s} on project site.;' Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. I-ICommercial F-1Residential (suburban} E3Other PRESENTLY ~Rural (non-farm) AFTER cOMPLETION  acres 19.~ acres acres ~'- ,-~ acres _~~ acres acres l acres acres acres ~' l acres acres acres acres ~ acres to~soil, sand, qravela~e~ ~ acres a. Soil drainage: ~Well drained [00 % o~ ~Jte I-lModerately well drained % of site I-1Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved~.how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYg..~ Land Classification System? ~ acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? I-lYes ~lNo ~/ a. What is depth to bedrock'? '--~01~ (in feet) 2 ./ 5. Approximate percentage of pro I project site with sIopes: j~]0-10% _ % ~]10-15% 1,~ % 6. Is proiect substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State o ional Registers of Historic Places? I-lyes :XDNo J~"' Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? I-IYes ~]No 8.What is t~e depth of the water table? (in feet) +_ z0 [t %0 +_ 35 [t over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ~,~,es :~No 9. Is site located 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? I-lYes 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered~ I-lyes (~No According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) [-IYes ~o Describe ~l~L/../~t~'_ ~-,~/~//l'l. ,~ £&~ 13. Is the I-lYes I~No If yes, explain 14, Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community~ r-lYes [3~No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: rl/h a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary project site presently used .by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area~ 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: · a. Name n/a _.~I',~/.L GI~/.,~"~'~,~ M,/J~J~l~t--'~l~. ~::res) ~:). I .~ ,~. 17. Is the site served by ex st ng public utilities~ J~]Yes ~l~qo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? (~Yes DNo lll,/~Fl~..~ ~ ~ b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? []Yes I~No ~,,~ ~ 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? ~]Yes ~]No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 r-lYes J~3No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? D-lYes ~No ,/ ./ B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor + 45 b, Project acreage to be developed: 14 acres initially; 14 c. Proj~'ct acreage to remain undeveloped ?q acres. d. Length of project, in miles: (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 ; proposed acres. acres ultimately. per town Code g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 6f) (upon completion of project),~ ~1~ ~ h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: ~O~.,,,' ~'~t/'~ ~ One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominiu Initially Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure ~ height; ~ width; ~ length. j. Linear feet of frontage along, a public thoroughfare project will occupy is.~ ~ ft. -,~,,..' 3 per code nc to exceed 125 ft 2. How much natural materia 3. Will disturbed areas be recl E~Yes CINo []N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? :~Yes CqNo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~]Yes rock, earth, etc.) will be removed fro .... le site? 0 tons/cubic yard. s. lawn & Landscaping 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? /, ~I~ ~ 0 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? []-lYes 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: 1 a. Total number of phases anticipated b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? [Yes 18 (number). 6 months, (including demolition). 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 50 ; after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? []-lYes []No If yes, explain month 1993 year, (including demolition). month year. ~ I-lYes [-1No 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? [~Yes /1~o a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Hame of water body into which effluent will be discharged n/a 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? /~es ~]No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain domestic sewerage I=]Yes [No 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? []Yes I~No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ~(es [~No a. If yes, what is the amount per month ~ tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ,~es []No c. If yes, give name ~; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain [:]Yes ~No 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? DYes I~Yes [~No tons/month. years. [No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? []-lYes ~No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? []-lYes 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ~]Yes rqNo electricity If yes , indicate type(s) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity Z~ gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day ~ gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? I-lYes ~]No If Yes, explain ~No per SCDOHS 4 ~5. Approvals Requb'ed: City, Town, Village Board []]Yes ~No City, Town, Village Planning Board ]~]Yes r-lNo City, Town'Zoning Board I-lYes City, County Health Department ]l~]Yes I'-INo Other Local Agencies ~[]Yes l-/No Other Regional Agencies I-]Yes ]~]No State Agencies ~]Yes i-INo Federal Agencies [-]Yes ST'T'R PT,AN W/~:r,'~ & SEWER SCPC C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? I~Yes I-1No If Yes, indicate decision required: [-Izoning amendment r-izoning variance I'-[special use permit I-lsubdivision J~:]site plan t-lnew/revision of master p/an I-lresource management plan r-lother 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? S. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? J~Yes 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ',4 mile radius of proposed action? R-80 RR R-40 AC Submittal Date E]No C 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ¼ mile? J~]Yes F-1No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? ~'/J'r~ ~'j~llt 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ~J~es ~]No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services {recreation, education, police, fire protection)? I~Yes ENo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? [~Yes rqNo ~ ~ ~'- 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ~]Yes~No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? :~]Yes f-lNo D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification '~;IPt~'~ ~'F; ~m~,/ C~-'~/ ,4'~'~;. I certify that the information provided above is true to the y knowledge. Applicant/$go/~sor Name --~ Henrv ]3. Ra'~morr Jr. Date July 13, ].992 If Ihe action is in the/Coastal A;ea~,and you a,e a state agency, complete lhe Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding wilh Ibis assessment. Part 2=PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE 1 2 3 Sm~l to Potential Can Impact Be Mod·fate Large Mitigated By ~ I-lyes nNo D [] 0 OYes ONo I~ O OYes I'~No D 0 OYes DNo n X OYes E]No D ~,~ OYes E]No O [] OYes ENo [] n OYes nNo O ~J~ OYes []No OYes ONo 2. Will there be an effect t~. _.,y umque or unusual land forms fo~on the siteT (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)F1NO ,pliES · Specific land forms: ' C&~' 6 IMPACT ON LAND ..... 1. Will the prop<~d action r~ult in a ptWsical chaa~e to the proie~jjte~ DNO ~ES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise pe~ 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. · Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. · Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. · Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally w~thin 3 feet of existing ground surface. · _ Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or invol~ more than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. · Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. · Construction in a designated floodway. · Other impacts Geoetal Inlormatloe (Read Carefully) · In completing the form the reviewer should be luided by the questioe: Have my responses and d-.terminations been reasoetable! The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. · Identifyinl that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily dlnlflca~. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further.. · The ExamPles provided are to assist the reviewer by showing t~q>es of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of maenitude that would triller a response in column 2. The examples are Ich·rally applicable tl~'ouahout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/o~ lower thresholds may be appropriate fo~ a Potential Larie Impact response, thus requirin~ evaluatkm in Part 3. · The impacts of each project on each site, in each locality, will va~,. Th·refine, the examples are illustrative and hove been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. · In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering, Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 o~ 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider* the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be miti~ted by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also ch·dc the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This · must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON WATER ] Will proposed action affect any wate~ body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 2S of ~e Environmental Conservation La~, E~CL) ONO Example~ that would apply to column 2 · Oevelopable area of site contains a protected water body. · Oredging more than I~X) cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. · Extetuion of utility dis~butkm facilities through a protected water · Construction in a designated freshwater or tklal wetland. · Other impacts: ~a~c~'~uf__.a~J' w,~-~_~ .~.O-,.~ 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existiq~or new body of water;~ ~l~LO E]YES Example~ that would apply to column 2 · A 10% increase or decrease in the sudace area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. · Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. · Other impact~: 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater qu.ality or quantity? nNO ~f~ES that would apply t~ colum~ 2 · Proposed Action will require Ii discharge permit. Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve prof:x:~ecL (pmiect) action. ~I:~I~'~V'~i~ · Proposed Action requires water' supply from wells with greater than 45 lallons per minute p~mpMg Capacity. · Construction or operatio~ causing ~ contamination of a water supply system/ T'O ~&e" Small to Potential I Can Ill. Ct Be Mo<let·re Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change  ~ ~Yes DYes O ~ OYes ~No ~ ~Yes Yes D D Yes D Yes · Proposed Action will advenely affect groundwater. ~lNteJr~e~f~ · Liquid effluent will be conveye~ off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. · Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20.000 gallons per day. · Proposed Action will likel,' ¢~use silLation or other discharge into an existing body of water [~ ti-,*, ex[tnt that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. · Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water andlor sewer services. · Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment andlor storage facilities. · Other impacts: .~. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or su~lce water runoff~ ONO ~fES E~tz.-nples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would change flood water flows. 7 · Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. · Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. · Proposed Action will allow development in a designated f!__,~w_ ay. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON NR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality~ ,~O nYE$ E~amples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action wiU induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. · Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than I ton of refuse per hour. · Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more th,~n 10 million BTU's per hour. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered speciest' I"1NO ,~ES Ez~mple~ that Would apply to column 2 ' · Reductkm of one or more species listed on the New York o~ Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. · Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. · Application of pesticide or herbicide more than t~ice a year. other than for agricultural purposes. · Other impacts: ~S~ ~ ~f./z.£$/~r /~lr&dleT'J~r~llbqJ 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatl~m~l or non-endangered species;t /l~L,o OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. · Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land re~es[~ OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to a~ticultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) Small 2 I to Potential Can ImFmot Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change, O ~ OYes ONo 0 Fl OYes ONe [] I-1 OYes' ONe ID [] OYes ONe [] [] DYes []No [] ID OYes IDNo ID [3 ! OYes ONe [] ID OYes ONe [] n OYes FINe [] [] DYes O [] OYes ONe D D OYe~ ONo D /~ nye~ DNo [] O OYes ONo 0 D nYes [] D OYe~ I:]No · Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of · sricultural land. · The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of ·iricultural land or, if located in an Aaricu~tutal District, more than 2.$ ·cms of ·lricultural I·nd. · · The prol~ action would disrupt or prevent install·tton of airicultur·~ land m·n·lement systems (e.l.. subsuNace dr·in lines, out~et ditches. strip cropping, or create a need for such measures (e.i. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) · Other impacts~ IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources~r ,~ES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section'617.TI, Appendix B.) ' Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ~' in sh·rp contrast to current surroundin~ land use patterns, whether' man-made or natural. · Proposed ;and uses, or project components v~sible' to use~ of aesthetic resources which wil; eliminate or s;inificantly reduce their · enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the e~imination or significant ** screenin~ of scenic views known to be important to the area. · Other impacts: , IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCF~ 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importanceS' ONO I-lYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or subst3ntially conti~uous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Re~ister of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site, · Proposed Action will occur in an area desisnated as sensitive for archaeolosical sites on the NYS Site Inventory. · Other impacts:. IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities~ Examples that would apply to column 2 ~NO OYES }The permanent foreclosure of · future recreational opportunlty.r - '"(*A major reduction of an open space important to the community. · Other impacts: 2 I to Potential C~n Impect Be Moder&te Large Mltlgmted By Impmct Impact Project Chlnge 0 0 OYes Oho 0 0 OYes ONo 0 0 OYes Oho O O OYes ONo ['1 0 OYes ONo /,~ 0 OYes ONo 0 0 OYes Ohio 0 0 OYes Oho 0 [] OYes ONo [-I 0 I-lYes •No ~. O OYes ONo 0 J-I ['lYes OHo n O OYes 0 O OYes Oho 0 O OYes OWo 14. Will there be an effect to existing transporlation systems~' •NO ~ES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Alteration gl present patterns of move~nt of ~ple and/or · Pro~sed Action will result in major traffic problems. · Ot~r impact: ~~ ~ IMPA~ ON EN~GY 1S. Will pro~s~ action aff~ t~ c~muni~s seu~ of fuel energy supply~ ~ ~YES Ez~mples that would 4ppiy to column 2 · Pro~sed Action will cause a ~realer ~han ~% increase in ~e use of any form of energy in ~ha municipally. · Pro~sed ~cfion will require the creation or exiension of an ener~ ~ansmission or supply sys~em lo sewe more ~han ~ single or ~o family residences or to sewe a major commercial or indus~ial u~. · Other impact: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACT8 16. Will there be objec~onable odors, noise, or vibrati~ as a result of the Proposed Actlon~ ,~ * I"IyES~ Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. · Odors will occur routinely (more than o~e hour per day). · Proposed Actio~ will produce operafin~ noise exceedin$ the local ambient noise levels for noise out~ide of structures. · Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. · Other impact~: IMPACT ON PUBLIC H~,LTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safe~ OYES Examples that would apply to column :2 · Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic Iow.level discharge or emission. · Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating. infectious, etc.} · Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. · Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. · Other impacts: Moderate Impact [] [3 Large Mitigated By Impact Project Change [] []Yes •No [] []Yes []No [] []Yes []No [] []Yes []No [] []Yes []No [] []Yes []No [] []Yes ~]No [] []Yes [•No D []Yes []No [] []Yes []No [] []Yes •No [] []Yes [] I-lYes []N, [] OYes ON, [] OYes [] DYes []N, 10 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing commv~tyf C3NO /IB~E S Ezample~ that would apply to column 2 The ~rmanent ~pulation of the ci~, to~n or village in which the project is I~at~ is likely to ~r~ by more than ~. T~ munici~l ~dlet fm capi~l ex~itures ~ o~ratinl ~wices will inc~l~ ~ ~ ~n S~ ~r yflr as a mult of ~is ~oje~ pm~ ic~ will c~fl~t with officially ~t~ plans or Pro~ acti~ wiU cau~ a change in ~ ~nsi~ of la~ u~. Pro~ Acti~ will replace or eliminate existini faciliti~, structures or areas of historic ambiance to the communi~. Development will create a demand for additional community semites (e.~. sch~ls, ~lice and fire, etc.) Pro~s~ Action will ~t an implant prec~ent for future project. Pro~s~ Action will create or eliminate employment. Other impact: ~fl 2 ~ Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change 0 O OYes ONo O 0 OYes ONo I"1 O OYes ONo O ~ OYes ONo O O OYes ONo ~ O OYes ONo O O OYes O~o O O OYes ONo O O OYes Oreo 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public contr~vor%y related to potential adverse environmental impacts~',~O I-lyES If Any Action In Part 2 18 Identified aa a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS lespomJbility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared ii one or more impact(s) is conddefed to be potentially ~arge, even il the impact(s) may be mitipted. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitieated or reduced to a small to mederate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: · The probability of the impact occurring · The duration of the impact · Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value · Whether the impact can or will be controlled · The regional consequence of the impact · Its potential divergence from local needs and goals · Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr, Richard G, Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF $OLIT, HOLD ,3c~oDer 20, 1992 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel Cutchogue SCTM#1000-83-1-1,2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following resolutions were adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, October 19, 1992. RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, take lead agency in its review of this Type I action. The Southold Town Planning Board will take additional time until its next meeting on November 2, 1992, to make a determination on the environmental significance of this Type I action pending the receipt of a report from its environmental consultants. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman E NVI RO N M ENT~'~/~J/~ G ¢ONSU,~TANTS Valerie Scopaz. . Southold Planning Boaro Town Hall, 52;095Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 October 9, 1992 Beachcomer Motel, Cutcbogue Long EAF Review SCTM No. 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Dear Valerie: A~.per our convers~tlon, we will require, ldltional time to. the complete our review and provide r.?ommendat, t.ons concernfng the.al: ~ve referenced site plan, .As of this dale we have not recetved the addmonal water supply ird >rmation you referenced m our conversation. Once received we will proceed to comple e the review as quickly as possible, Thank you for your attention to this matter, and please all ff you have any qu,~stmn$. Very truly yours, Charles J, Voorbis, c£P, AICP OCT I 3 1992 SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BO~RO Page l of 3 S4-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLEF PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ScoTr L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York I 1971 Fax (516) 765-1823 October 6, 1992 MEMORANDUM TO ALL COORDINATING AGENCIES: RE: Beachcomber Motel Expansion SCTM 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue, New York Dear Coordinating Agency Reviewer: Please add the attached letter from Henry E. Raynor, Jr. to the Lead Agency Coordination letter sent to you on August 18, 1992, and the Clarification letter sent on September 28, 1992. The enclosed letter contains additional information about the historical water flows of the exising motel and aprtments. As mentioned in our last letter, the Planning Board tentatively plans on making an environmental determination at its October 19, 1992 meeting, unless we receive a written request for either more review time or information. Accordingly, we would appreciate receiving your responses by the 13th of October in order to give ourselves adequate time to review them. Questions about this project should be directed to Valerie Scopaz at 765-1938. Sincerely, , Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Board of Trustees, Southold * Zoning Board of Appeals, $outhold * Building Department, Southold Highway Department, Southold Department of Health Services, Suffolk County - S. Costa, g. Minei *, P. Ponturo Department of Planning, Suffolk County - F. Dowling' Department of Environmental Conservation, New York Albany, Commissioner Jorling and Stony Brook, R. Evans * Suffolk County Water Authority - M. LoGrande, E. Rosavitch * Groundwater Resources Committee, Southold * Planning And Zoning Committee, Southold * Person to whom copy of letter was sent. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 September 26, 1992 Valerie Scopaz Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Beachcomber Motel at Cutchogue 1000-83-1,2 & 17 Dear Ms. Scopaz: In response to your letter of last week, the historical data provided herein is an estimate based on seasonal occupancy and average water flow. The motel consists of 33 motel rooms which are open four months throughout the year and are approximately 50% occupied throughout the season. On the basis of 125 gallons per day, comprised of 60 days per season occupied, the usage would total 7500 gallons per unit or 247,500 gallons for the 33 rooms over the season. The three apartments in the complex break down as follows: One apartment is occupied full time for four months at an estimated consumption of 250 gallons per day. This would generate approximately 30,000 gallons usage throughout the season. The remaining two apartments are occupied approximately 50% of the time, thereby generating an additional 30,000 gallons of water consumption. The totals given would be annual usage as the motel is closed during the remaining eights months of the year. If you have any questions concerning the above data, please do not hesitate to contact me. .Very truly yours, /~ ^ HenryVE. Raynbr, Jr. HER: ml CC: Nicholas Aliano 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 September 26, 1992 Valerie Scopaz Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Beachcomber Motel at Cutchogue 1000-83-1,2 & 17 Dear Ms. Scopaz: In response to your letter of last week, the historical data provided herein is an estimate based on seasonal occupancy and average water flow. The motel consists of 33 motel rooms which are open four months throughout the year and are approximately 50% occupied throughout the season. On the basis of 125 gallons per day, comprised of 60 days per season occupied, the usage would total 7500 gallons per unit or 247,500 gallons for the 33 rooms over the season. The three apartments in the complex break down as follows: One apartment is occupied full time for four months at an estimated consumption of 250 gallons per day. This would generate approximately 30,000 gallons usage throughout the season. The remaining two apartments are occupied approximately 50% of the time, thereby generating an additional 30,000 gallons of water consumption. The totals given would be annual usage as the motel is closed during the remaining eights months of the year. If you have any questions concerning the above data, please do not hesitate to contact me. HER:ml CC: Nicholas Aliano PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, .Ir., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOT~ L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 xep~_ember 28; 1992 MEMORANDUM TO ALL COORDINATING AGENCIES: RE: Beachcomber Motel Expansion SCTM 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue, New York Dear Coordinating Agency Reviewer: Please add the attached Clarification of Project Description, which is dated September 28, 1992, to the Lead Agency Coordination letter that was sent to you on August 18, 1992. The clarification includes additional information about the proposal which will provide a better understanding about the relationship of the existing motel complex to the proposed expansion. This application involves three separately owned parcels. The owners of two of the parcels are part of a single application to develop their land as one unit. Although no additional development is proposed for the smallest parcel with the existing motel and restaurant, it is being included in the environmental review. Also enclosed is a copy of additional material that has been submitted by the applicant as part of the environmental assessment submission: a report entitled "Water Resource/System BEACHCOMBER II, Cutchogue, Town of Southold" July 1991. H2M Group. Data on existing water usage at the site is still forthcoming. It will be sent to you under separate cover. The Planning Board tentatively plans on making an environmental determination at its October 19, 1992 meeting. Accordingly, we would appreciate receiving your responses by the 13th of October in order to give ourselves adequate time to review them. Questions about this project should be directed to Valerie Scopaz at 765-1938. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Board of Trustees, Southold ~ Zoning Board of Appeals, Southold * Building Department, Southold Highway Department, Southold Department of Health Services, Suffolk County - S. Costa, V. Minei ~, P. Ponturo Department of Planning, Suffolk County - F. Dowling Department of Environmental Conservation, New York Albany, Commissioner Jorling and Stony Brook, R. Evans ~ Suffolk County Water Authority - M. LoGrande, E. Rosavitch *_- Groundwater Resources Committee, Southold~ Planning And Zoning Committee, Southold * * Person to whom copy of Water Report was sent. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latharn, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOWl' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 September 28, 1992 CLARIFICATION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR: Project Name: Description of Requested Action: Beachcomber Motel - Expansion of: S/E/c Long Island Sound & Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue, New York SCTM # 1000 083 1 1, 2, 17. To expand an existing motel that consists of thirty six motel units, three apartments, an office, a fifty neat restaurant and a swimming pool with a large cabana that holds five units, which the motel owner says are not rented out as motel units but have the potential to be used as such. The 1991 Water Resource System study includes water demands of these five units. A sign on the restaurant notes that it is not open to the public, but is for motel patrons only. The existing motel and restaurant are on a separate parcel of 2.1 acres in area (# 1000-83-2-1) that is zoned Resort Residential (RR). The swimming pool and cabana with five units is located on an adjoining parcel of about 12.3 acres (#1000-083-2-2). The proposed expansion of 86 new rooms will be located on part of bot~%his 12.3 acre parcel and another, adjoining parcel of about 33.8 acres (# 1000-83-17), each of which is in different ownership. These units will be placed on 14.1 acres of RR-zoned land. The total amount of RR-zoned land is about 16.2 acres, of which part is developed with the aforementioned motel containing thirty-six units and three apartments, a fifty seat restaurant, a swiz~ing pool and a five unit cabana. The TownJs Zoning Code allows motel units in this district by Special Exception of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Code permits a density of one unit per each 6,000 square feet of land area where there is no public water or sewer. A density of one unit per each 4,000 square feet of land is permitted where there public water and sewer. The Planning Board has not endorsed the proposed density of new units in this proposal because we do not know how the current impacts of the groundwater resource demand by the well(s?) and septic system(s?) for the existing motel, apartments, restaurant and poolside cabana units will be viewed by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services in conjunction with the anticipated demand for water and septic disposal for the expansion. The Health Department's position will be distributed to all'coordinating agencies when it is received. " The remainder of the land involved in this project (about 29.42 acres) is zoned Agricultural-Conservation (AC). There is a residence at its southern end. Thus, the total amount of land under review in this application includes all three properties, which incorporate approximately 45.622 acres of land in two zoning districts. SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER SENDER: SUBJECT: SCTM#: COMMENTS: 1992 ['LANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 September 28, 1992 Charles Voorhis Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Re: Proposed site plan for Expansion of Beachcomber Motel, E.s Duck Pond Lane, on Long Island Sound, Cutchogue, New York SCTM # 1000-83-1-1,2 & 17 Dear Mr. Voorhis: In addition to the Clarification Statement, please find the information you asked for about the Change of Zone petition for this property. If there are any questions, please contact Valerie. Scopaz. Sincerely, Bennett Orlows i, Jr. Chairman WHEREAS, a petition was heretofore filed with the Town Board of the Town of Southold by ~c~h~L~s~R~n~&~:~:~?~s~k~ requesting a change, modification and amendment of the Building Zone Ordinance including the Building Zone Maps made a part thereof by chang- "A" Residential General . lng from ...a..n...d.....A. cj.r...i..c...u..1...t..u..r...a...1.... District to ...~].M...~.l..'.'.....M..u...]r..t..i.R.1..e.....R...e. sidence · District the property described in said petition, and WHEREAS said petition was duly referred to the Planning Board for its investigation, recommendation and report, and its' report having been filed with the Town Boi3rd, and thereafter, a public hearing in relation to said petition having been duly held by the Town Board on the ...... ..]..~.~..b.....day of ................. .~..p.r..~.l.. .................. , ! 97..8....., and due deliberation having been had thereon W, THEREFORE, BEITRESOLVEDthatthereliefdemandedinsaid petitionbe, onditherebyis GRANTED, SUBJECT, HOWEVER, TO THE FOLLO~NG CONDITIONS: That no buildings shall be permitted to be constructed in the area embraced within 200 feet measured perpendicular to the western boundary, line of the premises described in the applica- tion. DATED: F~Y 23, 1978 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLEP~K P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY May 26, 1989 11947 Steve Hyman 3505 Vets Memorial Highway, Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 Suite M Dear Steve: Please amend the sketch site plan for the above captioned expansion of the Beachcomber Motel; the areas indicated for sewer treatment and water system to be included in this presentation. The area should be inclusive of the existing motels and the proposed 147 motel units on the site addition. I have a tenative appointment with Ms. Scopaz at 3 p.m. June 15 so we may finalize the elements pertaining to this plan. At that juncture, I hope to proceed under Section 100-250 through 255 for preparing a presubmission conference. regards, B. Radnor, HR:ml CC: Nicholas Alian~ Valerie Scop~ · ~OHN WiCKHAM. Cha/rma, F~.ANK S. COYLE HENRY E. RAYNOR. FREDEKICK E. GORDON JAMES WALL Southold. N.Y. 11971 March 13, 1978 TELEPI{ONE 765- 1938 Southold Town Board Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board at a regular meeting held January 30, 1978. RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board approval of the petition of Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski, Case #238, for a change of zone from 'A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District on~ property located at Cutchogue, New York, in view of the fact that it is apparent that the petitioner must move the mo%el and facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion..The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance with the development plan o£ the Town of Southold for this location. Yours truly, Muriel Brush% Secretary 3OHN W1CF, HAM. Chairman FRANK S. COYLE HENRY E. RAYNOR..Tr. FREDERICK E. GORDON ,lAMES WALL Southold, N.Y. 11971 March 8, ].9.78 TELEPHONE 765 - )~38 Mr. Nicholas Aliano Box 263 Shoreham, New York 11786 Dear Mr. Aliano: The following is the action taken by the Southold Term Planning Board at a regular meeting held January 30, 1978. RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board approval of the petition of Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski, Case #238, for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District on property located at Cutohogue, New York, in view of the fact that it is apparent that the petitioner must move the motel and facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion. The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance with th~ development plan of the Town of Southold for this location. Yours truly, Mu~iel Brush, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board Suffolk County .~.ep~rtm~nt of PlannimF Lee Dennison E:~cutive Office Veterans T~mmoria! ~Ii~hway Town of Southold Planning Board Petitienmr Nicholas Aliano & Patricia Krupski ?onin~ Action: "A" Residential & Agricultural to "M-l" General Multiple Residence 238 District. C~ntlemen: Please be advised that purs~xant to Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County ~arter~ the above captioned application will not be reviewed becanse of noncompliance with requi~epents for notice anJ maps as stipulate~ in Informational Bulletin ~o. g of the Suffolk Co~,nty Plannin~ Commission. following information ~.~11 only be accepted ,]pon sub.mission throu?h the of-- faces of the m~nicipal referrin~ a~encyr Please provide the following: (1) Recommendations of the Town Planning Bd. including any and all'conditions established; ~2) Preliminary site plan indicating intended use of the premises; (3) Mapof adjoining premises of Beachcomber Motel indicating: acreage; number et motel guest units; seat- ing capacity of restaurant; number of parking spaces and available recre- ational facilities; and (4) e~planatory information as to "...plan ~or future growth as required..." Thank yo~. Very truly yours~ Lee ~. Xoppelman Director of PlanninC Geral~ G. ;'~e~,rraan 'Chief Planner Tel. 734-6370 744-1448 Resort Motel ~ Restaurant P. O. BOX 917, DEPOT I. ANE CUTCHOGUE, N. Y. 11935 Re: Re: File $238 Questions by Mr. Newman 1. 2. 3. (a) Has been forwarded to Mr. Newman A preliminary site plan not prepared current M-1 Zoning is 6 Acres Current number of Notel Gues Units is 36 Seating C~pacity of restaurant is 50 Number of parking spaces is ?0 Current recreational Facilities are: a 26' x 58' outdoor pool with diving board (9~' deep) a childrens wading pool 16' wide x 3' deep a chlldrens swings & sand box area a basketball court 22' × 2~' 5 ~resslng rooms and utility room 22' x 70' We have outgrown our present facilities we turn away hundreds of people every summer - We are highly rated by Mobil Travel Guide, we accomodate people who are sent to us by the Greenport Chamber of Commerce - also Local peoples Friends and Relatives, Church Groups and retirement Groups in addition to our regular following of family vacationers. This need for expansion is compounded by the erosion of our beach front. Motel units are thereby in eminent danger of being wiped out. (CONT. NEXT PAGE) Tel. 734.6370 744-1448 Resort Mote/ ~ Restaurant P, O. BOX 917, DEPOT LANE CUTCHOGUE, N* Y. 11935 Cont. from Page We are a summer resort open May 1st to Oct. 1st a~d immediate plans are to Landscape, seed and build a ~olf course in the center of the planned new construction which units would compliment tennis courts, play,rounds etc. Time is of the essense if I am to ~t least Frade and landscape for May 1st opening and to sensibly plan for new units for necessary expansion to handle current business in ~ddition to the immediate erosion crisis - Action is required NQW time is running out. Respectively, February 23, 1978 Mr, Gerald G. Newman, Chief Planner Suffolk County Dept. of Planning Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 Dear Mr. Newman: In reference to your file #238 in the matter of the petition o~t['cholas Aliano and Pat~icia Krupski, I supply the following information as per Your request. ~. 1. Th~,~commendations of the TownPlanning Board hav~~=,~ beensubmitted previously. There were no conditiona established. Anything permitted in the Code of the Town Of Southold for that zoning section is recommended tobe'allowed by the Board. 2. ,'The Town bf"Southold does not require a site plan until such time4~:,.~clTe changeof zone is granted~'~and the petitioner-~ ready to'proceed with the project. The site plan is also governed by the Code, '~ ~ ', ~. and ~. These items have been supplied by Mr. Aliano and are attached hereto, . ~3 ,~ Yours ~uly, Muriel Brush; Secretary Southold Town Planning Board February 15, 1978 Mr. Nicholas Aliano Box 263, Ashley Lane Shoreham, New York 11786 Dear Mr. Aliano: I am enclosing correspondence which I received from the Suffolk County Department of Planning. I telephoned Mr. Newman about this'and he indicated that there was not necessarily a problem but that they would like the additional information. I'tems ~ and2 will be taken care of from this office. You should prepare items 3 and'~ and submit to this office. will in turn submit same to the County. Yours tru I Muriel Brush, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board February 10,'~ 1978 ~. Gerald Newman Suffolk County Planning Department Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge; Hew York.,~1787' Dear Mr. Newman: Pursuant to conversation this morning with Mr. Aliano, the following is the resolution passed by the Southold Town Planning Board as regards his change of zone. petition. RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board approval of the petition of Nicholas Alianb and Patricia Krupski, Case #238, for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural, Dlstrict'~ to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District on property~ located at Cutchogue, New York, .in view of the fact that ,it is apparent that the petitioner must move the motel and faci'lities back from the Sound as a result of substantial~ loss of beach through erosion.~ The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance with the development plan of the Town of~Southold for this location. .Yours truly, Muriel Brush, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board February 2, 1978 Mr. Gerald Newman Suffolk County Planning Department Veterans Memorial Highway Hauopauge, New York 11787 Dear Mr..Newman:~ , :' '~ ~ : Pursuant to Sections 1325'to 1532 of the Suffolk County Charter, the Planning Board of the'Town of Southold hereby refers the ' following proposed' zoning action to the Suffolk County Planning Co~misslon:~.· :.i~: = ~ ~,_ : :~ · Amendment of ZOning. map (Cha~g,e Of Zone) ............... . , .. :: ._ Location o~ .~fected land - Duck Pond ROad," Cutchogue within ~00 fee~ of Long Island So,md'~.:~,: . :.i ..... ' ................. Comments - the Planning Board reco~ends approval of--the-.petltion in'view'of ~he-~fact~-that ~it_is. apparent that the petitioner must move the motel and facilities b~ck from' the'Sound-as a result ~of 'hubsta.utlal-loss--of. beach through erosion. The type of recreational use asked for is completely in ac~b~dance'wlth'"the-~development plan of the Town of Southold for this location.: .., ~. Aliano has requested as ear~ a decision as possible because of the approaching resort season. ,- , Yo~struly, Muriel Brush, Secretary Southold Tow~ Planning Board APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Board of Appeals,~~ September 14, 1/992 Southold Town Planning Board (Attn: Chal Your SEQRA Coordination of 8-18-92 NNING Site Plan - Aliano, Krupski & Others at C~ C~ Parcels 2, 17 (& 1) of Section 83, Block 2 This letter is in response to your coordination letter dated August 18, 1992 and to confirm that we have no objection to your assuming lead agency status. At this time, however, we feel it is important to furnish the following as part of the record for your information and update, particularly in light of information received from the applicant that a preliminary conference has not been held before the Planning Board, or with the Building Inspector, as of this stage of the project: MOTEL UNIT DENSITY: The properties under which the site plan is being requested involves three parcels which have not as yet been combined as one parcel under zoning. The parcels which are distinctly separate at this time are: Parcel #1, Section 83, Block 2 is shown to be in the ownership of Pond Enterprises, Inc. and is improved by motel units. This parcel consists of approximately two (2) acres in size. The normal allowable density without public water and sewer per Art. VI (100-61) is 14.5 motel units. Parcel ~2, Section 83, Block 2 is shown to be in the ownership of Patricia Krupski and is improved with a one-story main structure with porch and accessory swimming pools. Pa~e 2 - September, 1992 To: Planning Boar~,Lead Agency Re: SEQRA Coordination, etc. - Aliano & Krupski The area of this parcel is 11.8+- acres of which approximately 10 acres may be in the RR Zone. The normal allowable density without public water and sewer per 100-61 is 72.7 motel units. Parcel #3, Section 83, Block 2 is shown to be in the ownership of Nicholas Aliano and is improved by a principal structure and accessory buildings. The area of this parcel is: 31.6+- acres as per survey furnished to the Assessors Office, of which 4+- acres may be in the RR Zone. The normal allowable motel unit density for this parcel would be a maximum of 29+- motel units. ***The total areas noted above for Parcels 1, 2 & 3 should total 45.5+- acres, although approximately 14.1 acres is located in the RR Zone and the remaining 31+- acres in the A-C Zone. The normal allowable motel unit density if Parcels 1, 2 and 3 are merged under zoning into one tract would be not more than 116.22 units for the RR Zone District land areas. The total number of units for is proposed at 122 which exceeds the above figures. Please note that the density calculations will be applicable to each parcel, as exists and the limitations are noted above. The total density in excess of that as authorized for each parcel will not be authorized under the Special Exception until such time as either a merger by deed and/or town covenants in legal form recorded with the Suffolk County Clerk are accepted by our office (and as may be required by the County) and submitted by the applicants, Patricia Krupski and Nicholas Aliano as individual property owners for the land areas which are under the proposed expansion. In the interim, the following questions are raised at this time and .our office shall reserve further comment until responses to these items are confirmed in writing: a) what is the intent of use for that land area labeled "C-2" owned by P. Krupski and land area labeled "B-2" owned by N. Aliano - particularly since it is located in the A-C Zone District. b) If dwelling uses are proposed for the land area in the A-C Zone District, please confirm number of units for dwelling use and whether it will be by cluster subdivision or major subdivision. If none, please confirm. Covenants will be required by the Town for these land areas as well. Pa~e ~- September~, 1992 To: Planning Boar~,Lead Agency Re: SEQRA Coordination, etc. - Aliano & Krupski c) Copies of Certificates of Occupancy for all principal buildings and all accessory structures and buildings is requested at this time as part of this project review. Please furnish our office with copies of same. d) Questions may be forthcoming concerning the existing and proposed future uses of the buildings within the A-C Zone. Please furnish map to show the buildings in this land area and confirraing the acreage of land in each ownership and in each zone district for each owner. Edward J. Rosavitch, P.E. Chief Engineer SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY Administrative Offices: 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, NY 11769-0901 (516) 563-0202 Fax No.: (516) 589-5277 September 3, 1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Lead Agency Coordination Expansion of Beachcomber Motel SCTM 1000-83-02-01, 02 & 17 Dear Mr. Orlowski: The Suffolk County Water Authority has no objection to the Planning Board of the Town of Southold assuming lead agency status in the above- captioned matter. However, given the magnitude of this expansion, the Authority would request that Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment Form be completed and corrected where necessary. The total anticipated daily water usage should be estimated based on the past experience of 36 motel units and 3 apartments. The impact on groundwater during the construction phase should be reviewed and restrictions should be put on landscaped areas. Very truly yours, E. J. Rosavitch, P.E. Chief Engineer EJR:dmc cc: M. A. LoGrande W. C. Hazlitt S. R. Dassler SOUTHOLD PLAN PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765 - 1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOT'I' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Sou~hold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 September 9, 1992 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Expansion of Beachcomber Motel E/s Duck Pond Lane, on Long Island Sound Cutchogue, N.Y. SCTM # 1000-83-1-2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: The enclosed response from the Suffolk County Water Authority is being sent to you for your information. If you have documentation about the actual daily water usage of the existing motel and apartment complex, it would be appreciated if you would send a copy of same. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Valerie Scopaz of this office. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encl. cc: E.J. Rosavitch, P.E., Suffolk County Water Authority Charles Voorhis, Cramer, Vorrhis & Associates PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman (;corge Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Fclephone (5161 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOWl- L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 September 8,.1992 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Proposed site Plan for Expansion of Beachcomber Motel E/s Duck Pond Lane, on Long Island Sound Cutchogue, N.Y. SCTM # 1000-83-1-2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: This is to confirm receipt of a check in the amount of $450.00 for the environmental review. Our environmental consultants have been authorized to begin their review. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Valerie Scopaz of this office. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman SENDER: SUBJECT: SCTM#: COMMENTS: SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER ENVIROi',IMENTJ}~~G CONSULTANTS September 1, 1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, .Ir. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, $3095-Maln Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Ben&comer Motel EAF Review Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM No, 1000-83-1-1, 2 and 17 Dear Benny: I am in receipt of your request for a cost ~stlmate to review the Long EAF for the above refereaced project. CVA proposes to pe~ ~orm an inspection of the subject site, review and correct as neces,qary the .Long EAF, and pre vide a letter of re¢ommendatm~ with regard to the environmental determ~nauon of signihca~ ce for the above re~erenced project. The fee for th,ese setwices is $450.00. Pie ~se advi~e !,~ you, wish us to p[oceed. '~y,e are ple.ased toprovkl? th~sproposal, a?,d look forw~ rd to working wtth the Planning Board m review of thi:; project. Please call ~fyou have ar, ? questions. ', 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLE[[: PLACE, NY 1176~. (516) 331-1455 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, J~'. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck~ NY 11952 Re: Aliano, Krupski BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 28, 1992 & Pond Enterprises, Inc. SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 3 11992 $OOTHOLD TOWN Dear Mr. Raynor: In response to your letter requesting a date of a hearing in the above motel projects, please be aware that we are unable to estimate or confirm a hearing date until the following has been accomplished (see ZBA letters of February 28, 1992 and June 30, 1992): a) Declaration of Significance or Non-Significance by the Southold Town Planning Board under the SEQRA process - {we believe that the SEQRA coordination will be sent to us and other agencies, within the next week, and as a Type I Action would then be filed with the Department of Environmental Conservation according to state publication procedures}; b) you will be forwarding a copy of the most recent status update concerning the Town Trustees application, County Health Department, and N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation at the time of filing your Z.B.A. application; c) a copy of the receipt showing the date of filing with the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, of the SEQRA designation should be filed as soon as it becomes available '-- this will confirm that the SEQRA procedures have been initiated and the public comment period has started; d) it is expected that the ZBA, the public, etc. would then be notified under the notice requirements (30-day comment period). The ZBA would at that time be in a position to coordinate comments and concerns. e} Once SEQRA has been finalized and a Declaration of Non-Significance or Significance issued, ~epar&te a~licatior[s with th~ Z.B.~, should be filed for each '~&'~el. As mentioned Page 2 - August 28, ~2 ~-~: Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Re: Aliano, Krupski & Pond Enterprises, Inc. to you, the parcels apear to be in single-and-separate ownership, and the owners do not intend to be merge them into joint ownership. Several application forms with instructions were previously forwarded; three Special Exception application forms must be signed by the property owner(s) for the appropriate parcel(s) under consideration: three parcels, known as CTM Lot 1 by Pond Enterprises, Inc.; CTM Lot 2 by Patricia Krupski; CTM Lot 17 by Nicholas Aliano - confirmed with copies of current deeds. f) once the above have been accomplished, it is expected that public hearings on the Z.B~A. applications will be advertised. Please keep us advised regarding the status of this project. very truly yours, ce: GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN By Linda Kowalski Planning Board Southold Town Trustees Suffolk County Department of Health Services N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Environmental Analysts) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 27, 1992 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Charles Voorhis Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Inc. Re: Proposed site plan for Expansion of Beachcomber Motel, E.s Duck Pond Lane, on Long Island Sound, Cutchogue, New York SCTM # 1000-83-1-1,2 & 17 Dear Mr. Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the Environmental Assessment Form and site plan for the above-mentioned project. The Planning Board started lead agency coordination on August 17, 1992. Please develop an estimate of what it.will cost to undertake the review. If the Planning Board wishes you to proceed with the review, you will be sent a facsimile of a purchase order authorizing you to proceed. The actual purchase order will be sent through the mail. If there are any questions, please contact Valerie Scopaz. Sincerely, Bennett OrzowsKi, o . Chairman 14t.16-2 (2/87) -- 7c State Environmental Quality Review " FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FO( M:,~0LDj_0.W..N_~.:r: PLANNING BOARD ~ Purpose: Th~ full EAF is designed to help applicant~ and a~encie~ determine, in an o~ Jefly manner, whether a pro~ect or action may be significant. The question of whether ~n action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspect~ of a protect that are subjective or unmeasureable. It i~ also understood that those who determine sisnificance may have li~tle or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, m~ny who have knowledge in one particular area ma~ not ~e aware of the broader concerns affecfin~ the question of ~i~nificance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and a~encies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to aUow introduction of information to fit a project or action, · Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project'~nd it~ site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3.-- Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may' occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: [] Part 1 [] Part 2 []Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: [~ A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant im.pact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. [] B. Although the proiect could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant :' effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* [] C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative D~claration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (I f different from responsible officer) Date 1 PART 1--PROJECT INFORI~ ' ION .. - Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered- as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additiona~ information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance, NAME OF ACTION LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) ~,~ ~,~ Pnn~. Cutch _oque. TgwD of Southold NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR ;4~nry E. Ra_vnor, Jr- (Aqent for Aliano) ADDRESS Ma'ct~{ NAME OF OWNER(Ifdinerent) Nicholas Aliano ADDRESS :Ashley Lane BUSINESS TELEPHONE §16 ) 298-8420 I STATE I ZIP CODE NY 11952 BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( CITY/PO Shor~hnm STATE I ZIP CODE NY I 11786 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. i. Present land use: I-]Urban ~lndustrial I-ICommercial G-]Forest OAgriculture OOther 2. Total acreage of project area: 14.1 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or 8rushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type). f-lResidential (suburban) i-IRural (non-farm) PRESENTLY AFTER cOMPLETION 14.1 acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres 3, What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? ,. topsoil, sand, qravel a. SoiJ drainage: :[]Well drained . 100 % of site ~]ModerateJy well drained % of site OPoorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NY~,.~ Lartd Classification System? acres. (See I NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on proiect site? 0-1Yes I~No a. What is depth to bedrock'? 0 {in feet) 5. A, pproximate percentage of pro project site with slopes: ;[~0-10% ~ % ~]10-15% t5 % , .'~ O15% or greater % 6. Is proiect substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Re§isters of Historic Places? F'lyes ~No {~'. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on Register the of National Natural Landmarks? I-lyes ~No + 10 £t to + 35 gt 8. What is th'e depth of the water table? (in feet) -- 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? E:]Yes :~No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? [:]Yes [~.No 11. Does project site contain an~' species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? i-lYes [~No According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) I-lYes [~;3H o Describe .' ./ 13. Is the project site presently used'.by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? I-lYes E~:No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? I-Wes 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: · a. Name n/a 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? :l~Yes [:]No b. Size (In acres) a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? I~Yes DNo b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? r~Yes r-lNo 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304./ t-]Yes []No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 D-lYes ::[[]No 20. 'Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? fqYes []No ./ B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor + 45 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 14 acres initially; 14 acres ultimately· c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped ~9 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing ; proposed per town Code g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 6(~ (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately i, Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure height; width; .. [eh§th. j, Linear feet of frontage along, a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? '750 ft.. 3 per code to exceed 125 ft 2. How much natural materia ., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed fr( 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? [~:Yes I-]No I-1N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~]Yes DNo ¢. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~-'lYes site? 0 tons/cuL;ic yar'~s lawn & Landscaping [3No 0 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? acres. ,5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other Focally-important vegetation be removed by this project? r'lyes If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 18 months, (including demolition). If multi*phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase I 6 month 1993 c. Approximate completion date of final phase month d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? [3Yes ~No -' 8. Will blasting occur dur ng construction~ [3Yes [~No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 50 ; after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project O 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? I-lYes []No If yes, explain year, (including demolition). year. 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? OYes ~]No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. 'Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? [3Yes ~]No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain domestic sewerage DYes ~No J 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? [~Yes 16. Will the project generate solid waste? DYes I~No a. If yes, what is the amount: per month tons : b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? I-lYes ~No c. If ,yes, give name _; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e, If Yes, explain 17. [~No E3Yes I-]No 18. 19. 20. 21. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? [3Yes a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what i~ the anticipated site life? years. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? J~]Yes I~No [~No tons/month. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? [3Yes 5]No Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local .ambient noise levels? DYes Will project result in an increase in energy use? :~]Yes I-1No If yes , indicate type(s) electricity ~No 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 23. Total anticipated water usage per day gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federa'l funding? I--lYes If Yes, explain gallons/minute, per SCI)OHS ~No 4 25. Approvals Required: City, Town, Village Board I--lyes ~]No City, Town, Village Planning Board ;i~Yes C1No City, Town-Zoning Board E~Yes ]C]No City, County Health Department ~Yes I-1No Other Local Agencies ~[]Yes I-INo Other Regional Agencies i-lYes State Agencies ~]Yes ~]No Federal Agencies [-]Yes J~]No ~TTR PT,AN WATER & SEWER SCPC nys dec Submittal Date C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? I~Yes "' i-INo If Yes, indicate decision required! i-lzoning amendment [qzoning variance I-Ispecia[ use permit F'isubdivision [site plan []new/revision of master plan r-lresource management plan I~]other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? RR 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? ~ 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? C 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? [~Yes 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ¼ mile radius of proposed action? _ R-80 RR R-40 AC VINo 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ¼ mile? J~]Yes [-'1No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? · : a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? I-lYes ~No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? ~Yes C1No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? [~Yes F'INo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels,/ []Yes I-1No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? :~]Yes E]No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/S~opsor Name .-) Henr'F E. Raynorr Jr. , Date July 13.__L, 1992 Signatur~-~--~-~___., --' '~ ;--'--/~'~./J~g"~R"~/'" Title Agent for Aliano & Krupski _ / l, ,he action is in the/Coas,al AreS. and you are a state agency, comple,e ,he Coas,al Assessment Form belore proceeding with this assessment. 5 Part 2-~,~nROJECT IMPACTS AND THEla-?"AGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) · In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. · Identifying that an impact wdl be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. · The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examptes and/or lower threshold~ may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. · The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will yaw. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. · In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions tread carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column I or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impa.ct. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? ~]NO f~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, {15 foot rise per 100 'f~oot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. · Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. · Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. · Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. · Construction that will continue for more than I year or involve more than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material {i.e., rock or soil) per year. · Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill, · Construction in a designated floodway. · Other impacts I 2 3 Small to Potential Can impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] E~]Yes []No [] [] []Yes []No L-'] [] f-lYes E]No [] [] [~]Yes [-]No [] [] []Yes [--]No [] [~ [~]Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes 2. Will there be an effect t~.....y uri,que or unusual land forms found on the site? (i,e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)i-]NO I-lYES · Specific land forms: 6 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 August 18, 1992 RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request for Expansion of Existing Motel by Adding 86 New Units in Eight Buildings S/E/c Long Island Sound and Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue, N.Y. SCTM 91000-083-1-1, 2 & 17 Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the proposed site plan, and a long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: Beachcomber Motel - Expansion of S/E/c Long Island Sound & Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue, New York Description of Requested Action: To expand an existing motel that consists of thirty six motel units, three apartments, an office, a fifty seat restaurant and a swimming pool with a large cabana. The motel complex with the exception of the swimming pool and its cabana is on a separate parcel of 2.1 acres (9 1000-83-2-1). The proposed expansion will add eighty six new rooms in eight buildings, which will be placed on 14.1 acres of land. The 14.1 Description continued: acres and the motel lot are zoned Resort Residential. The remainder of the land involved in the project is zoned Agricultural-Conservation. The total amount of land under review is approximately 45.622 acres. The largest parcel is 31 acres in area and has a residence at its southern end. SEQRA Classification: Contact Person: (x) Type I ( ) Unlisted Valerie Scopaz (516)-765-1938 The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) on this project. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in writing whether or not you have an interest in being lead agency. Planning Board Position: (x) This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. (x) Other. ( See comments below). Comments: The enclosed site plan does not show the entire 31-acre parcel. Also, the long environmental assessment form needs to be revised to include the fact that the property lies over a sole source aquifer (# A. 2). And there is some question as to whether the site has locally important scenic views (# A. 14). The negative answers to questions # B. 16 and 17 will have to be reconsidered during this review because there will be some solid waste generated by this proposed expansion. The responses to # B. 1.e, and 1.f, and 1.h and MB. 4., were left blank. They will be completed during the course of this review and the answers disseminated to all coordinating agencies. cc: * Maps Building Department, Southold Board of Trustees, Southold Board of Zoning Appeals, Southold Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services - Mineo, Costa, Ponturo Suffolk County Planning Commission Department of Environmental Conservation, New York - Albany & Stony Brook (Evans) Department of State, New York - Persaud, Walsh Suffolk County Water Authority ~ LoGrande, Rosavitch are enclosed for your review SENDER: SUBJECT: SCTM~: COMMENTS: SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 1197l Fax (516) 765-1823 August 18, 1992 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Expansion of Beachcomber Motel E/s Duck Pond Lane, on Long Island Sound Cutchogue, N.Y. SCTM # 1000-83-1-2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following resolution was adopted at the Planning Board's August 17, 1992 meeting: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, start the coordination process on this Type I action. A copy of this site plan is being sent to our environmental consultants for their review. An estimate of the cost of this review will be sent to you for payment before the work is started. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Valerie Scopaz of this office. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Board of Trustees, Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, Southold Building Department, Southold Highway Department, Southold Department of Health Services, Suffolk County - S. Costa, V. Minei, P. Ponturo Planning Commission, Suffolk County - F. Dowling Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany - Commissioner Jorling, and Stony Brook ~ R. Evans Department of State, New York - Mohabir Persaud Suffolk County Water Authority - M. LoGrande, E. Rosavitch Groundwater Resources Committee, Southold Planning and Zoning Committee, Southold PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 7654823 August 18, 1992 RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request for Expansion of Existing Motel by Adding 86 New Units in Eight Buildings S/E/c Long Island Sound and Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue, N.Y. SCTM #1000-083-1-1, 2 & 17 Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the proposed site plan, and a long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: Beachcomber Motel - Expansion of S/E/c Long Island Sound & Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue, New York Description of Requested Action: To expand an existing motel that consists of thirty six motel units, three apartments, an office, a fifty seat restaurant and a swimming pool with a large cabana. The motel complex with the exception of the swimming pool and its cabana is on a separate parcel of 2.1 acres (# 1000-83-2-1). The proposed expansion will add eighty six new rooms in eight buildings, which will be placed on 14.1 acres of land. The 14.1 Description continued: acres and the motel lot are zoned Resort Residential. The remainder of the land involved in the project is zoned Agricultural-Conservation. The total amount of land under review is approximately 45.622 acres. The largest parcel is 31 acres in area and has a residence at its southern end. SEQRA Classification: (x) Type I ( ) Unlisted Contact Person: Valerie Scopaz (516)-765-1938 The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) on this project. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in writing whether or not you have an interest in being lead agency. Planning Board Position: (x) This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. (x) Other. ( See comments below). .Comments: The enclosed site plan does not show the entire 31-acre parcel. Also, the long environmental assessment form needs to be revised to include the fact that the property lies over a sole source aquifer (# A. 2). And there is some question as to whether the site has locally important scenic views (# A. 14). The negative answers to questions # B. 16 and 17 will have to be reconsidered during this review because there will be some solid waste generated by this proposed expansion. The responses to # B. 1.e, and 1.f, and 1.h and #B. 4., were left blank. They will be completed during the course of this review and the answers disseminated to all coordinating agencies. cc: * Building Department, Southold * Board of Trustees, Southold * Board of Zoning Appeals, Southold * Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services - Mineo, Costa, Ponturo * Suffolk County Planning Commission * Department of Environmental Conservation, New York - Albany & Stony Brook (Evans) * Department of State, New York - Persaud,. Walsh * Suffolk County Water Authority - LoGrande, Rosavitch * Maps are enclosed for your review SENDER: SUBJECT: SCTM#: COMMENTS: SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER Ashley Lane Shoreham, NY 11786 July 27, 1992 To Whom It May Concern: Et this letter serve as verification that we, Mr. and Mrs, Nicholas ~iano, the princi~ls of Pond ~te~rises and owners of the ~achcomber Motel, do hereby acknowledge the inclusion of the Pond ~te~rises pro~rty in seeking PlaNing Bard approval of the site plan application submitted for the adjacent parcels own~ ~ Nicholas ~i~o md Patricia ~upski. County of Suffolk State of New York Sworn to before me this NOTARY PUBLIC PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516~ 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York ~1971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Aug'ust 6, 1992 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Expansion of Beachcomber Motel E/s Duck Pond Lane, on Long Island Sound Cutchogue, N.Y. SCTM ~ 1000-83-1-2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: This is to confirm our receipt of revised site plans, the updated Long Environmental Assessment form and the Affadavit from the principals of Pond Enterprises. If we receive the following two items which are needed to complete the application, by August 14th, we will be able to begin the environmental review coordination process on August 17th: 1. Notarization of the Affadavit of Pond Enterprises. 2. Application fee: $2,685. When the environmental coordination process is started, this proposal will be sent to our environmental consultants for their review. An estimate of the cost of this review will be sent to you for payment before the work is started. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Valerie Scopaz of this office. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 July 2~, 1992 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road SouthoId, NY 11971 RE: Beachcomber site plan application at Cutchogue, NY Dear Sirs; As requested, please find enclosed the following: 1) Revised site plans 2) Updated Long Environmental Assessment Form 3) Affadavit from principals of Pond Enterprises We understand submission of the above referenced completes our application. We hereby request review of same. Should any further documentation me at (516)298-8420. Sincerely, ~ ~ Henry E~. Rayno~, Jr. HER:mi Encs. CC: Nicholas Aliano Southold Town Zoning Board be needed, please contact of Appeals 14-16-2 (2/87)--7c 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FO~ Purpose: Th6 full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an ol ~, manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, ,/et flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. · Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: [] Part I [] Part 2 [:]Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: [] A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant ira.pact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. [] B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* [] C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative D~claration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) Date 1 PART 1--PROJECT INFORM, iON Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will he considere?c~ as part of the application for approval and may he sub ect to further verification and public review. Provide any additional' information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAr will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavaiJab(e, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION P~h~mh~r ~tsl Site Plan LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) T~k ~n~ R~ad. Chinch _~2ue, Town of Southold NAME OF APPL{CANTISPONSOR ~4~nr.v E. Raynor, Jr. (Agent for Aliano) ADDRESS BUSINESS TELEPHONE [i16 ) 298-8420 CITY/PO I STATE I ZIP CODE _~t t it.tlCk NY 11952 NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE ~glcholas Aliano ( ) ADDRESS Ashley Lane CITY/PO STATE ZiP CODE ~horeham NY 11786 DESCRIPTION OF AC/iON Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A, if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: []Urban r-llndustrial []Commercial E3Residential (suburban) [Rural (non-farm) [~Forest ~Agriculture [Other 2. Total acreage of project area: 14.1 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland {Non-agricultural) 1 4.1 acres acres Forested acres acres Agricultural {Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 2.5 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres acres Other (Indicate type) acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? topsoil, sanfl~ qravel a. Soil drainage: :[]Well drained 100 % of site I-)Moderately well drained % of site F-IPoorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NY~,~_ Land Classification System~ acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site~ ~Yes ~No a. What is depth to bedrock? 0 (in feet) 2 5. Approximate percentage of prope project site with slopes: ::~0-10%__~B5~% :~10-15% 15 % ' · I-I15% or greater % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? r-]Yes ~No '. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? I-lyes (]No + 10 f'c 'co + 35 f'c 8. What is tl~e depth of the water table? , (in feet) -- 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? I--lYes ~3No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? F'lYes [~No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? i-lyes [~No According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) l-lYes [~No Describe ./ 13. Is the project site presently used'.by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? I-lyes [~:No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? F1yes 15. Streams within or contiguous to proiect area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: · a. Name D./~I b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ~Yes I-INo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? [~Yes I~No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? []Yes f~No 18, Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 2S-AA, Section 303 and 3047 E~Yes ~]No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 I-lyes J~No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? I--lYes I~No J ./ B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor + 45 acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: 1~4 acres initially; 3_4 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped ?q acres. d. length of proiect, in miles: (if appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing ; proposed per 'cc)~3 Code g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 60 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately i. Di'mensions {in feet) of largest proposed structure height; width; length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? '750 ft. 3 per code not to exceed 125 f% 2. How much natural material 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? [~:Yes ONo ON/A a. If yes, for what intendeC purpose is the site being reclaimed? lam & Zandscaping b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? :~]Yes []No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? []Yes I-1No 0 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project~ OYes I~No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 18 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: 1 a, Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase I 6 month 1993 c. Approximate completion date of final phase month d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? El-lYes [-INo 8. Will blasting occur during cons:trlJction~ OYes 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 50 ; after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will proiect require relocation of any projects or facilities? OYes []No If yes, explain ., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from .4e site? 0 tons/cubic yard. s. year, (including demolition). year. 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ~Yes ONo a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged n/a 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? OYes ::[]No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain domestic sewerage E]Yes I~No J 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? f~Yes Will the project generate solid waste:~ DYes I~No a. If yes, what is the amoun~ per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? OYes ONo c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain [~No [Yes Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? Will project use herbicides or pesticides? DYes I-lYes ~No · tons/month. years. r'lNo Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? OYes I-gNo Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? E3Yes Will project result in an increase in energy use,? ~]Yes I-INo electricity If yes , indicate type{s) ~]No 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 23. Total anticipated water usage per day gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? OYes If Yes, explain gallons/minute, ~No per SCDOHS 4 ~5. Approvals Required: Submittal Date City, Town, Village Board [Yes Y~]No City, Town, Village Planning Board ;[]Yes DNo City, Town'Zoning Board I~Yes T'INo City, County Health Department RYes r-INn Other Local Agencies BYes r-INn Other Regional Agencies DYes ~]No State Agencies J[]Yes r-lNo Federal Agencies (~Yes ~]No STm~ PT,AN' WATER & SEWER SCPC C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? IRIyes I-INo If Yes, indicate decision required! Dzoning amendment ~lzoning variance I-Ispecial use permit f-lsubdivision Rlsite plan Dnew/revision of master plan C]resource management plan Dother 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? RR 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? RR 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? C 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? (~Yes 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a lA mile radius of proposed action? E-80 RR R-40 AC DNo 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 1/~ mile? ~]Yes DNo 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? DYes :[~No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? E~Yes []No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? I~Yes DNo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ~]Yes r-iNn a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? :[3Yes f-INn D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/S~oflsor Name ~ Henry E. Ravnorr Jr. Date July 13, 1992 the action is ~ the~oastal Are~and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form belore proceedi.g wilh this assessment. 5 Part 2-~-'~ROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIP-'*AGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) · In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. · Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column :2 simply asks that it be looked at further~ · The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. · The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, witl vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. · In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impa.ct. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change{s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? E3NO []YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. · Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. · Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. · Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. · Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. · Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill, · Construction in a designated floodway, · Other impacts 2. Will there be an effect t;....y ur~,que or unusual land forms found on the site? {i:e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)l-lNO I-lYES · Specific land forms: I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Re Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] I--lyes []No [] [] []Yes f-INo L--] [] []Yes I-]No [] [] [-]Yes [] [] [~Yes []No [] [] []Yes I--INo [] [] []Yes []No [] [] I--lYes []No [] [] []Yes I~No '1 [] [] []Yes E3No 320 Love Lane iv~attituci~, July 21, 1942 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Site plan application of Beachcomber at Cutchogue Dear Sirs: In response to your most recent letter, please let us reaffirm our position with regard to the inclusion of the parcel on which the Beachcomber motel currently exists. Please take note that we have not included this parcel as we are not seeking to construct or expand the existing motel. We seek to gain approval to construct units on the parcels owned by Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski, not the parcel owned by Pond Enterprises. We request that the Board act on this application soley with regard to the parcels owned by Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski. Should you have any questions or feel the need %o discuss this matter further, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,. ^ HER:mi CC: Nicholas Aliano PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G, Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTI' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold~ New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 July 22, 1992 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Proposed site Plan for Expansion of Beachcomber Motel located on E/s Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue, N.Y. SCTM # 1000-83-1-2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: This is to confirm our review of your July 16th correspondence regarding this application. We cannot proceed with our review of this application as you requested in your letter because the following items are missing from the application submission: revised site plans at the 1" = 20' scale, application fee revised long environmental assessment form signed affadavit from the principals of Pond Enterprises attesting that they are part of the site plan application. Since the motel proposal is an expansion of an existing facility, and the Board's environmental and site review must include the existing motel, all three parcels must be part of the application and the site plan. cc: Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, jr Chairman Nicholas Aliano, Owner Gerald P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals 320 Love LaNE Mattituck, NY June 30, 1992 11952 Southold Town Planning Main Road Southold, NY ]1971 Board RE: Beachcomber site plan application 83 - 1 - 2 & 17 Dear Sirs: Please find enclosed the signature page of the application which has been signed by Patricia Krupski and notarized. As we believe this is the last item needed to complete the application, we understand you can proceed with a SEQRA determination. Should this not be the case, ~lease advise. SA~ncerely'z2 A henry E. Rayndr, Jr. HER:mi Enc. APPLICANT' S AFF~VIT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF and says that he resides at in the State of New York, and that he is or that he is the ( Title ) being duly sworn, deposes the.owner of the above propert of the (Specify whether partnership which is hereby making application; that the '~r Corporation) owner or his heirs, successors or assigns will, at his own expense, install the required site improvements in accordance with Article XIII of the Code of the Town of Southold for the area stated herein and that there are no existing structures or improvements on the land which are not shown on the Site Plan; that title to the entire parcel, including all rights-of-way, have been clearly established and are shown on said Plan; that no part of the Plan infringes upon any duly filed plan which has not been abandoned both as to lots and as to roads; that he has examined all rules and regulations adopted by the- Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and will comply with same; that the plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered or changed in any manner without the approval of the Planning Board; and that the actual physical improvements will be installed in strict accordance with the plans submitted. (Owner) Sworn to before me this (Partner or Corporate Offz~c~r and Title) 320 Love LaNE Mattituck, NY June 30, 1992 11952 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Beachcomber site plan application 83 I - 2 & 17 Dear Sirs: Please find enclosed the signature page of the application which has been signed by Patricia Krupski and notarized. As we beli~eve this is the last item needed to complete the application, we understand you can proceed with a SEQRA determination. Should this not be the case, please advise. HSen~rynCerely' // /~ · Rayn~r, Jr. HER:m1 Enc. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF~FFOLK and says that he resides at -- in the State of New York, and that he is the.owner of the above propert5 or that he is the of the (Title) (Specify whether Partnership which is hereby making application; that the or Corporation) owner or his heirs, successors or assigns will, at his own expense, install the required site improvements in accordance with Article XIII of the Code of the Town of Southold for the area stated herein and that there are no existing structures or improvements on the land which are not shown on the Site Plan; that title to the entire parcel, including all rights-of-way, have been clearly established and are shown on said Plan; that no part of the Plan infringes upon any duly filed plan which has not been abandoned both as to lots and as to roads; that he has examined all rules and regulations adopted by the- Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and will comply with same; that the plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered or changed in any manner without the approval of the Planning Board; and that the actual physical improvements will be installed in strict accordance with the plans submitted. (Owner) Sworn to before me this .~ day of ~_ 19 ~ ( No~.r7 PubliC ) (Partner or Corporate Off~_-~r and Title) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 July 1, 1992 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Proposed Site Plan"for Expansion of Beachcomber Motel located on E/s Duck Pond Lane, Cutchog~e, N.Y. SCTM # 1000-83-1-2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: This is in response to your inquiry of June 16th in which you asked for clarification of perceived points of conflict between the Planning Board's letter of June llth and the Zoning Board of Appeal's letter of February 28, 1992. It is my hope that this letter and the letter being sent to you by the Zoning Board will eliminate any perception of conflict between the two Boards. The Planning Board has considered your request that Parcel A, which is the site of the existing motel, not be included in the site plan application. We find that the existing motel property should be included in the application, for the following reason: the proposal before us is essentially an expansion of the existing motel use. Accordingly, Pond Enterprises should be a party to all the applications. This office will need eight copies of correctly drawn site plans for distribution during the coordinated environmental review process. All the plans that have been submitted to date, including those submitted on the 17th of June are at the 1" = 50" scale, not the 1" = 20' scale required by the Code. The eight plans we are requiring must be drawn to the correct scale in order for us to proceed. Finally, the long environmental assessment form should reflect the situation at the entire site. When we receive the site plan applications signed by all the parties to the project, the revised environmental assessment form and the eight copies of the revised site plans, along with the corrected application fee, we will start the coordinated environmental review. The amount of the environmental review fee will be determined after we receive the complete application. I trust this answers the questions you put to the Planning Board. Sincerely, Chairman CC: Nicholas Aliano, Owner Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector John M. Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Trustees Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Dennis Moran, SC Dept. of Health Services Stephen Costa, SC Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans, NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, at Stony Brook APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Mr. Henry Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Beachcomber Motel Project (Aliano, Krupski Parcels) Dear Mr. Raynor: As a follow-up to our discussions, today with Linda and previously with myself, we are sending this letter to confirm the status of the project reported by you to date. You expect to file a fully signed site plan application with the Planning Board within the next few days in order that coordination may be processed by the Planning Board and Zoning Board. In addition, we are enclosing two sets of Special Exception application forms for completion, together with Neighbor Notice forms which are necessary as noted by our February 28, 1992 letter. Since you have confirmed with us that it is not the owners' intention to merge the parcels, one set should be completed for each parcel since they are separately owned. Also, you have indicated that you are progressing with: (a) the County Health Department concerning well and septic locations and that the County woUld be giving some direction within the next month or two; (b) the Town Trustees would be taking action concerning a non-jurisdiction waiver based upon amended maps submitted subsequent to our February 28, 1992 letter; (c) the Planning Board concerning the layout of the site plan maps. Please file the appropriate application forms (necessary for filing) for each parcel soon in order that Planning and ~Page Re: 2 - Mr. Henry Ra~r, Jr. Beachcomber Motel, Krupski and Aliano Project Zoning may formally coordinate under SEQRA. advised regarding developments. Please keep us Very truly yours, cc: Planning Board GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Beachcomber Motel Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM 1000-83-2-1 and 2. June 24, 1992 On June 16th, Henry Raynor came in to speak with my staff regarding the conflicting directions he has received from our respective Boards about how to proceed with his client's site plan and Special Exception applications. I would like to discuss the situation with you at your earliest possible convenience after you have had a chance to read through the attached correspondence. Encls. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L, Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD sCO'l'r L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 ~une 11, 1992 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Motel located on E/s Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue, N.Y. SCTM 9 1000-83-1-2 & 17 Dear Mr..Raynor: This is in response to your letter dated March 6, 1992, in which you raised a nungber of objections to information contained in prior correspondence from this office going back to October of 1989. Your letter has been reviewed, along with the application file itself. We find the situation to be as follows: To date, there has been no Planning Board action on the subject application because the site plan that was submitted in August of 1989 was incomplete. Our letter of October 3, 1989, explained what material was needed to complete the application. Further, in researching the file for this letter, we noticed that the application involves three parcels of property, each of which is in separate ownership. But, only one of the owners, Nicholas Aliano, owner of Parcel C, is named on the application form and on the site plan. The owners of Parcel A (Pond Enterprises, Inc.) and Parcel B (Patricia Krupski) must be included on the application for it to be valid. In sum¥ until the Planning Board receives a complete application submission; (one that includes the correct fee,. technically complete site plans, and the consent of all the property owners to the proposal shown on the plans,) the application that is in this office is incomplete, hence inactive. Your letter also discussed Section 100-61. of the Zoning Code which stipulates that a Special Exception must be obtained for a motel in the Resort Residential District. Our review of the records, revealed that the motel use has been established on only one of the three parcels; Parcel A, which is owned by Pond Enterprises, Inc. Since the proposal is to expand the motel use onto Parcels B and C, both Patricia Krupski (owner of Parcel B) and Nicholas Aliano (owner of Parcel C) must apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Exception. The application to the Zoning Board should be made concurrently with the site plan application or shortly thereafter. This suggestion is made because Section 100-254 B. (3) (a) of the Zoning Code prohibits the Planning Board from granting site plan approval before the Zoning Board of Appeals has granted a Special Exception. Finally, with regard to your client's application to the Department of Health Services for water supply and disposal permits, it has been our experience that their review of an application will not proceed beyond a certain point without a determination of environmental significance from this Board. Since we have not received a complete and valid site plan application for the expansion of the Beachcomber Motel, we have not been able to start the environmental review procedure, much less reach a determination of significance. I trust this clarifies the prior correspondence from this office. Sincerely, Bennett Ortowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Nicholas Aliano, Owner Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector John M. Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Trustees Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Dennis Moran, SC Dept. of Health Services Stephen Costa, SC Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans, NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, at Stony Brook APPEALS BOARD MEMI~ERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, .Ir. James Dinizio, .Ir. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 28, 1992 Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane . Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Application for Special Exception - Nicholas Parcel ID 91000-83-2-1, 2, and/or 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: SCOTI' L. HARRIS //~' / Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 This letter will acknowledge review by our office of the above-referenced documentation concerning the proposed motels by Special Exception at the above sites. The documentation must be returned to you for the following reasons: (1) your documents on file with the Planning Board apparently are lacking information which prevents the Planning Board from proceeding further under the site plan review process. Please furnish the information requested by the Planning Board letters of December 5, 1989, October 3, 1989, and January 23, 1992 {copies of which are attached for your convenience}. (2) this project appears to be within the jurisdiction of the Town Trustees under Chapters 37 and 97 as amended. Chapter 37 is the new Coastal Zone Management Law, and Chapter 97 is the Wetlands Ordinance, which now pertains to sound areas. It is noted that activities are proposed within 100 feet of the sound beach areas, and therefore applications must be filed with the Town Trustees at this time. Since the Coastal Zone Management Law requires a Type I declaration under SEQRA, determinations from the Town Trustees will be necessary. It is requested that you file and proceed jointly with the Town Trustees, the County Health Department, the N.Y.S. Department of. Environmental Conservation, the Southold Town Planning Board, and any other agencies which may require applications. (3) 'Ownership: the site plan maps indicate that there are five parcels, although the~Town records show three: CTM Lot #1 owned by Pond Enterprises, Inc.; CTM Lot 92 owned by Page 2 - February', 1992 To: Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Re: Nicholas Aliano & ano 1000-83-211,2, and/or 17 Patricia Krupski; CTM Lot #17 owned by Nicholas Aliano. will be necessary to do one of the following: It {a~ combine and merge the parcels, showing the total acreage on the site plan maps, or (b) submit a separate application for each parcel if they are remaining in separate ownership, or (c) file and proposed with a proposed subdivision from the existing three lots into five lots. (4) Existing Buildings and Uses: please provide us with copies of all Certificates.of Occupancy, including: (a) a C.O.'for parcel #17 with existing buildings, (b) a C.O. for Parcel ~2 with existing buildings, (c) a copy of the C.O. report as referenced in C.O. 9Z17790; (5) Bluff Setbacks: Please show setbacks proposed for all new buildings and structures from the top of the bluff {which appears to be an average between the 25 ft. and 50 ft. elevations above mean sea level). The setback to the top of the bluff by code is required to be at 100 feet; (6) Neighbor Notices: Notices must be sent, together with the site plan attached to each, to all adjacent property owners for the entire 41+ acres by certified mail. (7) approvals are required by the Suffolk County Health Department and Water Authority, as deemed appropriate under the circumstances before a public hearing will be held by the Board of Appeals. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call our office. lk Enclosures Very truly yours~ GERARD P. GOE~RING~ CHAIRMAN APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard p. Goehringer, Chairman Char/es Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, James Dini~io, Jr. Robert A~ Villa Telephone (516) 765.1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 28, The documentation must be returned to you for the following (1) Your apparently are doc.u?ent~ on fil~ With the Plannin BOard from procel~Ck~ng ~nformat~on which Prevents~t~2 Process ~. ding fu~_ Plannin2 ~_~ease furnis~uf3~ under th~ -~ a~a Januarv~ua~ letters ~ ~ne informat~^~ce Plan rev~,., nning convenience}. --uPles of wb' ~ s' 1989 ~_~-~ Dy the the T~ _this Project - 3 ' ~r~stees aPPears to · . W~s ~he new Co:_~n~er Chapter be W~thln th · ~uxan~s ~. ~oca~ Zo-- ~ s 37 an~ a~ e noted th=j~ulnance, wh~,~= ~anagement ~=~' as amende~ -~on of beach ='[~c activities ~3 now Pertain~'~' and Chat-' unapter T ..... ~as, and ~-- ~ Propos ?- ~u Sound D er 97 is o,,~ ~rUste-- t~=~efor- ed Wlthl- ~- areas. ~ . the Law require~~ at this ~ = aPplicati~-- ~ ~0 feet ~ ~. xc ~nce the - ~= rl~ed --' from the Town TrType I declaration coastal Zo-~ _W&th the ~ou file =.n UStees w~]n ~ Under SEQRA, ~ealt -~,u PrOcee . .-~a De ne ~- determinations c--- h Departmem~ ~3olntly w~=c~ary. ~ , "= ~anagement uu~ervati~ ~-, uae N.v ~ ~un the To, .... ~ lS agen~_ --, one e ..... -.~. Den=~ -~s wrust~-- =~aced · -~=s Which ~- ~ucnold To~,- ~cment of ~- .~=s, the C~- ,,,ay require =~f~.~xanninG n~2~i~Vlronmenta] ~ncy ~xleations~ --~ru, and any O-ther (3) Ownership: the are five Parcels, although site Plan ma s ' #1 by Pond the Town rec d n f te that there Enterprises, Inc.; CTM s -~w three: CTM Lot Lot #2 OWned by scour L. ARms Supervisor Town Ha//, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Sou~hold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (5~6) 765-I800 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: ADPlicati°n for Speeiffl Parcel ID #1000_83~2_1' ~Xception ~7Nicholas , Dear Mr. Raynor: z, and/or Aliano & ano. This letter above-referenced Will acknowledge review by our office of Special EXceptiondOCumentation eOncernin~ the the reasons: at the above Sites. Proposed motels by Page 2 - February~, 1992 TO: Mr. Henry E0 Raynor, Jr. Re: Nicholas Aliano & ano 1000-83-2-1,2, and/or 17 Patricia Krupski; CTM Lot 917 owned by Nicholas Aliano. will be necessary to do one of the following: It (a) combine and merge the parcels, showing the total acreage on the site plan maps, or (b) submit a separate application for each parcel if they are remaining in separate ownership, or (c) file and proposed with a proposed subdivision from the existing three lots into five lots. (4) Existing Buildings and Uses: please provide us with copies of all Certificates of Occupancy, including: (a) a C.O. for parcel #17 with existing buildings, (b) a C.O. for Parcel #2 with existing buildings, (c) a copy of the C.O. report as referenced in C.O. #Z17790; (5) Bluff Setbacks: Please show setbacks proposed for all new buildings and structures from the top of the bluff {which appears to be an average between the 25 ft. and 50 ft. elevations above mean sea level}. The setback to the top of the bluff by code is required to be at 100 feet; (6) Neighbor Notices: Notices must be sent, together with the site plan attached to each, to all adjacent property owners for the entire 41+ acres by certified mail. (7) approvals are required by the Suffolk County Health Department and Water Authority, as deemed appropriate under the circumstances before a public hearing will be held by the Board of Appeals. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call our office. lk Enclosures Very truly yours~-~ GERARD P. GoE!qRINGER CHAIRMAN PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L Edwards Telephone [5161 765-1938 t PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 0une 11, 1992 Henry E. Ray,or, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Motel located on E/s Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue, N.Y. SCTM 9 1000-83-1-2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: This is in response to your letter dated March 6, 1992, in which you raised a number of objections to information contained in prior correspondence from this office going back to October of 1989. Your letter has been reviewed, along with the application file itself. We find the situation to be as follows: To date, there has been no Planning Board action on the subject application because the site plan that was submitted in August of 1989 was incomplete. Our letter of October 3, 1989, explained what material was needed to complete the application. Further, in researching the file for this letter, we noticed that the application involves three parcels of property, each of which is in separate ownership. But, only one of the owners, Nicholas Aliano, owner of Parcel C, is named on the application form and on the site plan. The owners of Parcel A (Pond Enterprises, Inc.) and Parcel B (Patricia Krupski) must be included on the application for it to be valid. In sum, until the Planning Board receives a complete application submission; (one that includes the correct fee, technically complete site plans, and the consent of all the property owners to the proposal shown on the plans,) the application that is in this office is incomplete, hence inactive. Your letter also discussed Section 100-61. of the Zoning Code which stipulates that a Special Exception must be obtained for a motel in the Resort Residential District. Our review of the records, revealed that the motel use has been established on only one of the three parcels; Parcel A, which is owned by Pond Enterprises, Inc. Since the proposal is to expand the motel use onto Parcels B and C, both Patricia Krupski (owner of Parcel B) and Nicholas Aliano (owner of Parcel C) must apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Exception. The application to the Zoning Board should be made concurrently with the site plan application or shortly thereafter. This suggestion is made because Section 100-254 B. (3) (a) of the Zoning Code prohibits the Planning Board from granting site plan approval before the Zoning Board of Appeals has granted a Special Exception. Finally, with regard to your client's application to the Department of Health Services for water supply and disposal permits, it has been our experience that their review of an application will not proceed beyond a certain point without a determination of environmental significance from this Board. Since we have not received a complete and valid site plan application for the expansion of the Beachcomber Motel, we have not been able to start the environmental review procedure, much less reach a determination of significance. I trust this clarifies the prior correspondence from this office. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Nicholas Aliano, Owner Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector John M. Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Trustees Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Dennis Moran, SC Dept. of Health Services Stephen Costa, SC Dept. of Health Services Roger Evans, NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, at Stony Brook TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President Henry P. Smith John B. Tuthill William G. Albertson Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUPERVISOR SCOTT L. HARRIS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 April 23, 1992 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel SCTM #1000-83-2-1 Dear Mr. Raynor: The Southold Trustees inspected the above referenced site and site plan for the Beachcomber Motel and recommend the Proposed structure be moved an additional 50' landward than shown on the survey of Thomas J. Filazzo dated December 1991. Absent the ability to move the proposed building further landward, the proposal must fully comply with CSapter 37 of the Town Code: Coastal Erosion Protection. It would appear that the activity as planned is prohibited under that ordinance as falling too close to the bluff. Minimal bluff setbacks for this site are 50' for movable structures under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Law and 100' for building under the Zoning Boards jurisdiction. Closer setbacks than these will likely require variance application,s). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, J~ohn M. Bredemeyer, III President, Board of Trustees JMB:J~t cc:%~Planning Board Zoning Board Building Dept. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY March 13, 1992 13.952 Holzmacher, McLendon & 575 Broad Hollow Road Me!vi!]e, NY ]1757 Murrell, P.C. ATTN: Dennis Kelleher, Vice President RE: Proposed expansion of Beachcomber motel at Cutchogue Dear Mr. Kelleher: With regard to your letter of January addressed to Steve Hyman, we hereby request that your prepare a full cost .breakdown for water supply as required by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services as well as design and and cost analysis for leaching fields and septic requirements with regard to the above referenced project. Please note that the project has been reduced from 147 units to 86 units to avaid installation of a sewerage treatment plant. As the agent for Nicholas Aliano, i would appreciate receiving a copy of all correspondence generated from your office. Since ely, HER:ml CC: Nicholas Aliano / Steven Hyman, P.E. Southold Town Planning Boar Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Trustees New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York State Department of Health Services 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY March 6, 1992 11952 V5 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Site plan application of Nicholas Aliano 1000-83-2-1, 2 and/or 17 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Please be advised that the correspondence from your office to Michael LoGrande, Chairman of the Suffolk County Water Authority, dated January 23, 1992, does in fact contain an error. In reference to the statement that we have not responded to your requests for additional information since 1989, the applicant has employed Barrett, Lanzisera, Beckman & Hyman as engineers and has diligently been in pursuit of approvals from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Your letter of January 23, 1992 says that the applicant has not responded, however, you should note that your office had received correspondence from the Department of Health Services just ten days prior to with regard to this application. To date we are still processing this application befor the wastewater management section of the Department of Health Services. In your letter of October 3, 1989, it was requested that we go before the Zoning Board of Appeals as a transient motel is now a permitted use by Special Exception from that Board. We made application in January 1992 which has been refused as a result of this change in law by the Town Trustees as well as, I am told, a change in procedure for filing with the Zoning Board of Appeals. It is now my understanding that site plan compliance should be forthcoming in a preliminary fashion from your Board prior to proceeding before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Also, approvals from the Department of Health Services and Suffolk County Water Authority must be obtained prior to the Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing. Although this letter is at odds with the direction I received from staff (please note letter of December 5, 1989 from your office), the Zoning Board of Appeals has given me a specific outline which we would be more than happy to follow in application to a successful conclusion. SOUTHOLD~ PLANNING BOARD Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman $outhold Town Planning Board March 6, 1992 Page 2 I have also been given correspondence from the Zoning Board of Appeals office where the Planning Board staff has indicated there is no active site plan application before them (Letter dated October 1, 1991). Please note I feel this is an error as we have been tited up almost literally with the engineering from this project on a County level. To clarify our position, please note we are in active and diligent pursuit of a site plan approval. Now that we have direction from the Zoning Board of Appeals, we intend to pursue this course of action although it differs from the correspondence from your Board. Should you have any problems at all, please contact me immediately as this application has already been convoluted through three agencies over three years. Sincerely, ~ Henry rE. Radnor, Jr. HER:ml CC: Nicholas Aliano Barrett, Lanzisera, Beckman & Hyman Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Michael A. LoGrande, Chairman, Suffolk County Water Dennis MOran, P.E., S.C. Dept of Health Services Authority 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY Marck 6, 1992 11952 John M. Bredemeyer III, Chairman Southold Town Trustees Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Bredemeyer: Enclosed please find a site plan for the proposed expansion of the Beachcomber at Cutchogue, New York. We have been advised by the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals that this action may come under your jurisdiction under Chapters 37 and 97 (Coastal Zone Management Law and Wetlands Ordinance, respectively). Please advise as to whether this site plan requires application to your Board and if so, the procedures and applications to be submitted. Sincerely, H~ ~aynor, Jr. HER:ml Encs. CC: Nicholas Aliano Barrett, Lanzisera, Beckman~ Hyman Southold Town Planning Boar~ Southold Town Zoning Board of'Appeals 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY March 6, 1992 11952 New York State Deparrtment of SUNY - Room 20 Stony Brook, NY 11790 Environmental Conservation RE: Proposed expansion of Beachcomber at Cutchogue, NY Dea~ Sirs: Please find enclosed a proposed site plan of the Beachcomber at Cutchogue, New York. for the expansion Please advise as to whether made to your Board in order approvals to complete this application will need to to obtain the necessary project. Sincerely, entry E. Raynor, Jr. be HER:ml Eno. CC: Nicholas Aliano Barrett, Lanzisera, Beckman & Southold Town Planning Boar~/ Southold Town Zoning Board of Southold Town Trustees Hyman Appeals PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 January 23, 1992 Michael A. LoGrande, Chairman Suffolk County Water Authority Oakdale, New York 11769 Re: Proposed Water Supply for Proposed Expansion of Beachcomber Motel W/s Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM # 1000-83-1-2 and 17 Dear Mr. LoGrande: As per our agreement to keep your office informed of all proposals for water supply within the Town of Southold, I have enclosed a letter from Paul Ponturo regarding a proposal for the site noted above. The status of the application remains unchanged. The applicant has not responded to our requests for further information since 1989. Consequently we have not been able to start a coordinated environmental review. If there are any questions about the site plan application, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Enc. cc: Joseph Lizewski, Councilman & Chair, Groundwater Resources Committee Thomas Wickham, Councilman & Chair, Planning & Zoning Committee Mark McDonald, Chair, Water Advisory Committee Edward J. Rosavitch, Chief Engineer, Suffolk County Water Authority DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 5ERVICE~i COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT J. G.~FI'IEY MARY £. H~BBERD, M.D~ M.P.H. ACTING COMMISSIONER January 13, 1992 Dennis kelleher, P.E. H2M Group 575 Broadhollow Road Melville, NY 11746-5076 RE: Beachcomber II Report Dear Mr. Ketleher: I ~,, SOUTHOLOTOWN This will confirm our past conversations and those with Mr. McLendon regarding the referenced 7/91 Water Resource/System Report. The Bureau cannot respond in an authoritative sense to proposals and alternatives from the standpoint of density-related Issues. The best way to deterrnlne the merits of your selected alternative would be to make application to the Wastewater Management Section. However, 300 gpd/acre Is the sewage design allowance with an on-site water source. The central issue for this Bureau at this point Is the concepkJal basis for the non- community well system modifications. Conceptually, the well capacity needs were adequately addressed In this report. We concur with your recommendation that proposed Well #3 should be developed In such a way as to profile nitrate levels throughout the available aquifer segment. I do wish to point out, however, that In order to conform to our Private Water Systems Standards, the final well depth must have at least 40 feet of submergence Into the water table measured to the top of the screen. Mr. McLendon's proposal for a period of 6 hours pumpage and analysis at 2, 4 and 6 hours is acceptable and should be presented as part of the formal application. Since the proposed well exceeds 45 gpm a Long Island Well permit from NYSDEC will be needed, Data from other wells In the area confirms the likelihood that carbon filtration will be needed. Although your report doesn't address trerJhnent sizing, the preliminary layout (Plate ti) accompanying the report suggests an intent to provide a GAC unit sized to 15 minutes EBCT at the anticipated peak flow. BUREAU OF DRINKING WATER Tel: (516) 853-3076 Fax: (5i6)853'2927 Mr. Kelleher Janua~/~3, ~992 Page 2 Detailed plans and specifications will be needed pdor to any construction, and the specifics of design will, In part depend upon the test well fln~,,~. I \ Bureau ~ater PJP/cls ~ cc: S.C. McLendon, H2M Group Bennet O~owskl, Jr., (Southold Planning Board) D. Moran PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Joseph Lizewski, Chairman Groundwater Resources Committee Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Proposed Water Supply for Proposed Expansion of Beachcomber Motel W/s Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM # 1000-83-1-2 and 17 January 23, 1992 The enclosed correspondence is for your information. cc: Mark McDonald, Chairman Water Advisory Committee DEPARTMENT OF' HEALTH SEFiVlC£$ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT J. GAFFN~Y SUFFOLK COUNTY F...XECtJT1VE Januan/13, 1992 MA~Y E. HEBBERD, M.D.M.P.H. Dennis Kelleher, P.E. H2M Group 575 Broadhollow Road Melville, NY 11746-5076 RE: Beachcomber II Report Dear Mr. Kelleher: This will confirm our past conversations and those with Mr. McLendon regarding the referenced 7/91 Water Resource/System Report. The Bureau cannot respond In an authoritative sense to proposals and alternatives from the standpoint of density-related Issues. The best way to determine the merits of your selected alternative would be to make application to the Wastewater Management Section. However, 300 gpd/acre Is the sewage design allowance with an on-site water source. The central issue for this Bureau at this point Is the concePtUal basis for the nan- community well system madlflcaflons. ConceptUally, the well capacity needs were adequately addressed In this report. We concur with your recommendation that proposed Well ~3 should be developed In such a way as to profile nitrate levels throughout the available aquifer segment. I do wish to point out, however, that In order to conform to our Private Water Systems Standards, the final well depth must have at least 40 feet of submergence Into the water table measured to the top of the screen. Mr. McLendon's proposal for a period of 6 hours pumpage and analysis at 2, 4 and 6 hours Is acceptable and should be presented as part of the formal application. Since the proposed well exceeds 45 gpm a Long Island Well permit from NYSDEC will be needed. Data from other wells in the area confirms the likelihood that carbon filtration will be needed. Although your report doesn't address treatment stzing, the preliminary layout (Plate Ir) accompanying the report suggests an intent to provide a GAC unit sized to 15 minutes EBCT at the anticipated peak flow. BUREAU OF DRINKING WATER Tel: (5 I6) 853-3076 Fax: (5161853-2927 Mr. Kelleher January 13, 1992 Page 2 Detailed plans and specifications will be needed pdor to any construction, and the specifics of design will, In part depend upon the test well I \ Bureau ~g Water PJP/cIs ~// cc: S.C. McLendon, H2M Group Bennet Orfowskl, Jr., (Southold Planning Board) D. Moran PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latharn, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 S~uthold, New York I 1971 -Fax (516) 765-1823 Michael A. LoGrande, Chairman Suffolk County Water Authority Oakdale, New York 11769 October 1, 1991 Dear Mr. LoGrande: The enclosed letters are for your information. My staff will keep you informed of any developments on this proposed expansion of the Beachcomber Motel. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encls. VS/vs cc: Edward J. Rosavitch, Chief Engineer DI='PARTMENT OF H='ALTH 5ERVlC~'$ C~)UNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE September 20, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Thank you for your letter of August 30, 1991 regarding the Beachcomer Motel. To date, the Department has not received a formal application for the overall project. We are only in receipt of an engineering report evaluating water supply options, including upgrading of the existing Beachcomber water supply facilities which is a non-community public water supply regulated by our Department. Comments may be offered on the conceptual proposals contained in the report, however, any response to the report by our staff is merely advisory in nature and is not to be considered a formal approval. Departmental approval will not be granted until the complete project details are submitted with a formal application and the project meets all our requirements and design criteria. As part of the Department's procedures, the applicant will have to comply with all environmental review process requirements before any site plan is approved. I hope the foregoing clarifies the Department's position. Should you like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to con- tact me. Very truly yours, Dennis Moran, Principal Public Health Engineer Bureau of Drinking Water DMljdm cc: Steve Costa BUREAU OF DRINKING WATER 22~ RABRO DRtVE EAST HAUPPAU~E. NEW YORK 117~8 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box tl79 Sguthold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 August 30, 1991 Dennis Moran, P.E., Supervisor Office of Drinking Water 225 Rabro Drive, East Hauppauge, New York 11788-4290 Re: Application for Health Dept. Approval for Proposed Site Plan for Beachcomber Motel E/s of Duck Pond Lane on Long Island Sound, Cutchogue SCTM ~ 1000-83-1-2 and 17. Dear Mr. Moran: This office was notified on August 21, 1991, that there is an application pending before the Health Department for approvals for drinking water supply for the above-noted project. A review of our file shows that we have not received a complete site plan application. Nor has the environmental review pursuant to the State law begun. No lead agency has been designated. And no determination has been made with regard to the enviromental impacts. Accordingly, the Planning Board respectfully requests that your office not issue any approvals for this project until the coordinated environmental review process is completed. Furthermore, it would be appreciated if you would send a copy of this letter to any other division within the Health Department that may be working on this application. If you have any questions, please contact Valerie Scopaz of this office. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman VS:vs cc: Mark McDonald, Chairman, Water Advisory Committee Vito Minei, Director, Office of Ecology Steven Costa, Director, Office of Wastewater Management Michael LoGrande, Chairman, Suffolk County Water Authority Edward J. Rosavitch, Chief Engineer, Suffolk County Water Authority PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr,, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 October 1, 1991 Dennis Moran, P.E. Principal Public Health Engineer Bureau of Drinking Water Suffolk County Department of Health Services 225 Rabro Drive East Hauppauge, New York 11788 Dear Mr. Moran: Thank you for your response of September 20, 1991 regarding water supply options for the Beachcomber Motel in Cutchogue. Since we do not have an active site plan application before us, there are no further questions at this time. But, I would appreciate being kept informed of your department's informal or preliminary comments to the applicant on the engineering report that was submitted for your review. Thank you in advance for your assistance. VS:vs Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G, HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE September 20, 1991 DAVID HARRIS, M.D., M.P.H. Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Thank you for your letter of August 30, 1991 regarding the Beachcomer Motel. To date, the Department has not received a formal application for the overall project. We are only in receipt of an engineering report evaluating water supply options, including upgrading of the existing Beachcomber water supply facilities which is a non-community public water supply regulated by our Department. Comments may be offered on the conceptual proposals contained in the report, however, any response to the report by our staff is merely advisory in nature and is not to be considered a formal approval. Departmental approval will not be granted until the complete project details are submitted with a formal application and the project meets all our requirements and design criteria. As part of the Department's procedures, the applicant will have to comply with all environmental review process requirements before any site plan is approved. I hope the foregoing clarifies the Department's position. Should you like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to con- tact me. Very truly yours, Dennis Moranr Principal Public Health Engineer Bureau of Drinking Water DM/jdm cc: Steve Costa PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jn Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York l 1971 Fax (516) 765-1823 August 30, 1991 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Beachcomber Motel E/s of Duck Pond Lane on Long Island Sound, Cutchogue SCTM ~ 1000-83-1-2 and 17. Dear Mr. Raynor: This is to acknowledge receipt on August 21st of your letter of August 15th in which you submitted copies of water studies for this property. A review of our file shows that we have not received any response to our letter of December 5, 1989; a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. Also included is a copy of the October 3, 1989 letter which listed the revisions that must be made to the site plan before the environmental review can begin. If assistance is needed, please contact Valerie Scopaz of this office. Enc. VS:vs Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman 320 Love Lane ~att ituc}(, NY 11952 August 15, 1991 Southold Town Planning Boarl Main Road Southo!d, N~' 11971 RE: Site plan appkication of Beachcomber at Cutchogue Dear Sirs: Please fin~ enclosed three water studies prepared by H2M Group for the above referenced ~re~erty. This property ts currently being reviewed by the Suffolk county DeQartmen= of Health Services. Final plans will be prepared ba~ed on the 2epartmen% of Health Service recommendations and forwarded to ~3~u for your review. Sincerely, HER:ml Encs. CC: Nichclas Aliano Henry E. Raynor, Jr. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 August 30, 1991 Dennis Moran, P.E., Supervisor Office of Drinking Water 225 Rabro Drive, East Hauppauge, New York 11788-4290 Re: Application for Health Dept. Approval for Proposed Site Plan for Beachcomber Motel E/s of Duck Pond Lane on Long Island Sound, Cutchogue SCTM # 1000-83-1-2 and 17. Dear Mr. Moran: This office was notified on August 21, 1991, that there is an application pending before the Health Department for approvals for drinking water supply for the above-noted project. A review of our file shows that we have not received a complete site plan application. Nor has the environmental review pursuant to the State law begun. No lead agency has been designated. And no determination has been made with regard to the enviromental impacts. Accordingly, the Planning Board respectfully requests that your office not issue any approvals for this project until the coordinated environmental review process is completed. Furthermore, it would be appreciated if you would send a copy of this letter to any other division within the Health Department that may be working on this application. If you have any questions, please contact Valerie Scopaz of this office. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman VS:vs cc: Mark McDonald, Chairman, Water Advisory Committee Vito Minei, Director, Office of Ecology Steven Costa, Director, Office of Wastewater Management Michael LoGrande, Chairman, Suffolk County Water Authority Edward J. Rosavitch, Chief Engineer, Suffolk County Water Authority Toxvn Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Henry Raynor P.O.Drawer A Jamesport, New York 11947 December 5, 1989 Re: Beachcomber Site Plan Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM # 1000-83-01-2 and 17 Dear Mr. Raynor, This letter is to confirm our conversation of December 4th, in which we discussed the Beachcomber site plan. In your letter of November 8, 1989, you raised some concerns about how to proceed with the above-referenced application in light of the Planning Board's October 3rd request for detailed revisions of the site plan. It is recommended that you apply to the Zoning Board for a Special Exception when you submit the revised site plans to the Planning Board. In this way, the two Boards can coordinate their environmental review of the applications. The information requested by the Planning Board in its October 3rd letter should be provided in the revised site plans so that the environmental impacts of the project can be accurately assessed. ' If you should have further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. cc: Gerard Goehrigher, Zonig Board of VS Appeals Very Truly Yours, Town Planner P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11! December 2, 1989 Ms. Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southotd, NY 11971 $OUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING 80^RD RE: Beachcomber site plan (1000-83-2-1, 2 and p/o 17) Dear Ms. Scopaz: We are still awaiting an answer to our letter of November 8~ 1989, a copy of which I have enclosed for your conven&ence. We would appreciate an immediate response so that we can move forward with this application. Sincerely, HER:ml Enc. CC: Aliano P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 November 8, 1989 Ms. Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Beachcomber Site Plan (1000-83-2-1, 2 and p/o 17) Dear Ms. Scopaz: In response to your letter of October 3, prior to undertaking the necessary 12 items listed as revisions of the above captioned site plan, please adv%se as follows = 1) Should we at present pursue the special exception before the Zoning Boad of Appeals prior to doing the finite engineering indicated in your correspondence? 2) Is the option available to us to proceed concurrently or will this tend to confuse the matter before the Board? 3) ShoULd we proceed with the expense of extensive calcula=ions and site plan elements prior to application to the Zoning Boad of Appeals? Please advise immediately as to ~he exact procedure necessary to forward our application in proper sequence. Sincerely, Henry E. Raynor, Jr. ~i EriC. P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 November 8, 1989 Ms. Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 R~: Beachcomber Site Plan (1000-83-2-1, 2 and p/o i?) Dear Ms. Scopaz: In response to your letter of October 3, prior to undertaking the necessary 12 items listed as revisions of the above captioned site plan, please advise as follows = 1) Should we at present pursue the special exception before the Zoning Boad of Appeals prior to doing the finite engineering indicated in your correspondence? 2) Is the option available to us to proceed concurrently or will this tend to confuse the matter before the Board? 3) ShoULd we proceed with the expense of extensive calculations and site plan elements prior to application to the Zoning Boad of Appeals? Please advise immediately as to the exact procedure necessary to forward our applicat'ion in proper sequence. Sincere HER:ml Enc. Vale~ie Scopaz, Town Planner Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY 11971 P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 Octobe£ 15, 1989 RE: Beachcomber site plan at Cutchogue Dear Ms. Scopaz: I am in receipt of your letter of October 3 and have notified Steven J. Byman Associates to prepare the necessary amendments as request in your letter. As this correspondence from your office creating detailed review of this site plan, I am, unless I hear different in writing, considering this submission forthcoming a presubmission conference. With regard to Item 12, to date the Suffolk County Water Authority has not set is parameters for water supply on the property and the town has not received written notification. As you are well aware, there is no public water system in the area and based upon the meetings already held with the county, it appears a satelite system for supplying this project is satisfactory to their needs.. As oer your request, 12 prints of the revised site plan will be forwarded in the near future. Sincerely, ~ CC: Nicholas Aliano James Schondebare, Esq. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 20, 1989 Henry Raynor P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, N.Y. 11971 RE: Beachcomber Site Plan 1000-83-2-1, 2 & p/o 17 Dear Mr. Raynor, The Planning Board has'reviewed your letter of October 1989 requesting a presubmission conference regarding the Beachcomber Motel. F The Board refers you to its letter of July 3, 1989 in which reference is made to a presubmission conference that was held on June 23, 1989. Subsequent to that meeting, you submitted an application on behalf of your client. The Board's October 3rd letter is based on the application itself. There is no need for a second presubmission conference. Upon receipt of the 12 items requested in the October 3rd letter, and the correct site plan fee, the Planning Board will continue its review. If you have any questions, or require further assistance please don't hesitate to contact this office. Ve.ry truly yours, Bennett Orlowski Jr. Chairman rgk cc: Nichlas Aliano OCT P. O. Drawer A Jamesport, NY 11947 October 6, 1989 6 1959 Southold Town Main Road Southold, NY Planning Board 11971 RE: Beachcomber Site Plan 1000-83-2-1, 2 & p/o 17 Dear Sirs: On August 15, 1989, the revised site plans, filing fee, plan application and long environmental assessment form for above referenced was submitted to your Board. At that time, we requested a presubmission conference. It is our understanding that under Southold Town Code, a presubmission conference is to be scheduled within thirty (30) days of receipt of the above. As more than thirty days have now elapsed, we would expect to be placed on the next agenda for a presubmission conference. Sincerely, HER:ml CC: Aiiano site the Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 Henry Raynor Raynor-Suter Hardware 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OFSOUTHOLD October 3,1989 RE: Beachcomber Motel SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2, p/17 Dear Mr. Raynor: The Planning Board has reviewed your proposal for the expansion of the Beachcomber Motel. The application is incomplete. The following changes must be made before the Planning Board can accept the plans. 1. The scale of the map must be 1"=20', not 1"=50' as shown. 2. Zoning is indicated on the map as M-i, this parcel is zoned (RR) Resort Residential. 3. Future use of parcel "C" should be indicated. 4. Drainage calculations must be shown. 5. Parking calculations must be shown for the entire site. 6. Percent lot coverage and percent landscaping must be shown. 7. A lighting plan must be indicated. 8. Building profiles and floor plans must be shown. Building dimensions and heights must also be indicated. 9. Location of dumpsters, transformers etc. must be shown. 10. Location and details of aprons, curbs, sidewalks, fencing (type and location), and grading, both present and proposed, with two foot contours (on site and 200' beyond the property line) must be shown, as required by Article XXV of the Zoning Code. 11. The total square footage of proposed building area must be shown on the plan, so that the site plan fee can be calculated.(The accuracy of the fee that was submitted cannot be determined because there was no indication of square footage of building area on the site plan.) 12. The calculations for units allowable are based on public water and sewer. Reference is made to the Planning Board's letter of July 3, 1989 requesting the applicant to discuss any proposed water supply project with the Suffolk County Water Authority. The Town has not received any written notification from the SCWA of negotiations with your client regarding the availability of public water. Further, transient motels are a permitted use by special exception by the Board of Appeals. An application must also be made to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Upon receipt of twelve (12) revised site plans that incorporate the above mentioned information, the Board will proceed with the environmental review. If you have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. cc: Nichlos Aliano James A. Schondebare rgk  ry truly yours, , ...../'/. V~~tt O~o~kt-Ur. '' Chairman VALERIE SCOPAZ TOWN PLANNER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-I938 July 7, 1989 David T. Ross Deputy Executive Director Suffolk County Water Authority 4060 Sunrise Highway Oakdale, New York 11769 Re: Proposed Development in Southold Town. Dear Mr. Ross, At this time, the Town of Southold and the Suffolk County Water Authority are in the process of developing mechanisms for coordinating planning efforts and communications. Over time I am sure we will work out a system to everyone's convenience. In the meantime, I would like to begin to keep your staff abreast of upcoming projects that are brought to the Planning Board's attention in pre-submission conferences. My purpose in doing so is to ensure adequate coordination and communications between the Town and the SCWA. By way of background, the Planning Board officepresently coordinates environmental review of pending site plans and subdivisions with State and County agencies by sending those agencies copies of the plans in question. This is done first, to ensure that all agencies a~e reviewing the same set of plans and second, to ensure that all environmental concerns, both local and regional in scope, are addressed at one time. On occassion, the Planning Board staff asks State and County agencies for preliminary comments on proposals that are at the pre-submission stage. This procedure tends to eliminate confusion and inter-agency conflicts over the long haul. I would hope that the same could be done with the SCWA. At this point in time, I wish to bring to your staff's attention a proposal to install a community well and sewage treatment plant near Long Island Sound at Duck Pond Point, Cutchogue. As the enclosed letter indicates, the Planning Board has some concerns about the project. Upon receipt of. the application, a copy of same will be forwarded to your office to whomever you so designate. Perhaps then a dialogue can be established whereby the planning Board and the SCWA staff could discuss the implications of the proposal and its feasibility from a water supply perspective. If there should be any questions about the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to working with you and your staff. X~cerely' Valerie Scopaz Town Planner cc: Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman, Planning Board VALERIE SCOPAZ TOWN PLANNER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 July 7, 1989 David T. Ross Deputy Executive Director Suffolk County Water Authority 4060 Sunrise Highway Oakdale, New York 11769 Re: Proposed Development in Southold Town. Dear Mr. Ross, At this time, the Town of Southold and the Suffolk County Water Authority are in the process of developing mechanisms for coordinating planning efforts and communications. Over time I am sure we will work out a system to everyone's convenience. In the meantime, I would like to begin to keep your staff abreast of upcoming projects that are brought to the Planning Board's attention in pre-submission conferences. My purpose in doing so is to ensure adequate coordination and communications between the Town and the $CWA. By way of background, the Planning Board officepresently coordinates environmental review of pending site plans and subdivisions with State and County agencies by sending those agencies copies of the plans in question. This is done first, to ensure that all agenoies a~e reviewing the same set of plans and second, to ensure that all environmental concerns, both local and regional in scope, are addressed at one time. On occassion, the Planning Board staff asks State and County agencies for preliminary comments on proposals that are at the pre-submission stage. This procedure tends to eliminate confusion and inter-agency conflicts over the long haul. I would hope that the same could be done with the SCWA. At this point in time, I wish to bring to your staff's attention a proposal to install a community well and sewage treatment plant near Long Island Sound at Duck Pond Point, Cutchogue. As the enclosed letter indicates, the Planning Board has some concerns about the project. Upon receipt of. the application, a copy of same will be forwarded to your office to whomever you so designate. Perhaps then a dialogue can be established whereby the planning Board and the SCWA staff could discuss the implications of the proposal and its feasibility from a water supply perspective. If there should be any questions about the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to working with you and your staff. cerely, Valerie Scopaz Town Planner cc: Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman, Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 3, 1989 Henry Raynor Raynor-$uter Hardware 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Presubmission Conference Beachcomber Motel SCTM #1000-083-2-1,2,p/o17 Dear Mr. Raynor, The Planning Board has reviewed your proposal for the expansion of the Beachcomber Motel as proposed at your June meeting with the Town Planner. 23rd The following concerns should be addressed when the site plan application is submitted. 1. In 1978, a change of zone was granted for land behind the motel. There was a stipulation added that there be no buildings within 200 feet of the westerly boundary of the property. 2. There is some concern as to the location of the comm~lnity well and package sewage treatment plant outside the RR-Resort Residential zone in the AC Agricultural Conservation zone where the applicant owns additional property. Applicant's plans for the remainder of the property have not been made clear. Further, the applicant must discuss any proposed water supply project with the Suffolk County Water Authority. Enclosed please find a site plan application form. It is suggested that you fill out a long environmental assessment form for the environmental review. If there are any questions, please contact this office. //~ J~ · ~ ~ B~ennett Orlowski, Jr. F Chairman cc: Frank Murphy, Supervisor Members of the Town Board Zoning Board of Appeals Victor Lessard, Building Department MEMORANDUM TO: '.iFILE FROM: Valarie Scopaz, Town Planner. R.R. #! Box 161B Cutchogue, New York 11935 RECEIVED21 April 1978 Southold Town Board .~P~ ~ ~ ~078~ Main Road Southold, New York 1197! ~ Gentlemen: .,; We should like to place on record a formal ~quest for the Town Board to carefully review the application for a zoning change for the land owned by Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski, especially that included in the section called "Vista Bluff." This area includes residential lots which adjoins our community of Birch Hills. Such a zoning change would seriously affect us as we built omr home in a residential area and would thus be asked to deal with the many problems of oommerical development. We are concerned that the increased de~n~ls upon, for instance, the local water supply would be harmful; the Suffolk county Health Department has already Questioned the Quality of water in this area. More people, in multiple dwelling units, would greatly add to the congestion of the area both in traffic and pollution. The corner of Duck Pond Road/Vista Place/Birch Lane is already a dangerous intersection where several collisions have occurred and such instances are bound to ln~se with more traffic. These are but a few of the problems which are quickly apparent if such a zoning change is approved. More serious and long term ones which must also be considered as possible if not probable are the increased demand on Town services. The road surfaces up here are a disaster that increased traffic can only make worse. More people unfortunately affects the crime rate and more police protection will be essential especially since some of the homes here are periodically vacant. Residents of both Birch Hills a~l Vista Bluff pay extra taxes for the privilege of a private beach and it is to be assumed that Town services thus paid for will protect this investment. Birch Hills residents pay an additional yearly fee to maintain their area and their private road; we .have so far assumed the responsibility of trying to limit access to these but if the Town decides to change the zoning in the area and encourage more traffio,~we must expect that some compensatory aid to protect our rights will be forthcoming. The value of our homes is a basic investment for most of us and we can not see it benefitted by commercial expansion of the residential area of our neighborhood. Certainly Mr. Aliano's and Mrs. Krupski's needs must be considered, but in the decision for a zoning change, it is not only fair but essential that the rights and needs of both the neighborhood and the town be given high priority. Mill Road, BOX 120 Rd 2 Lambertville N.J. 08530 ADril 20 1978 Town Planning BOard Nain Road, Southold NY 11971 Dear Sirs; I would like to express my concern about the proposal to change the present zoning along Duck Pond Road from residential to commercial multiple dwelling units. I believe the sentiments of other property owners are similar to mine~ This area of the north shore owes its beauty and uniqueness to the m&intenance of residential zoning. The development of the shore land in the future should continue the pattern established wisely by previous BOard actions in the past. You need only to travel to the ocean shore of New Jersey to see what can hapDen to waterfront property when commercial zoning is allowed to infiltrate residential zoning. I am opposed to any change of zoning along Duck Pond Road. I hope the BOard will not be persuaded by one property owner, Mr. Aliano, to negate the strong feelings of the majority of property owners. ~oseph Shannon ,/Executor, Estate of Gloria Fal~ 445 Glen Court Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935 April 18, 1978 Southold Town Board Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Gentlemen: The proposal to change present zoning along aportion of Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, from residential to commercial multiple dwelling, is of deep concern to us as property owners in the immediate area. Expansion of the Beachcomber motel itself is one thing, but to consider the possibility of multiple dwellings, apartments, or condominiums along the road is an entirely different concept which would greatly diminish the quality of the area. We are concerned with the increased demand on the water supply, with increased traffic, increased summer beach pollution and litter (already a mounting problem), and the general effect on the ambience of the area. In the long run we believe such a development would have an adverse effect on all property values in the immediate area. We strongly urge a rejection of this proposed zoning change from residential to commercial in an area which is manifestly residential at the present time. Co:ally ~nu,~, Robert P. Lon~ RECEIVED ~ouTHOLD '}'011~. , i RECEIVED /~PR ~, 0 1978 ¢¢ TO: 'LFILE FROM: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner PUBLIC HEARING CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION #238 April 11, 1978 - NICHOLAS ALIANO & PATRICIA KRUPSKI A public hearing was held by the Southold Town Board at the' Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, on April 11, 1978 on the application of Nicholas Aliano & Patricia Krupski for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "M-i" Multiple Residence District on property located at Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, New York.' Present at the hearing were: Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia Councilman James Homan Councilman Henry W. Drum Justice Martin Suter Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Absent: Councilman William R. Pell, 3rd and Justice Francis T. Doyen Councilman Drum read the notice of hearing as follows: Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, public hearings will be held by the Southold Town Board at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road,,Southold, New York, in said Town on the llth day of April, 1978, on the following proposal to amend the Building Zone Ordinance (including the Building Zone Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York: 8:00 P.M. by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M-i" Multiple Residence District the property of Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski, situated at Cutchogue, New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a monument at the intersection of the easterly line of Duck Pond Road and the southerly line of Duck Pond Road which monument is distant North 29° 50' 50" East 213.08 feet from the northwesterly corner of lands of N. Aliano; thence from said point of beginning running North 52° 31' 10" East partly through lahds of N. Aliano and Patricia Krupski to lands of R. Hammel; thence along said lands of R. Hammel and J. Zuhoski the following two (2) courses and distances: (1) South 45° 52' 40" East 39.06 feet; and (2) South 46° 17' 50" East 367.21 feet; thence from said point running along lands of Aliano et ano. South 43° 42' 10" West 946.44 feet to lands of Fellinger-Ihar; thence along said last mentioned lands North 42° 01' 40" West 465.90 feet to the southerly side of Duck Pond Road; thence along the southerly side of Duck Pond Road North 29° 50' 50" East 213/08 feet to the monument at the point or place of beginning. Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. DATED: March 14, 1978 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK COUNCILMAN DRUM: PUBLIC HEARING ~ ~ (2) ~ April 11, 1978 CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION # 238 - NICHOLAS ALIANO & FATRICIA KRUPSKI COUNCILMAN DRUM: We have proof of notice of publication from the Suffolk Weekly Times, notarized March 24, 1978, and proof of notice of publication from the Long Island Traveler Watchman, notarized March 24, 1978. We have an affidavit from Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk that this has been posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board at the Town Clerk's Office, Main Road, Southold, New York. We have received a letter from the Planning Board, Town-of Southold, dated March 13, 1978, to the Southold Town Board: Gentlemen: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board at a regular meeting held on January 30, 1978: RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board approval of the petition of Nicholas Alia~o & Patricia Krupski, Case No. 238 for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M-i" General Multiple Residence District on property located at Cutchogue, New York in view of the fact that it is apparent that the petitioner must move the motel and facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion. The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance with the development plan of the Town of Southold for this location. /s/ Muriel Brush, Secretary We have received a letter from the Suffolk County Department of Planning, dated March 1, 1978 to the Southold Town Board: On the petitioner Aliano vs. Krupski. Gentlemen: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the above captioned application which has been referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination. The decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. /s/ Lee Koppelman Director of Planning SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: I would like to make a correction of the preceding letter. I believe you indicated that the petitioner was Aliano vs. Krupski. It is Aliano and Krupski. COUNCILMAN DRUM: Did I say that? Excuse~me, the petitioner is Aliano and Krupski. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Councilman Drum has read the legal notice on petition of Nicholas Aliano add Patricia Krupski, Case No. 238 requesting a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "M-i" General Multiple Residence. The subject matter has been advertised in both of the local papers and notarized as such, it has been posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, and we have the recommendations and comments of the Southold Town Planning Board recommending approval and the Suffolk County Department of Planning has left it to local determination. At this time, I would like to open up the hearing to anyone who wishes to speak in behalf of the applicants. (3) PUBLIC HEARING fC CHANGE OF ZONE APP ATIpN #238 . ~ril 11, 1978 - NICHOLAS ALI 0 & PATRICIA KRUPSKI NICHOLAS ALIANO: I am Nick Aliano owner of the Beachcomber Motel which is the concern of this petition. What I would like. to do first of all is give you an idea of what the motel looked like. This is what the beach looked like prior to the last storm. (Mr. Aliano presented photographs.) And this is a pciture of what it looks like now. Originally, I had about 150 to 200 feet of beachfront.about 8 years ago. Since that time, especially this last winter, not only have I lost all of the beach, but I have lost some of the sidewalk and it is already eroding the building. I have had the local sand & gravel man dump about 10 truck loads of sand in to shore up against my buildings and sidewalk. I have a photo here to show that even that sand was washed away after the next storm. So there is no question, that I am in emminent danger of losing my whole business. I bought as much property behind me and surrounding me that I could afford to move the location back. The local farmers in the area will attest that it nothing more than shrubs, sand, and scrub oak where I want to put the expansion or what have you, behind the motel, There is about three-quarters of an acre of farmland that this involves. My intention is to put tennis courts and a golf course and situate the expansion along the perimeter of the cliff, it will be westerly. It is up to you gentlemen as to whether of not I stay in business. Without this expansion, I cannot stay in business. I think that my reputation of cleaning up the place, when I bought it 8 years ago it was a sore eye to the Community and I think anyone in town will tell you that what I have done here is a credit. So now, I am asking your consideration of this extension. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Is there a map? MR. ALIANO: The property west of me is owned by my family, that's across from Depot Lane. The property is east of me, my line is on the middle of a cliff, so that I couldn't do anything about that. The property south of me is owned by myself. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: This request that you are making for "M-I" zoning involves how much property? MR. ALIANO: It's about 9. acres. I have "M-i" zoning now, but of course that map shows before the beach ereoded and that's about 1~ acre you can take out of there. Business has improved and I must have room for expansion anyway. Even if this had not happened, ! have need for the tennis court and golf course. I have already put a swimming pool in. We are off the beaten-track too far away from everything, and you have to give people some- thing to do while they are at a motel on vacation. I think t bring a lot of business to the town. It's a family-run operation. Thereare ten people in my family and we run a motel and restaruant. This is a picture from the L.I. Traveler Mattituck Watchman. It shows the erosion and it also states that a matter or fact the Town Hall has a copy of the erosion situation. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: We have had a very bad winter along the Sound. MR. ALIANO: Yes, as I said, I put in 8-10 truckloads of sand and gravel mixture and that has all been washed away. I showed you T~IO (4) eA PUBLIC HEARING ~ ~ pril 11, 1978 CHANGE OF ZONE APPI~CA N # 238 - NICHOLAS AL1ANO & PATRICIA KRUPSKI the photographs of before and after. and I can't keep doing this. It's all been washed away, JUSTICE MARTIN SUTER: Was it your intention to move the building back? MR. ALIANO: No, I can't move the building back. Originally, when I filed the application, my intention was to expand because the business had increased that much. But since this erosion it won't really be an expansion, it's just a question of re-building. JUSTICE SUTER: So what does that mean? You plan to re-build and phase this out? MR. ALIANO: Yes , that's correct to re-build and make it nice with the tennis court and gold course, the pool is already there. COUNCILMAN DRUM: On the bluff? MR. ALIANO: No, not on the bluff, it will have to be below or in the middle. SUPERVISOR ~RTOCCHIA: Does anyone have any is there something you are not clear about? to speak in behalf of the application? questions of Mr. Aliano, Does anyone else wish LOUIS EDSON, Maple Lane, Southold: I have known Nick Alisno for about 8 years when ~I was~ working back in MacDonslds, we had some business transactions. ~'We have remained friends ever since, have seen some other project§ that he has done and done well. I saw this place when he first took it over, it certainly wasn't anything very attractive. He has spent a lot of money and time down there and it shows. I think when people do this, it calls for some type of encouragement. The Town Board should encourage the growth of the To%~. I recommend the approval of his application. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone else wish to speak in behalf of this application? (There was no response.) SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone wish to speak in opposition? JOHN & OLIVIA FELLINGER-IHAR: I would like to ask you, where will the new buildings or additions be located? SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: The Town Board is concerned with the change of zone. The Planning Board would be concerned with the site plans, etc. JOHN FELLINGER-IHAR: I have a map here. See, we are the neighbors to the proposed 10 acre parcel. We would be concerned only if the motel is put up next to us. We would be concerned only if the motel would be extended next to us approximately east of us 2~acre~, 105 feet east of us and goes down ~60'. We are concerned a%out the PUBLIC HEARING ~ ~ (5) CHANGE OF ZONE APPL ATION # 238 ~ ~il 11, 1978 NICHOLAS ALIANO & PATRICIA KRUPSKI density and population because we have a house here. We sympathize very much with Mr. Aliano, he is an excellent man and we like h%m very much and we know what happened on the beach and we hope there is somesolution for him. We are just concerned that next to us. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Will he have to go under the site plan? TOWN ATTORNEY ROBERT W. TASKER: I think he wili probably have to have a site plan with specified setbacks. MR. FELLINGER-IHAR: It is about 2~ acres east of us that we are concerned with right next to our residence. I' was told that eventually a house would be built there by Mr. Aliano. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone else wish to speak in opposition to this application? BILL WILHELM, President of the Birch Hills Property Owners Association: I would just like to know a little more about what is involved° For example, if there is a real motive involved here to protect the real estate, why was not bulkheading considered. My other point is the concern about expansion of the property with the additional buildings. In regards to health, we had some difficulty when we were building there and also some warnings. In fact we had to sign a waiver regarding pollutants in the soil. For example, our nitrate levels are very high there. If there is indication that a significant expansion of that kind of thing would aggrevate the nitrate level, etc. Mr. Calvin Smith of ths Suffolk County Health Department is in charge of that. So even though I have no objections, I have some concerns. I question whether the solving of the problem could be done in other ways rather than in expansion. JUSTICE ~RTIN SUTER: We have no control over the Health Department. He must meet all of their requirements the same as you did. ~. WILHELM: Well, It turned out that we couldn't meet them and we had to sign a waiver. JUSTICE SUTER: This is up to the Health Department. MARK BRIAN: I have a question regarding the expansion. I live in the general area. I am interested in discovering whether or not anybody has information as to the proposed expansion of the motel. It is a substantial number of extra units or is it just a replacement on a 1-1 basis of what is already there? If it is a replacement on a 1-1 basis certainly there would be no objection, on my part. However, if it is expanded, I am wondering if that particulaz area is a desirable area in view of the rather limited road access and particularly the problems we have been having with the drainage area near the intersection of Duck Pond Road, whether or not the motel would be appropriate until this problem is resolved. I understand there is supposed to be some resolution of this drainage problem in the area, but in any case the road is breaking up rather badly in certain areas and whether the additional traffic due to the motel would increase the number of residents would necessarily be desirable from the standpoint of the road and the residents who already live in the area. Since I don't PUBLIC HEARING L~iC CHANGE OF ZONE APP ATION ~ ~pril 11, 1978 #238 - NICHOLAS ALIANO & PATRICIA KRUPSKI know what the plans are, I can't say that I am against it, I have no objection at this point. But, could elaborate as to what the particular plans are. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: To my knowledge, none have been submitted that I know of. The Planning Board would approve the site plan. MR. ALIANO: I have already told the Planning Board what my intention was. I originally wanted to expand what I had. But since I made application I am in danger of losing what I have, so it would wind up a 1-1 but I am not going to guarantee that all of a sudden that the sand is going to come back again. I plan to expand as needed. It is strictly a seasonal motel type of operation. I am only open in the summer. I don't get that winter business that breaks up the road. I am not going to deal with that problem, that is up on Oregon Road, no wheres near me. MR. BRIAN: Basically, what I was interested in was this expansion or whether it was primarly for the replacing of buildings .... MR. ALIANO: It is both, either, or. Time will expansion. I don't expect to expand right away, that it can be done. tell as far as the but I want to know MR. BRIAN: Did you consider bulkheading? MR. ALIANO: Yes, it would cost me $30,000. and there is no guarantee that the bulkheading will stay, I don't have that strong a footing it's a 22 year old building. So, If I put $30,000. into it and I can't get insurance on bulkheading. I called the flood control people about it, they will not insure butkheading. Rambo & the one from Greenport gave me prices of about $30,000. I would rather take that $30,000. and put the building back and let this building fall down. It is about ready to go now. MR. BRIAN: fall down. Is that what you have in mind,' just letting the building I mean, you won't cart anything away? MR. ALIANO: Well, I don't have any choice in the matter. I own enough property in the surrounding area, I am certainly not going to have it dumped there. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on the subject, in opposition to this application? BILL WILHELM: I would like to make a statement in opposition. Since I get the impression that the primary effort here is to expand the facility. I have this personal opinion that I don't think it would be to the advantage of the conm~nity to have such a large enterprise down there. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? (There was no response.) PUBLIC HEARING ~ 11, 1978 CHANGE OF ZONE APPL~ICATION # 238 - NICHOLAS & PATRICIA KRUPSKI SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Has everyone who wishes to speak had an opportunity to speak? .(There was no response.) SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Hearing none, the hearing will be closed, after digesting all the facts, the Board will make a determination. Respectfully submitted, Deputy Town Clerk PLANNING BOARD MEMB~~S RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 18, 1996 Charles Voorhis & Associates. Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 North Country Road, Suite 2 Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Beachcomber Motel SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Voorhis, The Planning Board has received a check in the amount of $2,500 from the above applicant for review of the EIS. A purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact this office. ~G Kassner Site~Reviewer PLANNING BOARD MEMBEP~ RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATI4AM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 15, 1996 Charles Voorhis & Associates. Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 North Country Road, Suite 2 Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Beachcomber Motel SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Voorhis, Enclosed is a revised site plan sent by Glen Speta Associates in response to our request for additional data for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This revised site plan lacks much detail, however the Board would lika you to review the proposed minimal set back of the existing motel. The Board feels that the proposed set back of the existing motel should be one hundred feet (100') from the bluff. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact this office. k_l~lSet~t w._it. Kas~ner Site Plan Reviewer SERVI~IT~R SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD BARRETT, BONACCI, HYMAN & VANt~BELE, P.C. Engineers Surveyors Pla~rs 175A Commerce Drive HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788 Tel: (516) 435-1111 FAX: (516) 435-1022 ,,-~ WE ARE SENDING YOU ~ Attached [] Under separate cover via [] Shop drawings .[~ Prints [] Plans [] Copy of letter [3 Change order [] [] Samples the following items: [] Specifications COPIES DATE NO, DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: [] For approval ~¢'~r your use [] As requested [] For review and comment [] FOR BIDS DUE [] Approved as submitted [] Approved as noted [] Returned for corrections [] [] Resubmit [] Submit [] Return copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints 19 [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us ar once, PLANNING- BOARD M]EiYk,~-S P,.ICIqARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI. JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 25, 1996 Charles Voorhis & Associates. Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 North Country Road, Suite 2 Miller Place, NY 11764 Dear Mr. Voorhis, The enclosed reviewers copy of the DEIS for the Beachcomber Motel has recently been received by the Planning Board. A letter is being sent to the applicants agent requesting a $ 500.00 fee for this subsequent review for acceptance. After the fee is received by this office it will be forwarded to your office. Please contact me if you have any questions, or require further information. Encl. "'-CHARLES VQ,~S ~tSOClATES, 'NC. E NVIF~ONMEN T,~~ CQNSU LTAN TS ,tember 26, 1996 Bob Kassner Town of gout,hold ~ Planning Board Offic~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P,O, Box 1179 $outhold, NcwYork 11971 Beachcomber Mot~l l~vi~'w of Finai ElS Submission (response to commen~s) Dear Bob: We are in receipt of the proposed Final ElS (response to comments) for the abow.~ referenced project. This projec~ has had a long history, as well as a long review process, and therefore the SEQR process has been complicated, I~ addition, the Planning Board rcc~ivefl a substantial number of enmment~ on the DraR EIS, and has expressed comments at the Board a~d staff level as well. Prelimirk~y review of the proposexi Final EI$ (response to comments) finds that the re:ponses are brier'and will ne.~.d to be restructured to represent a docuraent approv'~i by the Planning Board. In addition, some comments will require further subst.~ntiation nd elaboration. The current dr'aR would not be an acceptable £otmat for the Fimal EIS which will altimately be issued by the Planning Board. Given the number of comments received on the Dra~ EI$ and the desire of the Planning Board to issue a complete, informative and objective dccuraent, the PI:mr~g Board may wish to consider retakqing (?VA to complete the Final EI$ at ds ti~e, Using the applicants responses and the diskette provided, we are in a position to draR responses for · scussion with the Planning Board, and subsequently issue a Fir~l EIS, The follo~ag l~rovldes a budge~ for services: Principal-in-charge Coordinate staff; review documen~tion; $100 10 11,000 me~t with Plmmmg Board; finalize document; provide consultation "Enviroranental Prepare introduction and review ami $60 1:; 900 Scientist prepare response to comments in acc~table Final ElS format; review md prepare re.crises on waterfront use issues. Environmental Review md prepare water resource $$0 12 600 Planner responses; review and prepare land use, service, sa.f~ty responses '~otal $2,500 54. NORTH COUNTRY ROAD,, SUIT--2 2, MILLER PLACE, NY '11764" (516) 331-!,4.55 * CAX ;331-8046 Beachcomber Motel Pmpo~ml for Final EIS We are able to begin this project immexllately and would expect to complete the d~ument within approximately 4-5 weeks o£authohzation to proc~d. Toward thc 3-4 week mark, I will call to s~t up a meeting with thc Platting Board to discuss d~ft responses and firmlize the information r~led for thc Final ElS. '< Thank you for thc oppoctumty to provid~ you with this proposal, and please call it'you have any questions or wish to disc~s this project. Very truly yours, C~I~ ~. Voon~s, CEP, ~dCP CHARLES VOORHi8 SOCIATES INC. ENVI~IONMENTAL. ANt~ ~NNIN,,~i CONSULTANTS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES April 29, 1996 Present were: Absent: Richard G. Ward, Chairman Bennett Orlowski, Jr. G. Ritchie Latham Kenneth Edwards William Cremers Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Melissa Spiro, Planner Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Martha Jones, Secretary Mr. Ward: Good evening. I'd like to call the April 29, 1996 Southold Town Planning Board meeting to order. The first order of business is the setting of the next Planning Board meeting. Board to set Monday, May 20, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at Southold Town Hall, Main Rd., Southold as the time and place for the next regular Planning Board meeting. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: Moved and seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings Mr. Ward: Beachcomber Mol;el II- This proposed site plan is for the expansion of an existing motel through the addition of 46 more units in four new buildings. The project is located on Duck Pond Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & p/o Southold Town Planning Boare 2 April 2 ~96 17. I see that the applicant is here, if they would like to address the Board at this time. Henry Raynor: Good evening Mr. Ward, gentlemen. My name is Henry Raynor, as agent for the Beachcomber. We're here tonight, here is Mr. Glenn Spaetta, of Glenn Spaetta Associates, who had prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which you have been studying before you and if the Board is amenable he has a synopsis that he'd like to present to you this evening and if there are any questions he'd be more than happy to answer those, if you'd like to have the hearing proceed in that manner. Mr. Ward: That's fine. Glenn Spaetta: Good evening. As you can see we have an aerial photo of the property with some overlays of different scenarios for development. As Henry said, rm an environmental consultant. I've been in the field for over 15 years preparing environmental impact statements for various projects, including residential homes and large developments, commercial property as well as for the proposed action. The project originally consisted of 86 units proposed for development to expand the existing motel complex. That was several years ago. A scoping meeting was held. At subsequent discussions after that meeting the project was significantly downsized to include 46 units. These units are four separate buildings and are pictured on the site plan on the aerial photo here. The project involves three separate tax map parcels. One of them is owned by Pond Enterprises, Inc. and that's 2.1 acres, that includes where the existing motel is. The second one is owned by Patricia Krupski and that's 12.3 acres and includes where the cabana and a lot of the cleared area is as well as part of the woods on the property, and the third lot is owned by Nicholas Aliano and is 33.8 acres of which 32 is farm and approximately 1.8 is wooded. For the purposes of the project the lots have been combined together and will have to be, at a later date, merged together for the project. As part of the DEIS process, significant beneficial and adverse facts were discussed. Potential negative impacts of the project were some of the steeper sloped areas on the property and are located on the east of the clearing as well as on the south side of the clearing. Potential nitrogen loading into the Sound was a concern. Water usage, loss of some vegetation on the site, as well as traffic concerns and archeological concerns. Potential beneficial impacts to the project were an increase to local economic Southold Town Planning Bo~ 3 April: 996 concerns, increased tax revenue, approximately $48,000 per year. There will be more jobs created, short term, during construction, as well as an increase in future spending if additional people come to stay at the hotel and spend money in the Town of Southold when they visit wineries as part of tourism and into the local community. Also, the project will retain open space on approximately 43 of the 48 acres, as proposed. The development is concentrated in the resort residential portion of the property; it's broken into resort residential and agricultural conservation. You see the white line that runs through the middle of the property. Mitigating measures were utilized to minimize a potential impact of the project that might have been detrimental. As far as erosion control, the buildings have been re- arranged from the original'proposal out of steep sloped areas so that they're in flat cleared portions of the property. The set backs of the buildings, the closest new one proposed is 110 feet from the bluff and we've avoided with the design of the proposed action, we avoided disrupting natural drainage swales and utilize some of the natural areas to retain the existing drainage patterns on site. The applicant will follow all erosion control guidelines and an erosion control plan will be submitted as part of this project. We've kept the buildings in the vacant cleared areas, as we've said before, that you see on the property. A lot of that is currently mowed and there's a cabana and kind of an open field there right now and it's just north of the woods. Water demands for the project have been investigated and the project was downsized as we've said before, from 86 units to 46 units, and that meets all Suffolk County Department of Health requirements allowable for the 48.2 acres which are being included for this property. The requirement is 14,460 gallons per day and the total project will be at 14,425 gallons per day, so it will meet both New York State DEC as well as Suffolk County Department of Health standards for water demands. The sanitary system will consist of conventional sanitary sewage disposal, septic tanks and leaching pools and will also comply with all Suffolk County Department of Health Article 6 requirements. The applicant investigated salt water intrusion as a potential negative impact and has located the water supply wells back...you'll see two blue spots there near the resort residential and agricultural conservation district line and the wells will be located in that portion of the property and in that way they will not adversely mitigate groundwater supply or create the potential for saltwater intrusion. There will be a very small amount of vegetation lost as a result of the project on the Southold Town Plannir April: 996 eastern side of the property where some of the portions of the property would be cleared just slightly for the expansion of the units. Traffic impacts- approximately 33 trips per hour during the peak traffic hour and that amounts to about one car every two minutes on a Saturday afternoon in that peak hour and the total for the day on a typical Saturday, as a result of the project would probably be about an extra 100 trips per day. What the applicant is proposing is the addition of two stop signs, one at the top of the hill and...that's further to the left Garrett, on Duck Pond Rd., to the left of the red line, further to the left, there's a stop sign at the top of the hill so that when people have to turn right and go down to the beach they'll come to a complete halt. And also at the intersection of Vista Place and Birch Lane, so that they'll be traffic control in both of those directions. The Cutchogue Fire Department has requested that the applicant put in a 400 gallon per minute firewell on the property and the applicant has located that on the east side of the property and that meets with their requirements. Several alternatives to the project were investigated and the first one would be no action. No action would be as the site is now, with just the motel units and cabanas there. A second alternative was looked at, this was considered alternative B which also clustered units on the property, but left two units back on the farmed portion of the property but within the resort residential zoning. And you can see approximately the way that would look. That was alternative B that was investigated and the applicant feels that the proposed alternative is better than that one. The third alternative looked at in addition to no action and that one you just saw, was clustering the units in a U-shaped formation in that cleared portion of the property- and you see the way that looks. And again, you can see by these overlays that most of the property is again staying vacant and clear and all of the development really takes place in the cleared portion of the property as it exists now. And again, this is an alternative that was proposed and not preferred by the applicant. Matters to be decided, as far as the Town of Southold, before the project can proceed, a denial of the project has to be given by the Building Department in order to be considered for special exception by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals would then have to make a decision as to whether or not to allow the resort residential zoning by special exception. The code permits each unit, 6,000 square feet, to be constructed. And so it allows for 6,000 square foot units by special exception. The Planning Board would also have to approve the site plan prior to it going forward. The Building Department would have to approve the design and finally the Highway Department would have to approve the stop signs that would go into place. Southold Town Planning Boa~ 5 April 996 Suffolk County Department of Health Services would also have to review the water supply and approve the system as well as the waste water for the project. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation would also have to approve the well permit and also the applicant would need to receive a non-jurisdiction letter for the tidal wetlands because it is close to it but it is outside the wetlands area. So, as you can see, an extensive review has been prepared and a DEIS has addressed concerns and issues of not only the Board but of other agencies as well that were involved in the comment period. At this point in time the applicant feels that the proposed action will have the most value not only to the Town of Southold but as well as makes the most economic sense for him at this time. With that, we'd be happy to open up for any questions that you might have. Mr. Ward: The Planning Board has two major concerns. One, is that the applicant going back a number of years, when he got a zone change, requested the zone change to move the existing motel back because the shoreline conditions kept undermining the motel and that the whole rationale for giving the zone change was to move the existing motel back so it would be out of the tidal and wave action along the shoreline. That alternative has not been addressed. That has to be addressed in this determination on your SEQRA review here. Secondly, the Board cannot understand how this project can be done as three separate holdings. They all work with one another. I don't believe we can really approve a project without knowing that it's under one ownership or one common ownership. Those are our two major concerns today. There have been other concerns raised by the community, but those are two major things we'd like to see addressed in detail in the environmental impact statement. Mr. Spaetta: We agree with you on the combining of the parcels, and that needs to be done. Right now they're all individual parcels. We mentioned up front that that needs to be done in order for the project to proceed, rm sure that the applicant is willing to do that. it requires some additional steps that need to be taken. As far as the removal of the existing units, that does create some economic hardship since the units are currently operating and are viable and that was addressed in the environmental impact statement as to remove the units now while they're still operating and still able to. generate income, does create some difficulty for the applicant. We would be happy though to expand on that and address that further. Mr. Ward: Yes, we're requesting that. Are there any questions? Anybody here that would like to address the Board on this particular project at this time, you can do that if you wish. I know some of you were here at the last hearing. Southold Town Planning BoaO 6 April 2 996 Rich Spellman: At the last hearing, I asked the question, having lived here not a tremendous amount of time, about nine years. To my recollection, and other people can speak for this too, I don't think I've ever seen at any given time any more than 25% of those units ever filled. And my question is, and I still don't understand it, if there's no more than 25% of those units filled, why double the number of units? That's the basic question and I haven't heard that explained. Maybe it doesn't have to be addressed at this point, I don't know, but it's a common sense question and I'd just like to get some sort of an answer to that question. Mr. Ward: Would the applicant like to address that? Nick Aliano: My name is Nick Aliano. I'm the owner of Pond Enterprises, the Krupski parcel, which is my daughters, and the Aliano parcel, so that's the three parcels. As far as what the business has been doing, or not doing, I don't think that's anybody else's business but mine. I have reasons why it's not doing well now. The water comes up to the motel units now. And one more big storm and I'll get wiped out altogether. And my main purpose 10 years ago when I made this application, was to be protected that if it does hit, I can build right away. I won't have to go through 10 years of this nonsense that we're going through now. So, the fact that it's not doing well has nothing to do with anybody else but me. And I have plans for this property. I wouldn't be here spending money for 10 years if I didn't. That's all I have to say about it. Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board this evening? Kip Bedetl: I live on Duck Pond Rd. I just have a question. Does the applicant own the property all the way to Oregon Rd.? Mr. Aliano: I do own property to Oregon Rd. Mr. Bedell: Again, i'm very concerned about the traffic on Duck Pond Rd. This gentleman mentioned that there's going to be a car every minute, or something like that, in the season and this is a dead end road, it's a residential area... Mr. Aliano: I'm there 25 years, and I feel like a Johnny-come-lately. I'm there 26 years to be exact. And the fact that I have property on Oregon Road and I have frontage on Oregon Road ... Mr. Bedell: What I'm saying is that I feel that this project is going to create far too much traffic on a dead end residential road and I think that if this should even be considered by the Board, there should be a private road that runs up to this motel and by-pass Duck Pond Road altogether. Southold Town Planning Boa April 2~996 Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board this evening? Tom Menginele: I also live on Duck Pond Road. My concern is what can happen in the future to where this site is going to be. Let's say it sells, can it become something else, maybe a half-way house or a rehabilitation center? Because you know it is in a residential area, and that's my concern. Mr. Aliano: Well, now we've got it going for what we want to use it for. If other uses that you're talking about would be something else I'd have to go into. That would be a whole new ball game. Mr. Menginele: Well, let's just say it sold, would this have to come before the Zoning Board again? Mr. Ward: Well, it would depend on what it was, but normally if it's a use that's not allowed within the zone, it would have to go for either a zone change, which would be the Town Board, or a special exception which would be the Zoning Board of Appeals. There would be other hearings, it wouldn't just happen. Mr. Menginele: And the way the zoning is right now for building, if in effect these buildings do get erected, can there be an add on? Or the way the zoning is right now is it certain buildings per amount of acreage? Mr. Ward: It sounds like right now the controlling factor happened to be the Health Deparl. ment. I guess they had an application in for more units. Based on the amount of property that's here they would be allowed to build more units under the zoning category here, but at this particular junction they're going along, I guess, with what Health Services will allow in terms of their capacity. Mr. Menginele: And also, just one other point. Outside of the stop signs, because I did see that in the environmental impact, is there any other kind of alterations that are going to be made to the roads or...because right now you have no shoulder on those roads going down there. You go two feet off the road, you're either in a gully or into a tree. During the season, we do use the beaches out in front there and if a car comes, there's very little room. I was just wondering if that's being taken into consideration or even thought about? Mr. Ward: It will be looked at. Anyone else? Barbara Rickel: I live on Vista Place. I've lived there for 20 some odd years. I'm sorry, I just came in. I teach a~ the community college and we had a late meeting, so I don't know exactly what's been said but I want just to put on record that I'm totally Southold Town Planning 8 April 2~996 opposed to this expansion. I think it's detrimental to our neighborhood. It's detrimental to the environment. It doesn't consider the needs of the people in the area and I see no reason for it. There's not a lot of use of that area, and when people do come, there is no policing in how they walk through our neighborhood, leave garbage and are inconsiderate. They let their dogs and their children roam all over our yards. I have found motel people using my swing set. I don't understand that. We need to be protected. I think that is a waste of everyone's effort to even consider the proposal. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board? Does the applicant have anything else further that they would like to present? Mr. Aliano: I don't have anything else to say except that the Town itself saw fit to add, before I made an application, to add about six or seven acres to the back of my motel, just like that, without me going to the Town, it was just re-zoned for six or seven more acres. Now, I ask just another six acres and all this fuss...well, I got the other six acres, but, I have nothing else to say, unless you have another question. Mr. Ward: Anyone else on the Board? If not, all in order to close the hearing. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Orlowski: Second. Mr. Ward: Moved and seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Carried. Just a note that the public comment period will run until May 9, 1996, and the Board may make a decision at the May 20 meeting whether to accept the DEIS or require a Final Environmental Impact Statement. So, those that are interested in following this, May 20 would be a meeting then that you may like to attend. Thank you all for coming. Mr. ~~e Stvoe- T ~ saF . arce[Tt6~ an existing 34 acre Pa~Or~nd Alvah's La. in Cutchogue. S~~t's the pleasure of the~..~ Southold Town Planning I 17 April 8, 1996 that next step, is t6'what's happening and what restrictio_.~qs~e~:ii be for making sure there isn't the cut through of a road and things 9f~t'§ort. Mr. Croteau: Dick, I also took t~Jiber~to.s, upply everybody on Grange Road with the information as well, even though they weren;~ all considered receivers of neighbor notices, so we wi!.[ be-fi~ touch with them on the rest. Mr.~m:~: OK, fine. Mr. Ward: Beachcomber Motel II - This proposed site plan is for the expansion of an existing motel through the addition of 46 more units in four new buildings. The project is located on Duck Pond Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & p/o 17. We have a problem, I believe, with the posting on this particular site and I'd like to enter a resolution that the Southold Town Planning Board keep the hearing held open until the next public meeting on April 29, 1996 pending further notification of property owners. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Also, be it further resolved that the public comment period will be held open until May 9, 1996. Mr. Cremers: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. There are some of you that did come tonight and what rd like to do is give you a chance to go on record if you have any comments regarding the Beachcomber proposal. You're welcome to do that tonight and you're also welcome to do that on the 29th when we have the next meeting. Barbara Rickel: I'm Barbara Rickel, Vista Place. My concern is that, I flipped through that huge report and there seem to be serious environmental concerns. It was Duck Pond Point. It is the home of the birds and someone, in my opinion, stupidly filled in Southoid Town Planning E 18 April 8, 1996 the Duck Pond and put the motel there and now we're faced with increased destroying of the environment. I secondly want to make sure that everyone realizes that the environment is beyond the birds and the people. That is a very dangerous corner. Increased traffic will cause...we've had several dogs killed, I'd hate to think about children being killed on that corner. What about the increased pressure on our homes, valuewise, and also people from the motel tend to roam around our neighborhood. What is the Town willing to promise us in police support, fire protection, all those kinds of things. Litter increases during the summer because people wander around our neighborhood, and I think that although Mr. Aliano has the right to develop his property, we have a right to protect our investments and I think this is very damaging to our environment and where we live. It is a family community, and to open it up to 46 more units of a motel brings a lot of danger to all of us. Thank you. Fran Slezak: Hi, my name is Fran Slezak. I live on Alvah's Lane in Cutchogue. I walk the beach in that area. I was not notified of this because I'm not in the immediate area, but I did see the sign and I felt compelled to come here tonight because I too am very concerned about the environment, t he beach erosion. In the summer time I have called the police department and the highway department 3 or 4 times, because cars have pulled trailers with jetskis onto the beach there. These were people who maybe were staying at the motel, or not staying at the motel, I don't know. But I was concerned that they were there. I have seen when the motel was closed, hunters with beagles on the grounds, shooting rabbits with homes in the neighboring area. That concerned me greatly. There is no place for the people who live in the area, when we go down there in the summer time to walk along the beach, the non-residents cars are parked all the way along that road, all the way up to Duck Pond. I think it's invasion of a community. I think that you really have to consider the people who live there. The dirt that's left on the side...there's a road that comes from Duck Pond down to the water and it's the edge of the Beachcomber...the filth that's left there. I have seen the feet of deer left there in the fall when the motel is closed. I'm not blaming the motel, but I'm saying a lot of people come there, they're aware that it's a dead end area, they leave things there, and it's just disgusting. I can't tell you how many times the barrier there has been pushed down by people because the barrier was there they couldn't drive their car on the beach to get to jetski so they moved it over and they carried the jetski there. I couldn't believe it with my eyes. These are non- residents. Southold Town Planning 19 April 8, 1996 So, I'm very concerned about what's going to happen when you increase it to 46 units. I'm already upset with seeing the changes that have happened. The dirt, the garbage, the food left on the beach. If you walk on the beach a mile down in either direction, the people have left. Who is going to go and pick that stuff up? I have picked it up. I've called the Town to say, hey there's stuff here. Very often the water just naturally comes up very high on the sand. The natural erosion is not..J mean if you put more people, more boats...l've seen motorcycles riding on the beach. Who's going to monitor this. When I called the police department one time because somebody had come with a jetski and...when the jetski people come, they come with one jetski and there are five carloads of people, and they all take their turn and ride the jetski. I've seen the jetski with nobody on it going in circles because they fell off. I thought it was supposed to close off automatically? It didn't. Well, that frightened me because there were people and children in the water. And it's a limited beach area because of all the natural rocks and all the natural stones that are there that when these other people are there who are with the motel or not with the motel, I'm just saying that a lot of people come to the motel that are familiar with the area, then they come back. And the local people can't even get down there because all their cars are parked along the road, not in the motel, in those places. So, how are we going to monitor this. How are we going to...when I called the police one time they said, well, we'll try to get down there but we have a lot of other areas. Their hands are tied. They've got a lot of places to go. I think it's a major concern and I think we really have to look at it because it's a community there and I think the Town people are concerned about it. And I just happened to see the sign because I walk the beach every day. Thank you. Mr. Ward: We have a lot of street ends and we have similar problems really all over the Town during the spring, summer and fall. The issue that will be before us though on the 29th will be directly related to the Beachcomber proposed expansion. What we will do is take these comments and make sure that the Town Board and police department at least are aware of these concerns. Ms. Slezak: There's not even a sign there that says only for Town residents. Is that because the motel is there? Almost every other dead end street in Southold has a sign that says parking for Town residents. This does not even have that. It does not even have a sign there. Mr. Ward: Which maybe means there is no parking, but I don't know the situation. Ms. Slezak: No, it says no parking hours between 10 and 10, but I'm saying every other place you go down it says Town of Southold sticker. And I think there is a direct correlation between what's happening there with the expansion. I think there's Southold Town Planning 2O April 8, 1996 going to be more people, more cars traveling down there, rm very concerned about it. Thank you. Gerald Waits: My name is Gerald Waits. rm here on behalf of the North Fork Environmental Council. We do have some concerns concerning this project and I'm here to read a statement. The DEIS for the Beachcomber expansion evaluates the project as existing on three separately owned parcels of land rather than on one merged tract of land. The North Fork Environmental Council is concerned about how this approach may or may not impact future development of these parcels beyond the proposed Beachcomber II project. Since part of the SEQRA review calls for an anticipation of a project's possible impact on future development, we feel that a number of questions should be addressed. 1. What are the implications beyond this project if the separate parcels are later sold off? 2. Parcel #3 includes almost 30 acres presently zoned Agricultural-Conservation. According to the DEIS, this land would no longer be farmed but instead would be left fallow in order to provide the project with an adequate water supply. Without Covenants and Restrictions, does leaving this land dormant increase the likelihood of it being re-zoned for development at some future date? 3. The existing 36 motel units are presently located on Parcel 1 consisting of 2.1 acres. The normal allowable density for this parcel, however, would be 14.5 units. If the three parcels are not merged, is the Beachcomber complex, in effect, getting an extra 20 units? In other words, should public water later become available and/or further down the road yet another expansion is planned for parcel 2 or parcel 3, would parcel one's 36 units be factored into the whole picture? 4. The Beachcomber DEIS mitigates a number of SEQRA issues (traffic, burden on community services, etc.) by highlighting the "seasonal" nature of the Beachcomber complex. What safeguards are there ensuring that Beachcomber will remain seasonal? For that matter (given the recent confusion over the definition of a "parking space") how exacting is the Town's definition of "seasonal"? Lastly, the NFEC would like to cite Chapter 37 of Town Law which gives the Southold Town the responsibility to "regulate in coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and erosion, land use and development activities so as to minimize or prevent damage and destruction to property." In keeping with this law, in 1978 the Planning Board supported a change of zone on Parcel 2 so that Mr. Aliano could "move the motel and facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion." However, although presumably the change of zone was granted for this Southold Town Planning B 21 April 8, 1996 purpose, this move has never taken place. As recently as April 23, 1992 the Trustees have also advised that the existing motel should be moved at least fifty feet back. As per Chapter 37 of Town Law, shouldn't Southold see to it that this move of the existing motel be included in the Beachcomber project and thus accounted for in the DEIS? Thank you. Ms. Scopaz: Could we have a copy of your comments? Mr. Waits: Yes. Mr. Ward: Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board this evening? Tom Mangimele: I'm Tom Mangimele, I live on Duck Pond Rd. My piece of property is on the bluff that overlooks the Beachcomber. On the busiest week-end in the summer, Memorial Day, there's not more than six cars in that parking lot. What's the need for the expansion? What's the need? My concern is what's going to happen further on down the road? It doesn't look like the motel business is making it there. The place needs a paint job, the curtains are ripped, you can see it from the street. What's going to happen in the future? Can it be turned into a rehab center? That's my concern. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Anyone else? Yes sir. Kip Bedell: I live on Duck Pond Rd. We've lived there three years now and we moved into what is essentially a dead end street, there's no outlet. And we felt that it would be a pretty quiet road down there and we were very surprised actually with how much traffic is really there. As Tom mentioned, there really are not a lot of cars usually at the Beachcomber Motel, but certainly it does increase the traffic in the summer time when there are people there and also people that use the beach, there are fishermen that use the beach. I can't even imagine the increase of 46 units, which means at least one car, meaning at least once a day they're going to be going somewhere and coming back. And more than likely they're going to be going multiple times leaving the motel to do something and come back again. And every time, they have to come up and down Duck Pond Rd. We did have a cat killed right in front of our house and l just can't imagine on this dead end road that increase in the traffic that much. t think it would be very bad. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board this evening? Southold Town Planning 22 April 8, 1996 Rich Spellman: t live on Duck Pond Rd. I have an adjacent piece of property right in back of Tom, in between Kip and Tom. My concerns are from a business perspective. It's the same question that Tom has asked. What do they justify creating 46 units to a business that on face value does not seem to have more than 10% of those units at any given time, filled now. And if they were going to be required to move those units back, and you can see what the erosion has done, they put the cement wall up there, why didn't they do that before considering this other move? I only received my notice Saturday so I really didn't have a chance, I will go and look at the library, I understand there's a binder with all the information. But I thought there was something like 130 on the sound, maybe I'm wrong. I didn't know there were just 30. I heard 30 quoted but I thought there were more than that because there are about three buildings there. The total units that are at the existing Beachcomber Motel? Ms. Scopaz: There's 36 units and three apartments existing on the site and they are proposing to add an additional 46. Mr. Spellman: Alright, then rm incorrect. So, there's about 40 some odd units there now and they're going to add another 46, so they're essentially doubling the size of the units. I can't help but ask myself is there a hidden agenda here? There are 46 units that are not filled, I would be willing to bet you if you look at their books, not more than 25% of those units during the summer time are filled at any given night. Why do they need 46 more units? And especially when the place itself is deteriorated, rve been there nine years now and it has deteriorated significantly over the time rve been there, the maintenance. So those are just the questions I ask. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board? If not, this hearing will be continued on the 29th and you're certainly welcome to come back. I'm sure the applicant, at that particular time will have some responses to some of these questions and the Board also has some concerns that we'd like to have addressed. So, we thank you for coming. MAJO~ MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, LOT LINE CHANGES AND APPLICATIONS~ ...... ~., ..... Mr. Ward: Bar~-'This proposed minor~on is for 2 lots on 4.99 acres located apP[°ximately 1,450 feet north of M~m Rd. on~- located 2,600 feet PI..,ANNIN¢.~ BOARD M]EMB~ RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATI-IAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWAP,~S Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 25, 1996 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel Cutchogue, NY 11935 SCTM# 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor, The planning Board has received a cost estimate of $500.00 from their Environmental Consultant for a review of the revised DEIS recently received from Glen D. Spetta Associates. The above mentioned sum must be paid in full before we can authorize our consultant to proceed with the review. The check should be made out to the Town of Southold. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact this office. Site Plan Reviewer Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold plsnnlng Board Town l-Isll. 53095 Msln Road P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, NY 11971 RE: Beachcomber Motel II Review ofDraR EIS Dear Mr. Ward:: April 126, 1995 We have completed our review of the above referenced Drafr ElS. This review is compl~ i= ozd~ to d~ern~-zo that ',.he basic content of the Draft ElS is con,stent with *,ho ~opi~ ou'-!ir.~ a~d meetia~ held with regard to the proposed project. In addition, review has been conducted to determine the adequacy of the document for rater-agency and public rewew m accordance with Drat ElS procedures contained in SEQRA Pan 617. First, I would like to point out that the site design of the project has been significantly amended to address previous concerns. The Board issued a Positive Declaration based on this and a number of issues including disturbance of steep slopes, water supply, conformance with Article 6 of the Sanitary Code, intended use of other lends and how the project fits in the context of other lands, traffic and other less significant issues. Since that time, the proposed number of units has been reduced from 86 units ia S buildings to 46 units ia 4 bulldiaffs. Units have ~ moved from th~ sreas with tha steepest slopei, and mitiffstion of slope impacts are proposed. Therefore st this time, I believe it is important to have the Drait ElS submission complete, ia order to maintain the option that if there are no substantive comments on the Draft HIS, and the Board is sstisfied with tbe ~ design plan, there could be an opportunity to issue a Negative Declaration based on the Drat~ EIS st the close of the comment period. This would forego the Final ElS process and could save considerable time for the applicant. With this in mind, I offer the following comments. Once these comments are iacorporsted into the document, I believe the ElS will be complete and adequate for decision making, provided there are no additional substantive comments from the Planning Board, involved agencies or the public, thai would requlr~ response ia a Final EIS. Comments provided are referenced to the appropriate page number oftha DraR ElS. In addition, all review comments made ia reference to the SEQR Scopt~ng C~t, specifically refers to that ehaeldist a~ "Amended February 22, 1993 Including Sc~piag Meeting Issues." ~m~general comment, since there was never any verbal mentic~ in the DEI5 of permanent or ry structures cz the existing farm, and since Figur~ 1-2 depicts a squa~-like structure din~y on the area of property desil~*t~ as farmland, it would b~ helpful if a ~ details wero provided that place additional dtmmnds ca t~e prolx~d action's overall sanitary d~ign flow as rda~d to compliance with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary If it i~ ind~xl the in~ _,~ic~ of the applicant to continue 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 · (516) 331-1455 "FAX 331-8046 3. Pag~ I-S of the DEIS, C., ~ line 2, there is a misspelled word 1~ 3-13 of~h~ DE~S for more information. TI,~ Description of the PrOlX~l Project ~ection ~hould provide de~;l* n~ce~y to add,ass th~ NYSDEC ~viow lett~ of Docembor 7, 1992 (included in Appendix I)-53) or i~;o~,~ ~ incorpora~ into the project tl~t may nd,~ress NYSDEC ~vaente. Page 1-7 of thc DEIS, wl~t is p~ly ~ted as "(~i~Fe 7- )' should be recorded as (Figure 7-1). Additionally on this page, 3., what is cited as "(Figure 7- )' shonld be _t~'/,__nied as (Figure 7-2). Page 2-1 of the DEIS, refe~ to 30.8 acres of farmland; however, othea- porl~om of the docummt refer to 32 aores of farmland. Tlzis dis~- ~pancy should be corrected. Pa~ 2-6, Table 2-2 - ~ in the DEIS, do~ no~ addre~ atl the requests ~_~ in Ra~ "Design & Layout' soction of the Amended Scoping Chec, klist. T',~ document, und~ 3., ~ a., Pavement Area. it is all, cult to detennim if th~ pavod area, as li~ed by ~h~ pre~u~ ,,,,~t-,. ]~la~] l,tlad_~i~' (o~ pago 2-6), refer~ specifically to site coverago, ff this paved area of 0.4 acros (0.8% of the sitO doea ~ re~' to the nmnb~r of part-in~ sta~ (103) ~ above it, i~-e~e no~ it as such. d,we, lopma~ in o~l~n' to ~ly with A~tic. l~ 6 of th~ Suffolk County Sanitary Code,, unless publk: water is ~l~lkd or a ~ag~ ~ plant is cc~tmc~ 10. TI~'- A~Drovnl~ section, pa~ 2-12 of tl~ DEIS doe~ n,~t co&form with the request as noted in ~h~ /un. dod Scopin~ Cl~cklisL Pkaso indioata ~ pt~h_~_e of ~ p~flllitl. In 2aaltifln~ ~ application was p~fli,$ with thc NYSDEC in 1993. ~itx activiti~ appear to still b~ in NYSDEC jurisdi~on, yet NYSDEC is n~t ~ as a permtting age~'y. 11. 12. On pa~ 3-13 of tho DEIS _(~t__ __,_-,~ of pa~), tmmion is ~,.,*A~ of a dtinklng wator well that Ix~m~ salty and wizre, "'~ salmaU~ inteffa~ is n,X at a great dapth." ~nis well should bo id~ntif~d --~ ~ny ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS Pa~e2 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 15. 19. 20. occun'ence? A basic plan of actioa nhoukl b~ stated. of an aste~ - *) that red fox was "Ide~tited m Site." This infornmti~n is not consistmt and simuid t~ corrected accordi~y. Page 3-47 ~f thc DEIS, 3., c., F~ Protectic~ ret~rs to a _L~__~ provided by tl~ ~ Fir~ District ar~. is inadeq,,,,*,~ to handl6 fl~at many units and witlx~t a sit~ plan wo mmnot ,~*,*~,,;,-- ~ ~ study." Please provid~ a oopy of th~ si~ plan to fl~ C~ Fire Departm~ and ut~-*~ the DEIS would be in lt~ range of 3.? pounds/day, sad with active far~i-~ it would be 10.? pounds/day. elevated nitro~cn in relation to water supply and dischm~e to sttr~ water. CHARLES V~/i~SOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS Pa~e3 R~ew ~Dr~ m 21. 23. Page 4-10 og ~h~ DI:-I.~, c., F~ Pr~ pleaso olaborat~ (otl~r lima just ciiin~ a correspomtmee ia · e ~ppe~ix) m the 'c~m~r~' of ~he Cutchosue F~ Deparammt. 25. farmln~ This section should also imt;,...t~, that as mitigation, the applicant will not conduct addi~ development (m the 48.2 ~mre sit~ unlil public water is availabla or a sewa~ treaimm~ plant is where discretion in the cperagon ofthe system is req~ (ix. altern.l.e well pumpin~ et~.). 27. Th~ Adverse Enviromnental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided se~ion oflt~ DF. IS (pa~ 6-1), do~ ~ot spec~cally mmtioa the l~s 0/'0.2 ~ ~ relalivoly m~u-o Uees for~ purpo~s o~well ~0amsi~ 28. the text of the Draft EIS for resubmissioa to the Planning Board. The r6~iew of the revised document would be expedited ii'the preparer could submit a roviewers copy, notin~ the specific ~reas where the documem has been amemted to address these comments. Onc~ the~ comments m~ As noted, if tl~re are no substamive comments on the Draft ElS, and the Board is satisfied wit~ the site plan, there is a possibility to issue a Negative Declaration based on the vacepted Draft ElS. Please feel free to ~ i/'you have any questions. Charles J. Voorkis, CF.P, AICP ENVIRONMEN~G CONSULTANTS Pa~e 4 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Oflowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 19, 1995 Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, New York i17~4 Re: Review of DEIS for Beachcomber Motel Site Plan SCTM #1000-083-2-1 Dear Mr. Voorhis: Under separate cover, the Southold Town Planning Board referred the Environmental Impact Statement for the above mentioned site plan to your office for review. The Planning Board has received the $1,000.00 review fee from the applicant. The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. If there are any questions, please contact Planning Staff. Very truly yours, Richard G. -Ward SERVI:~T~tR® April 6, 1995 Robert G. Kammer Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P,O, Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Beachmmer ~ I am in receipt of your letter of April 3, 1995 regardi~ the above referenced project In addition, I have briefly reviewed the subject Draft ElS to determine the cost to determine the adequacy arid completeness of this doaunent for public review. The proposed pro'F~t and consequently the document involves a great deal of histo~ and technical content. In/t/al review for acceptance is intended to determine if the document addresses those items in the scoping checklist and the format and content necessary to comprise a complete ~ E~S. Accordingly, the fee schedule will reflect a more detailed review initially. As in the past, ff revisions are required after in/fia! review for acceptance, the lead agency must review each subsequent subml-r, sion to determine the document has been amended accordingly. We would be pleased to assist in such reviews. Upon acceptance, the Planning Board and other involved agencies have the opportunity to review the document i~ greater detail for content and accuracy. Upon acceptance, we would propose to conduct a more detailed review on behalf of the Planmng which would incorporate contact w/th other agencies and documentation of references and .sources to determln.e the accuracy of the doo~ment in nnnly,zlna environmental Impacts. If substanHve comments are generated during this review, these would be addressed in the Finnl EIS. The following schedule of fees h proposed: 1) Initial Review fo~ Acceptam~ $1000.00 2) Sub~e~lt~*~* Re~ev~ fo~ A_ce~_ _-prance (if,~e. ssa~y) .~o0.o0 3) Critical Review After Accel~ance 750.00 In terms of a time schedule, the Board has between 30 and 60 days to review the document for ...Acceptance,. i~. accordance with SEQ .RA. I believe it would be dlf6cult to meet the deadline .of pro~ _d~ag the Board with a review in sufficient time before May 1, to allow for a.determin.a..tion of.completeness at the May l, 1995 planning Board meeting. We are always interested m serving your needs, and will do evetythiag necessary to meet this Ps~ 1 o~2 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 tln~ frame if absolutely nzcessary. However, I would advise that s~]fflcient time be provided in accordance with the law for an adequate_ review, with tlnu~ alotted for the plonnln~ Board to discuss our review letter prior to m~ing a determination. Plea~ roviow this corl'e~pollld~liC~ alld advise me if you require allythln~ further. I will await your authorization pr[or to commencing this review. lC]~rles j. Voorhis, CEP, AICP CRAMER, V~ ~SOCIATES ENVIRONMENTJ~~G CONSULTANTS Pag~ 2 of 2 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr, Mad( S. McDonald Kenneth L, Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P, O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 11, 1995 Henry Raynor Raynor Surer Hardware 320 Love Lane MattJtuck. NY 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel Cutchogue. NY SCTM 31000-83-1-1. 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor. The Planning Board has received a cost estimate of $1.000.00 from their Environmental Consultant for an initial review for acceptance of your clients D.raft ElS. The above mentioned sum must be paid in full by your client before we can authorize our consultant to proceed with the review. The check should be made out to the Town of Southold. If you have any questions, or require fur~ther information, please contact this office. Site Plah Rewewer ENVIRONMENT"~G CONSULTANTS P~ April 6, 1995 Roben G. Knssner Southold Planning Board Office Town la'nil. 53095- Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Beachcom~r Motel SC'I'M No. 10004~2-1 Review of prolx~.xi Draft ElS Dear Bob: I am in receipt, of your. letter of April 3, 1995 regarding the .a~ov~ referenced project. In addition, I have briefly revaewed ~e subject Draft ElS t.o de~rm,ne the cost to determine the adequacy and completeness of th~s document for public review. The proposed project and consequently the doo~ment involves a great deal of history and technical content. Ini_~! review for acceptance is intended to determine if the doo~ment addresse,? those items in the scop/ng check..' t and the format and ~..ntent necessa_qt t.o compnse.a complete Draft ElS...Accord.mgly, the fee schedule will reflect a more der_re!ed review initially. As in the past, ff revisions are required after initial review for acceptance, the lead agency must re.vi.'ew each subsequent subrni.~sion to determine the docmment has been amended accordingly. We would be pleased to assist in such reviews. Upon acceptance, the Planning Board and other involved agencies have the opportunity to review the document in greater detail for content and accuracy. Upon acceptance, we would propose to conduct a more detailed review on behalf of the Plnnnln~ Board, which would incorporate contact with other agencies and documentation of references and .sources to determine the accuracy of the document in a~.~!yzing. env/ronmental unpacts. If substantive comments are generated during this review, these would be addressed in the Finni ElS. The following schedule of fees is proposed: 2) Sul~,qmmt Reviews for (~ =e~-y) ~oo.oo 3) Criticai R~view After Acceptance 750.00 In terms of a time schedule, the Board has between 3.0. and 60 days to review the doca~ment for ..A. cceptance, ~ accordance with SEQRA. I believe it would be difficult to meet the dendhne of providing the Board w/th a review in snfficient time before May 1, to allow for a determination of.completeness at the May 1, 1995 .P.I~ Board meeting. We are always interested in serving your needs, and wili do everything necessary to meet this l~ 1 o~2 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 time frame if absolutely necessary. However, I would advise that snt~cient time be provided in accor,t~nce with the law for an adequa~ review, with time alotted for the Planning Board to discuss our review letter prior tomaking a determination Please review this COlTes~ndence alld advise me ff you require anything further. I will await your authorization pnor to COmmenCillg this review. v~ ~y.yo~, .? ~l;s J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP E N VI. O N M E N T%'~dSI~IG CONSULTANTS Pag~ 2 of 2 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Fax (516) 765-9136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 3, 1995 Charles Voorhis Cramer. Voorhis & Associates 54-2 North Country Road Miller Place. NY 11764 RE: Beachcomber Motel SCTM# 1000-83-2-1 Dear Mr. Voorhls. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the above referenced Site Plan was received by this office on March 30. 1995. Please send an estimate for the cost of reviewing this document for completeness. After receiving written authorization from this office. proceed with your review, The Planning Board would like to make a determination of completeness (or incompleteness) at its May 1. 1995, meeting, if possible, It would be appreciated if you could indicate if you can can meet this deadline when you send us your review estimate, If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Site Plan Reviewer Enc. 1050 SMITHTOWN AVENUE P.O. BOX 94 BOHEMIA, NY 11716 (516) 567-5859 GLENN SPETTA ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS · ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND ANALYSES · COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT · ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS · AQUATIC AND BENTHIC SURVEYS March 28, 1995 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Valerie Scopaz Town Planner Subject: DEIS for the Beachcomber Motel II Cutchogue, New York Reference: Letter from Richard Ward, Planning Board Chairman, to Henry Raynor dated February 23, 1993· Dear Ms. Scopaz: In accordance with the referenced letter and SEQR scoping checklist, seven (7) copies of the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) are enclosed and submitted to the Planning Board to determine completeness for acceptance. Please contact me on 951-5271 if you have any questions or comments in this regard· Sincerely, GDS cc: N. Aliano P. Grosser S. Hyman R. Kalin H. Raynor [mm:c:Beachcomber: L-95 -003] PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Wand, Chairman George Ritchie Lathara, Jr. Bennett Orlowslcl, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTY L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 January 28, 1994 Charles Voorhis Cramer, Voorhis & Associates 54-2 North Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Beachcomber Motel SCTM9 1000-83-2-1 Dear Mr. Voorhis: As you know the above applicant is in the process of preparing his DEIS. In reviewing the file I see that as an original condition of Planning Board support for the zone change the motel was to be moved back from the Sound due to severe beach erosion. In reviewing the scoping session outline and Ms. Scopaz's notes I do not see where the move of the motel was addressed at the scoping session? I would appreciate your advice on the procedure for including this item in the DEIS. Site Plan Reviewer Encls. FEB 8 PUBLIC HEARING CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION #238 April 11, 1978 - NICHOLAS ALIANO & PATRICIA KRUPSKI A public hearing was held by the Southold Town Board at the~ Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, on April 11, 1978 on the application of Nicholas Aliano & Pa~ricia Krupski for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "M-I" Multiple Residence District on property located at Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, New York.~ Present at the hearing were: Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia Councilman James Homan Councilman Henry W. Drum Justice Martin Surer Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Absent: Councilman William R. Pell, 3rd and Justice Francis T. Doyen Councilman Drum read the notice of hearing as follows: Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, public hearings will be held by the Southold Town Board at the Southotd Town Hall, Main Road,,Southold, New York, in said Town on the llth day of April, 1978, on the following proposal to amend the Building Zone Ordinance (including the Building Zone Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York: 8:00 P.M. by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M-i" Multiple Residence District the property of Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski, situated at Cutchogue, New York, and more particularly bounded and described as~ follows: BEGINNING at a monument at the intersection of the easterly line of Duck Pond Road and the southerly line of Duck Pond Road which monument is distant North 29© 50' 50" East 213.08 feet from the northwesterly corner of lands of N. Aliano; thence from said point of beginning running North 52© 31' 10" East partly through lahds of N. Aliano and Patricia Krupski to lands of R. Hammel; thence along said lands of R. Hammel and J. Zuhoski the following two (2) courses and distances: (1) South 45° 52' 40" East 39.06 feet; and (2) South 46© 17' 50" East 367.21 feet; thence from said point running along lands of Aliano et ano. South 43° 42' 10" West 946.44 feet to lands of Fellinger-Ihar; thence along said last mentioned lands North 42° 01' 40" West 465.90 feet to the southerly side of Duck Pond Road; thence along the southerly side of Duck Pond Road North 29© 50' 50" East 213/08 feet to the monument at the point or place of beginning. Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. DATED: March 14, 1978 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK COUNCILb~N DRU~: PUBLIC HEARING CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION 238 April 11, 1978 - NICHOLAS ALIANO & FATRICIA KRUPSKI COUNCILMAN DRUM: We have proof of notice of publication from the Suffolk Weekly Times, notarized March 24, 1978, and proof of notice of publication from the Long Island Traveler Watchman, notarized March 24, 1978. We have an affidavit from Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk that this has been posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board at the Town Clerk's Office, Main Road, Southold, New York. We have received a letter from the Planning Board, Town-of Southold, dated March 13, 1978, to the Southold Town Board: Gentlemen: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board at a regular meeting held on January 30, 1978: RESOLVED.to recommend to the Southold Town Board approval of the petition of Nicholas Alia~o & Patricia Krupski, Case No. 238 for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "bl-l" General Multiple Residence District on property located at Cutchogue, New York in view of the fact that it is apparent that thee petitioner must move the motel and facilities back from the Sound as a result of ~ubstantial loss of beach through erosion. The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance with the development plan of the Town of Southold for this location. /s/ Muriel Brush, Secretary We have received a letter from the Suffolk County Department of Planning, dated March 1, 1978 to the Southold Town Board: On the petitioner Aliano vs. Krupski. Gentlemen: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the above captioned application which has been referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination. The d&cision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. /s/ Lee Koppelman Director of Planning SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: I woUld like to make a correction of the preceding letter. I believe you indicated that the petitioner was Aliano vs. Krupski. It is Aliano and Krupski. COUNCILMAN DRUM: Did I say that? Excuse~me, the petitioner is Aliano and Krupski. SUPERVISOR MARTnCCHIA: Councilman Drum has read the legal notice on petition of Nicholas Aliano ~d Patricia Krupski, Case No. 238 requesting a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "M-i" General Multiple Residence. The subject matter has been advertised in both of the local papers and notarized as such, it has been posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, and we have the recon~endations and comments of the Southold Town Planning Board recommending approval and the Suffolk County Department of Planning has left it to local determination. At this time, I would like to open up the hearing to anyone who wishes to speak in behalf of the applicants. CHANGE OF ZONE A 0 ' , N ~/238 - A~L ~ ~,pril 11,1978 NICHOLAS I 0 & PATRICIA KRUPSKI NICHOLAS ALIANO: I am Nick Aliano owner of the Beachcomber Motel which is the concern of this petition. What I would like. to do first of all is give you an idea of what the motel looked like. This is what the beach looked like prior to the last storm. (Mr. Aliano preJented photographs.) And this is a pciture of what it looks like now. Originally, I had about 150 to 200 feet of beachfront.about 8 years ago. Since that time, especially this last winter, not only have I lost all of the beach, but I have lost some of the sidewalk and it is already eroding the building. I have had the local sand & gravel man dump about 10 truck loads of sand in to shore up against my buildings and sidewalk. I have a photo here to show that even that sand was washed away after the next storm. So there is no question, that I am in emminent danger of losing my whole business. I bought as~much property behind me and surrounding me that I could afford to move the location back. The local farmers in the area wii~r~nest that it nothing more than shrubs, sand, and scrub oak where I want to put the expansion or what have you, behind the motel. There is about three-quarters of an acre of farmland that this involves. My intention is to put tennis courts and a golf course and situate the expansion along the perimeter of the cliff, it will be westerly. It is up to you gentlemen as to whether of not I stay in business. Without this expansion, I cannot stay in business. I think that my reputation of cleaning up the place, when I bought it 8 years ago it was a sore eye to the Community and I think anyone in town will tell you that what I have done here is a credit. So now, I am asking your consideration of this extension. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Is there a map? MR. ALIANO: The property west of me is owned by my family, that's across from Depot Lane. The property is east of me, my line is on the middle of a cliff, so that I couldn't do anything about that. The property south of me is owned by myself. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: This request that you are making for "M-I" zoning involves how much property? , .~ MR. ALIANO: It's 'about 9. acres. I have "M-i" zoning now, but of course that map shows before the beach ereoded and that's about 1~ acre you can take out of there. Business has improved and I must have room for expansion anyway. Even if this had not happened, I have need for the tennis court and golf course. I have already put a swimming pool in. We are off the beaten-track too far away from everything, and you have to give people some- thing to do while they are at a motel on vacation. I think I bring a lot of business to the town. It's a family-run operation. Thereare ten people in my family and we run a motel and restaruant. This is a picture from the L.I. Traveler Mattituck Watchman. It shows the erosion and it also states that a matter or fact the Town Hall has a copy of the erosion situation. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: We have had a very bad winter along the Sound. MR. ALIANO: Yes, as I said, I put in 8-10 truckloads of sand and gravel mixture and that has all been washed away. I showed you PUBLIC HEARING O ~ April 11, 1978 CHANGE OF ZONE APPE~CATION ~t 238 - NICHOLAS AL1ANO & PATRICIA KRUPSKI the photographs of before and after. and I can't keep doing this. It's all been washed away, JUSTICE MARTIN SUTER: Was it your intention to move the building back? MR. ALIANO: No, I can't move the building back. Originally, When I filed the application, my intention was to expand because the business had increased that much. But since this erosion it won't really be an expansion, it's just a question of re-building. JUSTICE SUTER: So what does that mean? You plan to re-build and ~hase this out? MR. ALIANO: Yes , that's correct to re-build and make it nice with the tennis court and gold course, the pool is already there. COUNCILMAN DRUM: On the bluff? blR. ALIANO: No, not on the bluff, it will have to be below or in the middle. SUPERVISOR ~RTOCCHIA: Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Aliano, is there something you are not clear about? Does anyone else wish to speak in behalf of the application? LOUIS EDSON, Maple Lane, Southold: I have known Nick Aliano for about 8 years when :~t was: working back in MacDonalds, we had some business transactions. ' We have remained friends ever since. have seen some other project~ that he has done and done well. I saw this place when he first took it over, it certainly wasn't anything very attractive. He has spent a lot of mQney and time down there and it shows. I think when people do this, it calls for some type of encouragement. The Town Board should encourage the growth of the To~. I recommend the approval of his application. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone else wish to speak in behalf of this application? (There was no response.) SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone wish to speak in opposition? JOHN & OLIVIA FELLINGFR-I}~R: I would like to ask you, where will the new buildings or additions be located? SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: The Town Board is concerned with the change of zone. The Planning Board woald be concerned with the site plans, etc. JOHN FELLINGER-IHAR: I have a map here. See, we are the neighbors to the proposed 10 acre parcel. We would be concerned only if the motel is put up next to us. We would be concerned only if the motel would be extended next to us approximately east of us 2~acres, 105 feet east of us and goes down 460~, We are concerned about the PUBLIC HEARING ~il 11, 1978 CHANGE OF ZONE AlrPL£uATION f/ 238 - NICHOLAS ALIANO & PATRICIA KRUPSKI density and population because we have a house here. We sympathize very much with Mr. Aliano, he is an excellent man and we like h%m very much and we know what happened on the beach and we hope there is somesolution for him. We are just concerned that next to us. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Will he have to go under the site plan? TOWN ATTORNEY ROBERT W. TASKER: I think he wili probably have to have a site plan with specified setbacks. MR. FELLINGER-IHAR: It is about 2~ acres east of us that we are concerned with right next to our residence. I' was told that eventually a house would be built there by Mr. Aliano. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone else wish to speak in opposition to this application? BILL WILHEP~, President of the Birch Hills Property Owners Association: I would just like to know a little more about what is involved. For example, if there is a real motive involved here to protect the real estate, why was not bulkheading considered. My other point is the concern about expansion of the property with the additional buildings. In regards to health, we had some difficulty when we were building there and also some warnings. In fact we had to sign a waiver regarding pollutants in the soil. For example, our nitrate levels are very high there. If there is indication that a significant expansion of that kind of thing would aggrevate the nitrate level, etc. Mr. Calvin Smith of ths Suffolk County Health Department is in charge of that. So even though I have no objections, I have some concerns. I question whether the solving of the problem could be done in other ways rather than in expansion. JUSTICE ~RTIN SUTER: We have no control over the ~ealCh Department. He must meet all of their requirements the same as you did. b~. WILHELM: Well, It turned out that we couldn't meet them and we had to sign a waiver. JUSTICE SUTER: This is up to the Health Department. MARK BRIAN: I have a question regarding the expansion. I live in the general area. I am interested in discovering whether or not anybody has information as to the proposed expansion of the motel. It is a substantial number of extra units or is it just a replacement on a 1-1 basis of what is already there? If it is a replacement on a 1-1 basis certainly there would be no objection, on my part. However, if it is expanded, I am wondering if that particular area is a desirable area in view of the rather limited road access and particularly the problems we have been having with the drainage area near the intersectior of Duck Pond Road, whether or not the motel would be appropriate until this problem is resolved. I understand there is supposed to be some resolution of this drainage problem in the area, but in any case the road is breaking up rather badly in certain areas and whether the additional traffic due to the motel would increase the number of residents would necessarily be desirable from the standpoint of the road and the residents who already live in the area. Since I don't CHANGE OF ZONE A ON ~ ~APril 11, 1978 f~238 - NICHOLAS ALIANO & PATRICIA KRUPSKI know what the plans are, I can't say that I am against it, I have no objection at this point. But, could elaborate as to what the particular plans are. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: To my knowledge, none have been submitted that I know of. The Planning Board would approve the site plan. MR. ALIANO: I have already told the Planning Board what my intention was. I originally wanted to expand what I had. But since I made application I am in danger of losing what I have, so it would wind up a 1-1 but I am not going to guarantee that all of a sudden that the sand is going to come back again. I plan to expand as needed. It is strictly a seasonal motel type of'operation. I am only open in the summer. I don't get that winter business that breaks up the road. I am not going to deal with that problem, that is up on Oregon Road, no wheres near me. MR. BRIAN: Basically, what I was interested in was this expansion or whether it was primarly for the replacing of buildings .... MR. ALIANO: It is both, either, or. Time will tell as far as the expansion. I don't expect to expand right away, but I want to know that it can be done. MR. BRIAN: Did you consider bulkheading? MR. ALIANO: Yes, it would cost me $30,000. and there is no guarantee that the bulkheading will stay, I don't have that strong a footing it's a 22 year old building. So, If I put $30,000. into it and I can't get insur~anee on bulkheading. I called the flood control people about it, they will not insure bulkheading. Rambo & the one from Greenport gave me prices of about $30,000-~ I would rather take that $30,000. and put the building back and let this building fall down. It is about ready to go now. MR. BRIAN: Is that what you have in mind,~ just letting the building fall down. I mean, you won't cart anything away? MR. ALIANO: Well, I don't have any choice in the matter. I own enough property in the surrounding area, I am certainly not going to have it dumped there. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on the subject, in opposition to this application? BILL WILHELM: I would like to make a statement in opposition. Since I get the impression that the primary effort here is to expand the facility. I have this personal opinion that I don't think it would be to the advantage of the community to have such a large enterprise down there. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? (There was no response. PUBLIC HEARING CHANGE OF ZONE A~p~ ~ (7> L~CATION # 238 NICHOLAS AL~ANO &'PATRICIA KRUPSK~0 ~' SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Has everyone who wishes to speak had an ~a~ opportunity to speak? ' ~ .(There was no response.) SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Hearing none, the hearing will be closed, -~ after digesting all the facts, the Board will make a determination. Respectfully submitted, Betty~Nev~lle Deputy Town Clerk PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard O. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Lathara, Jr. Bennett Orlowskl, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth k Edwards Telephone (516] 765~1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARPdS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road p. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 January 28, 1994 Charles voorhis Cramer, Voorhis & Associates 54-2 North Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Beachcomber Motel SCTM9 1000-83-2-1 Dear Mr. Voorhis: As you know the above applicant is in the process of preparing his DEIS. In reviewing the file I see that as an original condition of Planning Board support for the zone change the motel was to be moved back from the Sound due to severe beach erosion. In reviewing the scoping session outline and Ms. Scopaz's notes I do not see where the move of the motel was a~dressed at the scoping session? I would appreciate your advice on the procedure for including this item in the DEIS. ~oDert G. 'sassner Site Plan Reviewer Encls. P& JAN 2 5 , ,.. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 3, 19993 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York I 1971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Charles Voorhis Cramer, Voorhis & Associates 54-2 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 RE: Beachcomber Motel SCTM91000-83-2-1 Dear Mr. Voorhis: I have reviewed your January 27th revision of the SEQR Scoping Checklist for the Beachcomber Motel with the Planning Board members. Before the Planning Board sends the checklist out, it would be appreciated if you could make a few changes to it. Enclosed is a marked copy of the checklist which includes some editorial comments as well as requests either for clarification or for more detail. I have also included for your information a draft copy of the cover letter that will accompany your checlist. Please feel free to call me if you see any problems with it, or if you have other questions about the comments noted on the checklist. Sincerely, Valerie ~ Senior Planner- Henry Raynor Raynor Suter Hardware 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Beachcomber Motel Cutchogue, New York SCTM ~ 1000-83-1-1,2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: Attached to this letter is an annotated copy of the Scoping session Checklist that was used at the January 22nd scoping session. Please review the Checklist with your client and his consultants. If there are any questions or objections, please bring them to my attention immediately, and in writing. The enclosed Checklist will be used by the Planning Board and the reviewing agencies as the official synopsis of that meeting. ~n the absence of any written objections from either your client or any of the coordinating agencies, the enclosed outline will stand. If objections are received about the enclosed Checlist that might require an amendment of it, these comments will be transmitted to all involved parties. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman APPLICATION OF BEACHCOMBER I Thi$outlinehaxb¢¢namendcdtoincl~decommentsmadea~$copir ~is outline· is b~ed upon 6 ~CRR Part 617.21 ~ ~rep~ed Department of En~ro~ental Conse~ation to pro,de a fort preparation of a Draft En~romental Impact Statement. ~ cofform to this outline in terms of format ~ well ~ content, u~o,, ~,,,~,~,,~,~ ...... copies of the document should'be submitted to the Planing Bo~d for r~iew to dete~ine acceptance. Cover Sheet All EIS's (Draft or Final) shall ..begin with a cover sheet that includes: A. Whether it is a draft or final statement B. Name or other descriptive tit!e of the project C. Location (county and toWn, ~llagc cr city) of the project D. Name and address of the lead agency which required preparation of the statement and the name and telephone number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further information E. Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and a contact name and telephone number F. Date of acceptance of the Draft EIS G. In the case of a Draft EIS, the deadline date by which comments are due should be indicated II. Table of Contents and Summary and A table of contents and a brief summary are requ!red for Draft~EIS~[-r4nmt-E4S~. The summary should include: A. Brief description of the action B. Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts, (issues of controversy must be specified) C. Mitigation measures proposed D. Alternative considered E. Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, funding) III. Description of the Proposed Action · 1. Background and history- lliscuss in detail,~z, onin..g~~ 2. Public need for the project, and municipffhty objectives based on adopted community development~plans 3. Objectives of the project sponsor 4. Benefits of the proposed action a) social Page I Beachcomber I1 Motel Scoping Outline b) economic LOCATION 1. Establish geographic boundaries of the project (use of regional and local scale .maps is recommended) . . . 2. Descnpuon of access to site - Prowde detmled d~scussion of adjacent road~. . . . . ' ' 3. · DesSriptlon of erasting zomng of proposed site DESIGN AND LAYOUT - A detailed table of anticipated site coverage quantities is recommended. 1. Total site area }proposed impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots, roads) amount of land to be cleared open 'space - wetlands/water areas, na~[ural and/or covenanted areas. Discussion-use)of land in order to meet SCSC Article 6.' 2. Structures +~ ~,, a) total building area b) layout of buildings (att~ached, enclos&'d~a-f'at~ c) site plans /,'~~ ~,~.~. ' d) drainage plans , 3. Parking a) pavement area b) number of spaces and layout 4. Sanitary System Design a) location and. setbacks ~,~.oc~ffx- b) system design, leaching capability, depth to water c) Health Department compliance 5. Water Supply Design ~./,~r.~,~ a) depth .ofwell b) potential salt-water intrusion · c) Health Department compliance CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. Construction a) total construction period anticipated b) schedule of construction c) future potential development, on site or on adjoining properties 2. Operation a) type of operation . b) schedule of operauon c) fertilization of landscaped areas d) seasonal use and maintenance APPROVALS 1. Required changes or variances to the zoning regulations 2. Other permit approval or funding requirements and status of required permits g/ Town ~lannin~.site plan ZBA ~p'~ecial p~rmit - applicant should s,~4o resolve property division issue with ZBA p,~,-~ ~ ~ ;,~.~6,~.&,x. Page 2 IV. Beachcomber 11 Motel Scoping Outline · c) Town Trustees Coastal Erosion Hazard Act . d)/Health Department sanitary and water permits -applicant should , r/seek to de~ermine SCDHS density requirements with regard to existing ..~-,-~fe_) State well and d~scharg"' ' e permits '~ A/~-~e~- State wetlands permits Environmental Setting Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) composition and thicknesi of subsurface material b) test hole in accord with SCDHS requirements 2. Surface a) List of soil types z~a*...~..,. · b) discussion of soil characteristics - physical properties {i'ndicah~r. cf r,,~13 hydrological (infiltration) capabihties)ga~---./a-,4~ a-,~.~) - engineering properties (soil bearing cap~'city) c) distribution of.soil types at project site d) suitability fo~'~~aa~-- ~ 3. Topography a) description of topography at project site . -. slopes.particularly on east side of sitg/,-~--~-/-~-~ ~ - prorm.~ent or unique features - beach, dune and bluff type environment WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) location and description of aquifers and recharge arg~ - depth of water table.-._~._... -- - seasonal variation ('po"'~"fi"f~iSalfunction of sanitary system - quality - suitability for consumptive use ~..,a~..~.~_.) : ~(~awntlty identification of present uses and level of use of h) groundwater suppl~,'~(~r Beachcomber I/ ~6.~~ - existing water ~,~o~:~Z ~ . Surface water a) location and description of surface waters located on project site or those that may be influenced by the project ' - classification according to New York State Department of Health and/or NYSDEC - consult Town Wetlands inventory b) identification of uses and level of use of all surface waters - recreational, shellfish, etc. ) description of existing drainage areas, patterns and channels Cd) discussion of potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and eutrophication of surface water - include FEMA/FIRMflood zone maps and] land use restrictions Page 3 Beachcomber ii Motel Scoplng Outline TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation ~a/ Ii.st vegetation types on the project site and within the surrounding area discussion of siie vegetation characteristics IL~/ - species presence and abundance - age - size - distribution - dominance - community types - unique, rare and endangered species value as habitat for wildlife - productivity Human Resources A. Bo Wildlife a) list of wildlife species on the project site and within surrounding area, including migratory and resident species b) discussion of wildlife population characteristics - species presence and abundance - distribution - dominance - unique, rare and endangered species - productivity Wetlands a) list wetland areas within or contiguous to the project site b) discuss wetland characteristics - acreage vegetative cover - classification - benefits of wetland such as flood and erosion control, recreation TRANSPORTATION 1. Transportin$ se?ices . a) description of the s~ze, capacity and condition of services · - access/egress from site b) description of current level of use of services - source of existing traffic - seasonal influence and use LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoninl~ a) description of the eYdsfing land use of the project site and the surrounding area - residential - vacant, open space b) description of existing zoning of site and surrounding area Land use plans Page 4 go a) b) c) d) Beachcomber ii Motel Scoping Outline description of any land use plans or master plans Which include project site and Surrounding area discussion of future development trends or pressures 208 Study recommendations and Article 6 implementation NURPS Study recommendations for surface water protection COMMUNITY SERVICES (for this section include a list of existing facilities and a discussion of existing levels of usage and projected future needs) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Educational facilities Police protection Fire protection Health care facilities Social services. Recreational facilities Utilities·/~' Public water supply (~public water installation by SCWA and descdbe,('c) ~ ,,~ Solid waste'"disposal / ~ · ' CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) description of the physical character of the community - views of area resources associated with site - visibility of site from waterways and surrounding areas · b) description of natural areas of significance 2. Historic and archaeological resources a) location and description of historic areas or structures listed on State or National Register or designated by the community, or included on statewide Inventory ' b) identification of sites having potential significant archaeological value based on contact with State Parks c) contact local archaeological society with regard to historic/archaeological resources Noise a) 3o identification of existing level of noise in the community - use published references SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Identify those aspects of the environmental setting in Section I.V that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action and require d~scussion. Areas of primary concern are listed as follows: Ao Bo Potential for erosion and/or siltati.o.n to the site waterway as a resu. lt of site construction. TopographicmndL~dimentation due to s:¢pc destabdization of erodable soils,~a/~, z 'p' , ~o.~.t;,p,~ ~ ~teration of ground or surface water quali~ ~om inadequate ~amta~ setbacks and[or u~aturated depth and potential water quali~ ~mpacts due to water supply pumping. Nitrogen budget in comideration of recharge zones and groundwater flow. Descdbe ~ting motel s~it~ facilities~tq~.of SCDHS approval, ~ location of)well a~ s~it~ ~stem. ~ ~ Beachcomber I! Motel $coplng Outline Ecological impacts resulting from use and occupation of the site for motel purposes, as related to identified species. Loss of unique wooded areas of site tar water supply and grading envelopes. Conformance of proposed Project to land use plans, with particular regard to Town zoning and Article 6 reqUirements for density/discharge requirements. VI. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section V. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas of impact. Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) use excavated material for land reclamation 2. Surface a) use topsoil stockpiled during construction for restoration and landscaping b) rninimize disturbance of non-construction sites - propose covenants c) design and implement soil erosion control plan B. wATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater,~. ~or~o~ · a) ~m.odify)system of treatment for stormwater runoff of wastewater onor to recharge of groundwater b) (~malntain')permeable areas on the site ~ u.,t. ~ 2. Surface water~ ~r~,'n~-. ~. ~$t'rd ~ pa.d~'~ t~.~ a) ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during construction * .... and operation to avoid siltation - hay bales - temporary restoration of vegetation to disturbed areas -, la. ndsca, ping- ~ pt/pr__ ~ p~ ;~b) aeslgn, anequate stormwater .c°ntr°l.. system ~ -~ modify sewage treatment faclhtles avoid direct discharges to surface water resources ~ TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation cb restrict clearing to only those areas necessary preserve part of site as a natural area . after construction, landscape site with naturally occurring vegetation 2. Wildlife a) provide adequate habitat (shelter and food) for remaining.wildlife species . b) schedule construction to avoid sensitive periods of fish, shellfish and wildlife cycles Page 6 Beachcomber ii Motel Scoping Outline Human Resources TRANSPORTATION I. Provide adequate horizontal and vertical road geometrics for anticipated traffic 2. Provide mitigation for traffic impacts as identified through traffic evaluation '~ ~,~ ~ ~~a., LAND USE AND ZONING ,o.,e~,zc~.~.~-~z~ ~,£ ~. - 1. Existing land use and zoning a~/ design project to comply with existin.~ land use plans ' design functiOnal and wsually appeahng facility to set standard and precedent, for future stirrounding land use B. COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Fire protection a) use construction materials that minimize fire hazards b) incorporate sprinkler and alarm systems into building design c) provide equipment, funds or services directly to the community 2. Utilities a) install utility services underground b) incorporate water saving fixtures into facility design i~)~a a.j~orporate energy-saving measures into facility design C. CULTURAL,.,~,¢.u~.: RESOURCES 1. Visual resources' /' . ' ~ cfl~ a) surroundings')design exterior ,q-,~ of structure v',x~.~_,- to only physically e~ blend~ ~vith b) minimize wsual impa~ through thoughtful and innovative design (consider: height, s~ze) c) design landscaping to be visually pleasing and to serve as a buffer between surrounding land uses, parking areas, operational equipment and facilities 3. Noise a) b) schedule construction/operation to occur during "normal business" hours minimizing noise impact during sensitive times (early morning, night) assure adherence to construction noise standards · VII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Identify those adverse environmental effects is Section V that can be.expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section VI. VII. ALTERNATIVES This section contains categories of alternatives with examples. Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. It ~s not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is or is not feasible. A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES Page 7 Beachcomber 11 Motel Scoping Outline 1. Siie layout ,~9;~ .~/~...~~ a) location/~f_ structures b) location of access routes, parking and utility routes ALTERNATIVES SIZE ~/e.t~-~/ 1. Increase or decrease project size to minimize possible itfip'acts' ' . E. NO ACTION 1. ~ Impacts of no action a) effect on public need b) effect on private developers' need c) beneficial or adverse environmental impacts IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be consumed, convertedor made unavailable for future use. X. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS (if applicable) Describ.e in this Section the potential growth aspects the. l~roposed prpject may h~e. Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the EIS. A. List of underlyi'ng studies, reports and information considered and relied on in preparing statement Bo List all federal, state, regional, or local agencies, organizations, consultants and private persons consulted in preparing the statement C. Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale Relevant correspondence regarding the projects may be included (required in the Final EIS) Page 8 It would be appreciated it you could work the following information contained into the Checklist. wherever you see fit. Ail information shown on maps or plans and in the text should be consistent. In an Appendix to the Environmental Impact Statement, please include a copy of the completed application form for each permit that must be obtained before this project can be constructed. For instance: Town Board of Trustees: Coastal Erosion Hazard application Zoning Board of. Appeals: Special Exception application Planning Board: Site Plan application Suffolk County Department Health Service~: Water Supply and Wastewater applications New York State. Department of Environmental Conservation: Tidal Wetlands application Where relevant, supporting documentation for these applications should be included, also. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing project must be explained, particularly with reference to the potential change of intensity of use of the existing facilities, such as the restaurant, the swimming pool, etc. Keep in mind that this document will be reviewed by the general public as well a Several governmental agencies. A concise, and simply written text is preferable to a wordy or obtuse one. Accordingly, it would help to provide a Glossary so that the lay reader can interpret the acronyms that are typically used in an environmental impact statement. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards 'IZelephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Henry Raynor Raynor Suter Hardware 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 February 23, 19993 RE: Beachcomber Motel SCTM#1000-83-2-1 Dear Mr. Raynor: Attached to this letter is an annotated version of the Scoping Checklist that was used at the January 22nd scoping session. The enclosed Checklist will be used by the Planning Board and the reviewing agencies as the official synopsis of that meeting. In the absence of any written objections from either your client or any of the coordinating agencies, the enclosed outline will stand. Accordingly, I suggest that you review the Checklist with your client and his consultants. If there are any questions or objections, please bring them to Valerie Scopaz's attention immediately, in writing. If the enclosed synopsis must be amended, the revisions will be transmitted to all involved parties. Sincerely, Chairman Board of Trustees~ Southold Zoning Board of A~peals, Southold Building Department, Southold Highway Department, Southold Department of Health Services, Suffolk County S. Costa, V. Minei, P. Ponturo Planning Commission, Suffolk County - F. Dowling Department of Environmental Conservation, New York K. Munze Department of State, New York - M. Persaud Suffolk County Water Authority ~ M. LoGrande, E. Rosavitch Groundwater Resources Committee, Southold Planning and Zoning Committee, Southold SEQR SCOPING CHECKLIST SOUTHOLD PLANN N,G Bq,~,gD ~-- APPLICATION OF BEACHCOMBER II MOTEL AMENDED FEBRUARY 22, 1993 INCLUDING SCOPING MEETING ISSUES This outline haz been amended to include comments made as scoping meeting of January 22, 1993. Additions to the previously disOibuted outline are in italics. This outline is based upon 6 NYCRR Pa~t.. 617.21 as p, repared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to provide a format and guidelines for the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The subject Draft EIS should conform to this outline in terms of format as well as content. The document should be consistent and concise and all data and assumptions should be justified and/or referenced. All information shown on maps orplans and in the text should be consistent. Keep in mind that this document will be reviewedby general public as well as several governmental agencies. A condse and simply written text is preferable to a wordy or obtuse one. Accordingly, it would help to provide a Glossary so that the lay reader can interpret the acronyms that are typically used in an Environmental Impact Statement. Upon completion, seven (7) copies of the document should be submitted to the Planning Board for rewew to determine acceptance. Cover Sheet All EIS's (Draft or Final) shall begin with a cover sheet that includes: A. Whether it is a draft or final statement B. Name or other descriptive title of the project C. Location (county and town) of the project D. Name and address of the lead agency which required preparation of the statement and the name and telephone number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further information E. Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and a contact name and telephone number F. Date of acceptance of the Draft EIS G. In the case ora Draft EIS, the deadline date by which comments are due should be indicated II. Table of Contents and Summary A table of contents and a brief summary are The summary should include: A. B. required for Draft and Final EIS's. Brief description of the action Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts, (issues of controversy must be spec. ffled) · Mitigation measures proposed Alternative considered Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, funding) III. Description of the Proposed Action A. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS Page I Beachcomber 1I Motel Scoping Outline Background and history - Discuss in detail, include zoning districts and amount of land in each district as well as parcel locations and areas. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing project must be explained, particularly with reference to the potentiai change of intensi .ty ofnse of the existing facilities, such as the restaurant, the swirmmng pool, etc. Public need for the project, and municipality objectives based on adopted community development plans Objectives of the project sponsor Benefits of the proposed action ~/ social economic LOCATION 1. Establish geographic boundaries of the project (use of regional and local scale maps is recommended) 2. Description of access to site - Provide detailed discussion of adjacent road. 3. Description of existing zoning of proposed site DESIGN AND LAYOUT - A detailed table of anticipated site coverage quantities is recommended. 1. Total site area a) proposed impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots, roads) b) amount of land to be cleared and regraded c) open space - wetlands/water areas, natural and/or covenanted areas. Discuss the sterilization of land in order to meet Suffolk County Sanitar3, Code Article 6. 2. Structures a) total building area b) layout of buildings (design concept, units per building, orientation, building footprint, etc.) I/ site plans drainage plans 3. Parking a) pavement area b) number of spaces and layout 4. Sanitary System Design (existing and proposed) a) location and setbacks, and uses (motel, restaurant) b) system design, leaching capability, depth to water c) Health Department compliance 5. Water Supply Design (existing and proposed) a) depth of well b) potential salt-water intrusion c) Health Department compliance CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. Construction a) total construction period anticipated b) schedule of construction c) future potential development, on site or on adjoining properties Page 2 Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Outline o Operation /type of operation . sche.dule of operation fertihzation of landscaped areas seasonal use and maintenance APPROVALS 1. Required changes or variances to the zoning regulations 2. Other permit approval or funding requirements and status of required permits a) Town Planning Board site plan b) ZBA special permit - applicant should seek to resolve property division issue with ZBA and state terms in Draft EIS. ~/ Town Trustees Coastal Erosion Hazard Act Suffolk County Health Department sanitary and water permits - applicant should seek to determine SCDHS density requirements with regard to existing motel, herein referred to as Beachcomer I. ~)New York State well and discharge permits New York State wetlands permits Note: Please include an Appendix to the Environmental Impact Statement that contains a copy of the completed application form for each permit that must be obtained before this project can be constructed. For instance: Town Board of Trnstees: Coastal Erosion Hazard Application Zoning Board of Appeals: Special Exception application Planning Board: Site Plan application Suffolk County Department of Health Services: Water Supply and Wastewater applications New York State Department of Environmental Conservation: Tidal Wetlands application IV. Environmental Setting Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) composition and thickness of subsurface material b) test hole in accord with SCDHS requirements 2. Surface a) List of soil types b) discussion of soil characteristics - physical properties (indicate hydrological (infiltration) capabilities) of the soils on site - engineering properties (soil bearing capacity) c) distribution of soil types at project site d) suitability for proposed use 3. Topography a) description of topography at project site ~ slopes, particularly on east slde of site, shall be described - prominent or unique features - beach, dune and bluff type environment Page 3 Bo Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Outline WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) location and description of aquifers and recharge areas - depth of water table seasonal variation - (address potential malfunction of sanitary system due to same) - qualit~ - suitability for consumptive use - ~uantxty IlOW b) identification of present uses and level of use of groundwater - existing water and waste disposal supply for Beachcomber I, including res~taurant 2. Surface water a) location and description of surface waters located on project site or those that may be influenced by the project - classification according to New York State Department of Health and/or NYSDEC ~ consult Town Wetlands inventory b) identification of uses and level of use of all surface waters - recreational, shellfish, etc. c) description of existing drainage areas, patterns and channels d) discussion of potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and eutrophication of surface water - include FEMA/FIRM flood zone maps and resultant land use restrictions TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a) list vegetation types on the project site and within the surrounding area b) discussion of site vegetation characteristics - species presence and abundance - age - size - distribution - dominance - community types - unique, rare and endangered species value as habitat for wildlife - productivity o Wildlife a) list of wildlife species on theproject site and within surrounding area, including migratory andresident species b) discussion of wildhfe population characteristics - species presence and abundance distribution - dominance - unique, rare and endangered species - productivity Wetlands a) list wetland areas within or contiguous to the project site Page 4 Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Outline b) discuss wetland characteristics - acreage vegetative cover classification - benefits of wetland such as flood and erosion control, recreation Human Resources TRANSPORTATION 1. Transporting services a) description of the size, capacity and condition of services - access/egress from site b) description of current level of use of services - source of existing traffic - seasonal influence and use Bo LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) description of the existing land use of the project site and the surrounding area - residential - vacant, open space , b) description of existing zomng of site and surrounding area 2. Land use plans a) description of any land use plans or master plans which include project site and surrounding area discussion of future development trends or pressures . cb~ 208 Study recommendations and Article 6 implementation d) NURPS Study recommendations for surface water protection Co COMMUNITY SERVICES (for this section include a list of existing facilities and a discussion of existing levels of usage and projected future needs) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Educational facilities Police protection Fire protection Health care facilities Social services Recreational facilities Utilities Public water supply - explore options with regard to Suffolk County Water Authority public water main extension and other water supply options. Solid waste disposal Do CULTURAL RESOURCES I. Visual resources a) description of the physical character of the community - views of area resources associated with site - visibility of site from waterways and surrounding a?eas b) description of natural areas of significance 2. Historic and archaeological resources Page 5 Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Outline a) b) ¢) Noise a) location and description of historic areas or structures listed on State or National Register or designated by the community, or included on Statewide Inventory identification of sites having potential significant archaeological value based on contact with State Parks contact local archaeological society with regard to historic/archaeological resources identification of existing level of noise in the community - use published references SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Identify those aspects of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action and require discussion. Areas of primary concern are listed as follows: Potential for erosion and/or siltation to the site waterway as a result of site construction. Topographic disturbances and potential for sedimentation due to slope destabilization of erodable soils on slopes. Alteration of ground or surface water quality from inadequate sanitary setbacks and/or unsaturated depth and potential water quality impacts due to water supply pumping. Nitrogen budget in consideration of recharge zones and groundwater flow. Describe existing motel sanitary facilities. Include a history of SCDHS approvals, and location of existing as well as proposed sanitary system. Ecological impacts resulting from use and occupation of the site for motel purposes, as related to identified species. Loss of unique wooded areas of site for water supply and grading envelopes. D. Conformance of proposed project to land use pla.ns, with particular regard to Town zoning and Article 6 requirements for density/discharge requirements. VI. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section V. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas of impact. Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) use excavated material for land reclamation 2. Surface a) use topsoil stockpiled during construction for restoration and landsc.apin~ b) minimize disturbance of non-construction sites - propose covenants c) design and implement soil erosion control plan Page 6 Beachcomber I1 Motel Scoping Outline WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) propose system of treatment for stormwater runoff of wastewater prior to recharge of groundwater b) promote permeable areas on the site through use of alternative road and parking base specifications 2. Surface water a) ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during construction and operation to avoid siltation - hay bales - temporary, restoration of vegetation to disturbed areas - landscaping - xeric type native planting suggested b) design adequate Stormwater control system, modify sewage treatment facilities, and/or avoid direct discharges to surface water resources TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation cb} restrict clearing to only those areas necessary preserve part of site as a natur.al area after construction, landscape s~te with naturally occurring vegetation 2. Wildlife a) provide adequate habitat (shelter and food) for remaining wildlife species b) schedule construction to avoid sensitive periods of fish, shellfish and wildlife cycles Human Resources TRANSPORTATION 1. Provide adequate horizontal and vertical road geometrics for anticipated traffic 2. Provide mitigation for traffic impacts as identified through traffic evaluation. The discussion must include road safety aspects as well as physical traffic impacts. LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) design project to comply with existing land use plans b) design functional and xasually appealmg facility to set standard and precedent for future surrounding land use COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Fire protection a) use construction materials that minimize fire hazards b) incorporate sprinkler and alarm systems into building design c) provide equipment, funds or services directly to the community 2. Utilities ! install utility services underground !ncorporate water saving fixtures into facility design incorporate energy-saving measures into facility design Page 7 Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Outline Solid Waste disposal - discuss means of reducing solid waste generation CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) design exterior of structure in a manner which will not detract from the na. tural and hub. an setting of the site nnnimize visual impact through thoughtful and innovative design (consider: height, size) design landscaping to be visually pleasing and to serve as a buffer between surrounding land uses, parking areas, operational equipment and facilities b) c) Noise a) b) schedule construction/operation to occur during "normal business" hours minimizing noise impact during sensitive times (early morning, night) assure adherence to construction noise standards VII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Identify those adverse environmental effects is Section V that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section VI. VII. ALTERNATIVES .This section contains categories of alternatives with examples. Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. It is not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is or is not feasible. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES 1. Site layout a) location and types of structures b) location of access routes, parking and utility routes - Consider flow of residents and vehicles between existing and proposed sites ALTERNATIVES SIZE 1. Increase or decrease project size to minimize possible impacts NO ACTION 1. Impacts of no action a) effect on public need b) effect on private developers' need c) beneficial or adverse environmental impacts IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be consumed, convertedor made unavailable for future use. X. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS (if applicable) Describe in this section the potential growth aspects the proposed project may have on the surrounding community as well as the school and fire district. Page 8 Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Outline APPENDICES Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the EIS. List of underlying studies, reports and information considered and relied on in preparing statement B. List all federal, state, regional, or local a. gencies, organizations, consultants and private persons consulted in preparing the statement C. Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale D. Relevant correspondence regarding the projects may be included (required in the Final EIS) Page 9 CUTCHOGUE FIRE DISTRICT New Suffolk Road, PO Box 930, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Telephone (516) 734-6907 · Fax (516) 734-7079 June 22, 1993 Glenn Spet~a ~ssoc. PO Box 94 Bohemia, NY 1176 Ref: Beachcomber Study Dear Mr. Molan, Reference your letter of May 14, 1993 and based upon the prel/mlnary information you have provided, at this time, The Cutchogue Fire Department feels that it cannot provide adequate fire protection for this site. The water supply in that area is inadequate to handle that m~ny units and without a site plan we cannot determine the actual water reguirements and access. If you can provide us with a site plan we will be happy to continue the study. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Board or our Chief. Thank you, we remain, Very truly yours, Matthew J. Martin Secretary cc: Chief Martin Planning Board/ Trustees Board PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 3, 19993 SCO'I'F L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Charles Voorhis Cramer, Voorhis & Associates 54-2 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 RE: Beachcomber Motel SCTMg1000-83-2-1 Dear Mr. Voorhis: I have reviewed your January 27th revision of the SEQR Scoping Checklist for the Beachcomber Motel with the Planning Board members. Before the Planning Board sends the checklist out, it would be appreciated if you could make a few changes to it. Enclosed is a marked copy of the checklist which includes some editorial comments as well as requests either for clarification or for more detail. I have also included for your information a draft copy of the cover letter that will accompany your checlist. Please feel free to call me if you see any problems with it, or if you have other questions about the comments noted on the checklist. cerely, Henry Raynor Raynor Suter Hardware 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Beachcomber Motel Cutchogue, New York SCTM # 1000-83-1-1,2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: Attached to this letter is an annotated copy of the Scoping session Checklist that was used at the January 22nd scoping session. Please review the Checklist with your client and his consultants. If there are any questions or objections, please bring them to my attention immediately, and in writing. The enclosed Checklist will be used by the Planning Board and the reviewing agencies as the official synoDsis of that meeting. In the absence of any written objections from either your client or any of the coordinating agencies, the enclosed outline will stand. If objections are received about the enclosed Checlist that might require an amendment of it, these comments will be transmitted to all involved parties. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman This outline has been amended to include comments made as scoptr. .4dditions to the previously distributed outline are in italics. SEQR SCOPING CHECKLIS'I . APPLICATION OF BEACHCOMBER I "~ AMENDED JANUARY 27, 1993 ~~'- INCLUDING SCOPING MEETING 1SS This outline is based upon 6 NYCRR Part 617.21 as prepared Department of Environmental Conservation to provide a fort preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Thc conform to this outline in terms of format as well as content, upon copies of the document should be submitted to the Planning Board for review to determine acceptance. Cover Sheet All EIS's (Draft or Final) shall begin with a cover sheet that includes: A. Whether it is a draft or final statement B. Name or other descriptive title of the project C. Location (county and toWn, ;'~l!agc cr ci.~') of the project D. Name and add?ess of the lead agency which required preparation of the statement and the name and telephone number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further information E. Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and a contact name and telephone number F. Date of acceptance of the Draft EIS G. In the case of a Draft EIS, the deadline date by which comments are due should be indicated II. Table of Contents and Summary and A table of contents and a brief summary are required for Draft~EIS~v.d-ginal-E-tS~. The summary should include: A. Brief description of the action B. Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts, (issues of controversy must be specified) C. Mitigation meas.ures proposed D. Alternative considered E. Matters to be decided (Permits, approvals, funding) III. Description of the Proposed Action ~~,o~.. 1. Background and history- lliscuss in detail,~zon!n~._~_.~~ 2. Public need for the project, and municip~ity objectives based on adopted co .mmunity development~plans 3. Objectives of the project sponsor · 4. Benefits of the proposed action a) social Page I Beachcomber ii Motel Scoping Outline b) economic LOCATION 1. Establish ge. ographic boundaries of the project (use of regional and local scale .maps ~s recommended) . 2. Description of access to site - Provide detailed discussion of adjacent roadl(. . 3. - Desfiription of existing zoning of proposed site DESIGN AND LAYOUT - A detailed table of anticipated site coverage quantities is recommended. 1. Total site area I proposed impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots, roads) amount of land to be cleared ~,~ng~ - open 'space - wetlands/water areas, na~tural and/or covenanted areas. Discuss~on-use'~of land in order to meet SCSC Article 6.' 2. Structures +~ ~,.,l~."h ,.9 . a) total building area b) layout of buildings (attached, enclosed,~§epal'a_.te)- site plans ,/" c.~ Cd~ drainage plans 3. Parking t/ pavement area number of spaces and layout 4. · Sanitary System Design ~;u'~-/~t~,an,~C a) location and setbacks a~ Cn b) system design, leaching capability, depth to water c) Health Department compliance Water Supply Design ~os/~ a) depth of well b) potential salt-water intrusion c) Health Department compliance CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. Construction a) total construction period anticipated b) schedule of construction c) future potential development, on site or on adjoining properties 2. Operation a) type of°peration b) schedule of operation c) fertilization of landscaped areas d) seasonal use and maintenance APPROVALS 1. Required changes or variances to the zoning regulations 2. Other permit approval or funding requirements and status of required permits . a) Town pJanmn~.site plan - b) ZBA spectal permit - applicant should zap.: .~ resolve property division issue with ZBA Page 2 IV. Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Outline c) Town Trustees Coastal Erosion Hazard Act d)/Health Department Santtary and water permits -applicant shoul, d , Jseek to detejrrn~ne SCDHS density requirements with regard to extsting ~-~ ~ je) State well and discharge permits /x/t3~/~/~'~)____~. State wetlands permits Environmental Setting· Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) composition and thicknesi of subsurface material b) test hole in accord with SCDHS requirements 2. Surface a) List of soil types ~ .. b) discussion of soil characteristics - physical properties ~ndica?~f scala hydrological (infiltration) capabihties)~:d.~za4.~ - engineering properties (soil bearing capffcity) c) distribution of,s~oi_l types at project site d) suitability fo~e~a 3. Topography a) description of topography at project site . -. slopes,particularly on east side of site, - Prorm~ent or unique features - beach~, dune and bluff type environment Bo WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) location and description of aquifers and recharge artse~ - depth of water,table,,~_~ ~. - - seasonal variauon 4po"'6~n"ti~ffialfunction of sanitm'y system & - quali~ - suitability for consumptive use ff-a/a~/~xS) ~ ~awnt~ty 'b) identification of present uses and level of use of groundwater ~ ~ ~ ~ . - existing water suppl~/for Beachcomber I/ ~Z~~ 2. Surface water a) location and description of surface waters located on project site or those t.h. at re. ay be influenced by the project - classzficat~on according to New York State Department of Health and/or NYSDEC - cormult Town Wetlands inventory b) identification of uses and level of use of all surface waters - recreational, shellfish, etc. c) description of existing drainage areas, patterns and channels d) discussion of potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and eutrophication of surface water - include FEMA/FIRMilood zone maps and] land use restrictions Page 3 Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Outline TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a) list vegetation types on the project site and within the surrounding b) discussion of site vegetation characteristics - species presence and abundance - a~ge - size - distribution - dominance - community types - unique, rare and endangered species value as habitat for wildlife - productivity 2. Wildlife a) list of wildlife species on the project site and within surrounding area, including migratory and resident species b) discussion of wildhfe population characteristics - species presence and abundance distribution - dominance - umque, rare and endangered species -. productivity 3. Wetlands a) list wetland areas within or contiguous to the project site b) discuss Wetland characteristics - acreage vegetative cover - classification - benefits of wetland such as flood and erosion control, recreation Human Resources A. area TRANSPORTATION 1. Transporting services a) description of the size, capacity and condition of services - access/egress from site b) descripuon of current level of use of services - source of existing traffic - seasonal influence and use LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land. use and zoning . a) description of the exastmg land use of the project site and the surrounding area - residential - vacant, open space b) description of existing zoning of site and surrounding area 2. Land use plans Page 4 a) b) C) d) Beachcomber II Motel Seoping Outline description of any land use plans or master plans which include project site and Surrounding area discussion of future development trends or pressures 208 Study recommendations and Article 6 implementation NURPS gtudy recommendations for surface water protection COMMUNITY SERVICES (for this section include a list of existing facilities and a discussion of existing levels of usage and projected future needs) 1. Educational facilities 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Police protection Fire protectiOn. Health care facdities Social services Recreational facilities ? Utilities /~' Publi6 water supply (~public water installation by SCWA and descdbe,(-C) ~ ~ .xe~ ,o,x,":~G~ ~_,~, ? Solid waste~dispo~al / ~ -- · ' CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) description of the physical Character of the community - wews of area resources associated with site - visibility of site from waterways and surrounding areas b) description of natural areas of significance 2. Historic and archaeological resources a) location' and description of historic areas or structures listed on State or National Register or designated by the community, or included on Statewide Inventory b) identification of sites having potential significant archaeological value based on contact with State Parks c) contact local archaeological society with regard to historic/archaeological resources 3. Noise a) identification of existing level of noise in the community, use published references SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Identify those aspects of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adverse!y or beneficially affected by the proposed action and require discussion. Areas of primary concern are listed as follows: Potential for erosion and/or siltation to the site waterway as a result of.site construction. Topographic/andt~di~m~e[ttat. io~n du.e to ~ destabilizat~on of erodable soils,~/~nt,, z ~ ~--~-~r-~- c Alteration of ground or surface water quality f?om inadequate samtary setbacks and/or unsaturated depth and potential wate. r quality impacts due to water supply pumping. Nitrogen bUdget in consideration of recharge zones and groundwater flow. Describe existing motel sanitary faeilities. LH. istory of SCDHS approvals, and location of}well and sanitary system. ~ a., .I Page 5 Beachcomber I! Motel Scoping Outline Ecological impacts resulting from use and occupation of the site for motel purposes, as related to identified species. Loss of unique wooded areas of site ~or water supply and grading envelopes. Conformance of proposed project to land use pla.ns, with particular regard to Town zoning and Article 6 requirements for density/discharge requirements. VI. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section V. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas of impact. Natural Resource Bo GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) use excavated material for land reclamation 2. Surface a) use topsoil stockpiled during construction for restoration and landscaping b) minimize disturbance of non-construction sites - propose covenants c) design and implement soil erosion control plan wATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater. iL g'rt,po~e~ · a) (.mo.dify~ystem of treatment for stormwater runoff of wastewater .prior to .recharge of groundwater b) (maintain)permeable areas on the site ?4v, mnn~ ~ a/a. gg-c~a*,~ , 2. Surface water"x ~or-~gt~, ~. ts/Id -I pod~'~ a) ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during construction ~ .... and operation to avoid siltation - hay bales - temporary restoyation of vegetation to disturbed areas - landscaping - (/~ve:. ?W~(_- ~ p/a.~.~vi~ _..~ b) design adequate srormwater .c. ontrol system '~ c~/ modify sewage treatment facilities ) avoid direct discharges to surface water resources ~' TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation restrict clearing to. only those areas necessary preserve part of s~te as a natural area after construction, landscape site with naturally occurring vegetation 2. Wildlife a) prom'de adequate habitat (shelter and food) for remaining-wildlife speoes b) schedule construction to avoid sensitive periods of fish, shellfish and wildlife cycles Page 6 Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Outline Human Resources TRANSPORTATION 1. Provide adequate horizontal and vertical road geometries for anticipated traffic 2. Provide mitigation fo[ traffic impacts as identified through traffic evaluation "~ ~ ~ LAND USE AND ZONING 1.. Existing land use and zoning . a) design project to comPly with exisung land use plans b) design functiOnal and wsually appealing facility to set standard and precedent for future stirrounding land use COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Fire protection a) use construction materials that minimize fire hazards b) incorporate sprinkler and alarm systems into building design c) provide equipment, funds Or services directly to the community 2. Utilities a) install utility services underground b) incorporate water saving fixtures into facility design · c) 'ncorporate energy-saving measures into facility design c. CU' VOR RESOURCES 1. Visual resources /' ' a) design exterior of structure to physically blend bfith existing IT~ ..... / surroundings') ~ I,,,~, b) minimize visual impadf through thoughtful and innovative design - (consider: heigh, t, size) c) design landscaping to be visually pleasing and to serve as a . buff. er between surrounding land uses, parking areas, operational eqmpment and facilities 3. Noise a) b) schedule construction/operation to occur during "normal business" hours minimifinl~ . · noise impact during sensiUve umes (early morning, night) assUre adherence to construction noise standards VII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Identify those adverse environmental effects is Section V that can be.expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section VI. VII. ALTERNATIVES This section contains categories of alternatives with examples. Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. It ~s not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is or is not feasible. A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES Page 7 Cw Be~chcoml~r !I Motel Scoping Outline ah locat!on/bf~ structures ~/pc~,~ . b) locatmn of access routes, parking and utility routes.es~ ~ _~.?'~_~X:~-~¢ ALTERNATIVES SIZE ; ~,,~..~ ~ 1. Increase or decrease project s~ze to minimize possible infip~acts' ~ . NO ACTION 1. ' Impacts of no action effect on public need } effect on developers' need private beneficial or adverse environmental impacts IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be consumed, convertedor made unavailable for future use. X. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS (if applicable) Describe in this Section the potential growth aspects the. proposed prgject may halve. , XI. APPENDICES Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the EIS. A. List of underlying studies, reports and information considered and relied on in preparing statement List all federal, state, regional, or local a. gencies, Organizations, consultants and private persons consulted in prepanng the statement C. Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale Relevant correspondence regarding the projects may be included (required in the Final EIS) Page 8 It would be appr.eciated it you could work the following information contained into the Checklist, wherever you see fit. Ail information shown on maps or plans and in the text should be consistent. In an Appendix to the Environmental Impact Statement, please include a copy of the completed application form for each permit that must be obtained before this project can be constructed. For instance: Town Board of Trustees: Coastal Erosion Hazard application Zoning Board of Appeals: Special Exception application Planning Board: Site Plan application Suffolk County Department Health Services: Water Supply and Wastewater applications New York state.Department of Environmental Conservation: Tidal Wetlands application Where relevant, supporting documentation for these applications should be included, also. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing project must be explained, particularly with reference to the potential change of intensity of use of the existing facilities, such as the restaurant, the swimming pool, etc. Keep in mind that this document will be reviewed by the general public as well a Several goverrnmental agencies. A concise, and simply written text is preferable to a wordy or obtuse one. Accordingly, it would help to provide a Glossary so that the lay reader can interpret the acronyms that are typically used in an environmental impact statement. SEQR SCOPING CHECKLIST APPLICATION OF BEACHCOMBER II MOTEL AMENDED JANUARY 27, 1993 INCLUDING SCOPING MEETING ISSUES This outline has been amended to include comments made as scoping meeting of .ranuao~ 22, 1993. Additions to the previously distributed outline are in italics. This outline is based upon 6 NYCRR Part 617.21 as prepared by the NeE York State Departm. ent of Environmental Conservation to provade a format and guidelines for the preparataon o.f a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The subject Draft EIS should conform to thxs outline in terms of format as well as content. Upon completion, seven (7) copies of the document should be submitted to the Planning Board for review to determine acceptance. Cover Sheet All EIS's (Draft or Final) shall begin with a cover sheet that includes: A. Whether it is a draft or final statement B. Name or other descriptive title of the project C. Location (county and town, village or city) of the project D. Name and address of the lead agency which reqmred preparation of the statement and the name and telephone number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further information E. Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and a contact name and telephone number F. Date of acceptance of the Draft EIS G. In the case of a Draft EIS, the deadline date by which comments are due should be indicated II. Table of Contents and Summary A table of contents and a brief summary are required for Draft EIS and Final EIS's. The summary should include: A. Brief description of. the action . B. Significant, oeneficlal and adverse impacts, (issues of controversy must be -specified) C. Mitigation measures proposed D. Alternative considered E. Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, funding) IlL Description of the Proposed Action PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS 1. Background and histo~ - discuss in detai~ zoning and parcel location 2. Public need for the project, and municipality objectives based on adopted community developments plans 3. Objectives of the project sponsor 4. Benefits of the proposed action a) social Page I Co Do Eo Beachcomber ii Motel Scoping Outline b) economic LOCATION 1. Establish geographic boundaries of the project (use of regional and local scale maps is recommended) . . 2. Description of access to site - Prowde detailed discussion of adjacent roads. 3. Description of existing zoning of proposed site DESIGN AND LAYOUT - A detailed table of anticipated site coverage quantities is recommended. 1. Total site area cb/ proposed impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots, roads) amount of land to be cleared open space: wetlands/water areas, natural and/or covenante, d areas. Discuss non-use of land in order to meet SCSC Article 6. 2. Structures cb/ total building, area layout of buildings (attached, enclosed, separate) site .plans d) drainage plans 3. Parking ~/ pavement area number of spaces and layout 4. Sanitary System Design a) location and setbac.k:s. b) system design, leaching capability, depth to water c) Health Department compliance 5. Water Supply Design a) depth of well b) potential salt-water intrusion c) Health Department compliance CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. Construction a) total construction period anticipated b) schedule of construction c) future potential development, on site or on adjoining properties 2. Operation a) type of operation b) schedule of operation c) fertilization of landscaped areas d) seasonal use and maintenance APPROVALS 1. Required changes or variances to the ~ning regulations . 2. Other permit approval or funding reqmrements and status of required permits ~a) Town pl .a~n. ing sit.e plan. b) ZBA spectal permtt - applicant should seek to resolve property division issue with ZBA P~e2 Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Outline ~ Town Trustees Coastal Erosion Hazard.Act Health Department sanitary arr. water permits -applicant should seek to determine SCDHS denstty requirements with regard to existing Beachcomber I ~) State well and disch.arge permits State wetlands pernuts IV. Environmental Setting. Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface t/ compositi, on and thic.l .al. ess of subsurface material test hole m accord w~th SCDHS requirements 2. Surface a) List of soil types b) discussion of soil characteristics - physical properties (indication of soils hydrological (infiltration) capabilities) - engineering prop?ties (soil bearing capacity) c) distribution of soil types at project site d) suitability for use 3. Topography. . a) description of topography at p. roject site - slopes particularly on east side of site - prominent or unique features - beach, dune and bluff type environment Bo WATER RESOURCES I. Groundwater a) location and description of aquifers and recharge ares - depth of water table - seasonal variation - potential malfunction of sanitary system qualit~ - suitability for consumptive use ~uannty IIOW b) identification of present uses and level of use of groundwater - existing water supply for Beachcomber I Surface water a) location and description of surface waters located on project site or those that re. ay be influenced by the project - classification according to New York State Department of Health and/or NYSDEC - consult Town Wetlands inventory b) identification of uses and level of use of all surface waters - recreational, shellfish, etc. ~1/ description of existing drainage areas, pa.tterns and channels discussion of potential for floodin~g, siltation, erosion and eutrophication of surface water -tnclude FEMA/FIRMflood zone maps and land use restrictions Page 3 Beachcomber 11 Motel $coping Outline TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a) list vegetation types on the project site and within the surrounding area b) discussion of site vegetation characteristics - species presence and abundance - a~e - s1ze - distribution - dominance - community types - unique, rare and endangered species value as habitat for wildlife - productivity Wildlife a) list of wildlife species on theproj.ect site an.d within surrounding area, including migratory andres~dent species b) discussion of wildlife population characteristics - species p. resence and abundance - distribution - dominance - unique, rare and endangered species productivity Wetlands a) list wetland areas within or contiguous to the project site b) discuss wetland characteristics - acreage vegetative cover - classification - benefits of wetland such as flood and erosion control, recreation Human Resources TRANSPORTATION 1. Transportin~ services . a) description of the size, capacity and condition of services - access/egress from site b) description of current level of use of services - source of existing traffic - seasonal influence and use LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning . a) description of the erdstmg land use of the project site and the surro.unding area - residential - vacant, open space . b) description of existing zomng of site and surrounding area 2. Land use plans Page 4 Beachcomber !! Motel Scoping Outline a) description of any land use plans or master plans which include project site and surrounding area discussion of future development trends or pressures . 208 Study recommendations and Article 6 implementatton NURPS Study recommendations for surface water protection COMMUNITY SERVICES (for this section include a list of existing facilities and a discussion of existing levels of usage and projected future needs) 1. Educational facilities 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Police protection Fire protection Health care facilities Social services Recreational facilities Utilities Public water supply - determine status of public water installation by SCWA and describe Solid waste disposal CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) description of the physical character of the community - views of area resources assodated with site - visibility of site from waterways .a~d surrounding areas b) description of natural areas of s~gmficance 2. Historic and archaeological resources a) location and description of historic areas or structures lis.ted on State or National Register or designated by the commumty, or included on Statewide Inventory identification of sites havingpotential significant archaeological value based on contact with State Parks contact local archaeological society with regard to historic/archaeological resources o b) c) Noise a) identification of existing level of noise in the community - use published references SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Identify those aspects of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action and require discussion. Areas of primary concern are listed as follows: Potential for erosion and/or siltation to the site waterway as a result of site construction. Topographic and sedimentation due to slope destabilization of erodable soils. Alteration of ground or surface water quality from inadequ.a.te s. anitary setbacks and/or unsaturated depth and potential water quahty ~mpacts due to water supply pumping. Nitro,.eh budget in consideration of recharge zones and groundwater flow. Descnbe existing motel sanitary facilities. History of SCDHS approvals, and location of well and sanitary system. Page S Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Outline Ecological impacts resu. lting from use.and occupation of the site for motel purposes, as related to tdentified species. Loss of unique wooded areas of site for water supply and grading envelopes. Conformance of proposed project to land use pla~., ,w? particular .regard to Town zoning and Article 6 requirements for density/discharge requirements. VI. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section V. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas of impact. Natural Resource GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) use excavated material for land reclamation 2. Surface a) use topsoil stockpiled during construction for restoration and landscapin~ b) minimize ~llSturbance of non-construction sites - propose covenants c) design and implement soil erosion control plan WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) modify system of treatment for stormwater runoff of wastewater prior to recharge of groundwater b) maintain permeable areas on the site 2. Surface water a) ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during construction and operation to avoid siltation - hay bales - temporary restoration of vegetation to disturbed areas - landscaping b) design adequate stormwater control system c) modify sewage treatment facilities d) avoid direct discharges to surface water resources TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a) restrict clearing to. only those areas necessary b) preserve part of site as a natur.al area c) after construction, landscape stte with naturally occurring vegetation 2. Wildlife a) provide adequate habitat (shelter and food) for remaining.wildlife species . b) schedule construction to avoid sensitive periods of fish, shellfish and wildlife cycles Page 6 Beachcomber !1 Motel Scoping Outline Human Resources TRANSPORTATION 1. Provide adequate horizontal and vertical road geometrics for anticipated traffic 2. Provide mitigation for traffic impacts as identified through traffic evaluation LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) design project to comply with existing land u,s.e plans b) design functional and visually appealing facility to set standard and precedent for future surrounding land use COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Fire protection cb} use construction materials that minimize fire hazards incorporate sprinkler and alarm systems into building design provide equipment, funds or servaces directly to the community 2. Utilities cb} install utility services .underground incorporate water saving fixtures into facility design incorporate energy-saving measures into facility aesign Co CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) design exterior of structure to physically blend with existing surroundings b) minimize visual impact through thoughtful and innovative design (consider: height, size) c) design landscaping to be visually pleasing and to serve as a buffer between surrounding land uses, parking areas, operational equipment and facilities 3. Noise a) b) schedule construction/operation to occur during "normal bu.siness" hours minimizi.n.g . noise impact during sensitive times (early morning, night) assUre adherence to construction noise standards VII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Identify those adverse environmental effects is Section V that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section VI. VII. ALTERNATIVES This section contains categories of alternatives with examples. Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. It is not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is or is not feasible. A. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES Page 7 Beachcomber I1 Motel Scoping Outline Site layout a} location of structures b~ location of access routes, parking and utility routes ALTERNATIVES SIZE 1. Increase or decrease project size to minimize possible impacts ao NO ACTION 1. Impacts of no action cb} effect on public need effect on private develop.ers' need . beneficial or adverse environmental ~mpacts IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABI~E COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. X. GRO..WT~I. INDUCI. NG ASPECTS (if applicable) Describe ~n this section the potential growth aspects the proposed project may have. XIo APPENDICES Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the EIS. List of underlying studies, reports and information considered and relied on in preparing statement B. List all federal, state, regional, or local agencies, organizations, consultants and private persons consulted in preparing the statement C. Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale Do Relevant correspondence regarding the projects may be included (required in the Final EIS) Page 8 Date: To: From: FAX TRANSMITTAL Number of Pages (including cover): If thc total transmittal 15 not received call number below. Comments: I~ 1/.I SOU/HOll PLANNING E,4-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACm_, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 SEQR SCOPING CHECKLIST INCLUDING SCOPING MEETING ISSUES ..... This otaline has been amended to include comments made as scapmg mcctmg oj IanuaT. 22, 1992, Additions to the previously di$lributed outlinc are in italics. This outline is based upon 6 NYCRR Pert 617.21 asprepared by the New Y..ork State Department of Environmental Conservation to provide a format a,nd guide~hnes for the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The subject Dratt EIS should con.form to this outline in terms of format as well as content. Upon com. pletion, seven (7) copies of the document should be submitted to the Planning Boa,'d for review to determine acceptance. Covee Sheet All EIS's (Draft Or Final) shall ..begin with a cover sheet that i~cludes: A_ Whether it is a draft or final statement B. C. D. Name. or other descriptive tlt!,e, of the p.roject . Locauon(county and town, village or cny.) of the.pro3ect Name and address of the lead agency whmh requiredpreparation of the statement and the name and telephone number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further information Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and a contact, name and telephone number Date et acceptance of the Draft EIS. In the case eta Draft EIS, the deadhne date by which comments are due should be indicated II, Table of Contents and Summary . A table of contents and a brief summary are requ:red for Draft ElS and Final EIS's. The .~umm, a~ shou. Id. inclUde: A. Brief descr:pt~on of the action B. Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts, (issues of controversy mas[ be specified) C. Mitigati0. n measures proposed D. Alternative considered E. .. Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, funding) III. Description of the Proposed Action PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS 1. Background and histocy - discuss in detail, zonin~ a~.. parcel location 2. Public need for the project, and mnnicipality objecUves based on adopted community developments plans 3. Objectives of the project sponsor 4. Benefits of the proposed action a) social Page I Do l~cbcomber 11 ~O~! $coping Ouffine 'b) economic LOCATION 1. Establish ge, ographic boundaries of the project (use of regional and local scale maps Is recommended) 2. Description of access to site'-Provide detailed discussion of adjacent roads. 3. Description of e×~stlng zoning of proposed site DESIGN AND LAYOUT. A detailed table of anticipated site coverage quantities is recommended. Total site area / ro osed impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots, roads) P P amount of land to be cleared open space .: wetlands/water areas, natural.and/or covenanted areas. D~scass non-use'of land in order to meet SCSC Articie 6. 2. Structures a) total building .a. rea b) 1.ayout of buildings (attached, enclosed, separate) 0 sxte~plans d) d.ramage plans 3. parking a) pavement area ~b) numb_er of spaces, and layout . 4. aanitaryfiystem Des,gn a) locat:on anti setbacks b) system design, leaching caoabilitv depth to water ~.), ~He~th D, ep~rt.ment comp~.~nce ~' 5. water ~upply ~.~es,gn a) depth 9fwell . . b) p0tentml salt-water mtrus:gn c) Health Department comphance CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. Construction a) total construction period anticimtted b) schedule of cgnstr6ctlon - , ~ futu.re potential development, on Site or on adjoining properties 2. o_peranon . a) type ofoperatmn , b) ich~.dul~ of operat;on c~ fertfl~zatmn 0fl~ndsc. aped areas o) seasonal use and mmntenance APPROVALS 1. 13_¢.quired ch, anges or variances to the zoning regulatio~ 2. Ot~er permit approval or funding requirements and status of required permits - ~/ Town planning site plan ZBA special pemdt . applicant shc~uld seek ~ .... to. esolve £roperO, dtwston issue with ZBA -' Page 2 P~chcomb.2~r I1 Motel .. Seop[ng Outline ~ Town Trustees Coastal Erosion H~z~d Act . . Health Department sanitavi aqd water permtts .apphcan~ should' seek to detemdne SCDHS dens,O, requiremet~ts with regara to ex~tmg Beachcomber I e) State well and discharge permits 0 State wetlands permits iV, Environmental Setting Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) composit!on.and thick~ess, ofsubsurfa, ce material b) test hole tn accord with SCDHS reqmrements 2. Surface a) List of soil ty~es . b) discussion of'soil characteristics - physical properties (indication of soils hydrological (infil,tratioq~ czpabilities) . . e.n. gm, eer!ng prope, rtles (sou beari~:g capact~9 e) d:stnbut~on of sod *ypes at project site . d) suitability for use 3, Topography a) description of topography at project ~ite slopes pa~tlcul,.rly on ,~ast ,' pro'mln-ent or unique features - beach, dune and bluff type environment WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) location and description of aquifers and recharge ares - depth of water table · seasonal variation - potential maJfunction of sanltary system -quality - suitabilit-,~ for consumpt:ve use · ~uanttty - IIOW .b) identification of present uses and level of use of groundwater · existing water supply for Beachcomber I 2. Surface water a) b) location and description of surface ware.ri located on project site or those th,at re. ay be infl.a, enced by the pro,l, ect - classificat:on accor.d, mg to New York ~tate Department of Health and/or N YSDEC ~ co~ult T. own Wetlcau~ b~:'entory ~dent~ficatton of uses and level of use of all surface waters - recreational, shellfish, etc. description of existing drainage, areas, patterns and ckannels d~scussmn of potent:,l tot ,.qoodm~, Sfltanon, erosmn and eutrophication of surface water -tnclude FEMA/FIt~ffiood zone maps and land ~e restrictions Page Beachcomber ii .,Motes $coptaS Outline TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY I. Vegetation a) list vegetation types on the project site arid wi. thin the surrounding b) · d~scuss?n of site vegetatmn charactenshc~ · spec!es presence and abundance - a~ge - S~ze - distribution - dominance co.mmunity types , i Umque, rare and endangered species value as habitat for wildlife - productivity Wildlife a) hst of wfldufe species on the prelect site ,md w~thm surrounding area, including migratory andresiden~ species · b) discussion of wildlife population characteristics - species presence and abundance - distribution · dominance - unique,.rare and endangered species - pro0uctlvity Wetlands a) list wetland areas Mtbin or contiguous to the project site b) discuss wetland characteristics - acreage - vegetative cover classification · benefits of wetland such as flood and erosion control, recreation Human Resources TRANSPORTATION 1. Transportin~ se. rvices a) descnpuon of the size, capacity and condition of services - access/egress from site b) description of.cu, rrent level of use of services - source of ex~stmg traffic - seasonal influence and use LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) description of the exEtlng land use of the project site and the surro.undin, g area - res~denUal · vacant, open sp. ac.e . b) description of ex~stmg zon,ng of site and surrounding area 2~ Land use plans area Page 4 Do Beachcomber II Motel Scoplng Outline a) description of any land use plans or master plans which include project.site and surrounding area discussion of future development trends or pressures  208 recommendations and Article 6 implementation Study NURPS Study recommendations for surface water protection COMMUNITY SERVICES (for this section includ, e a list of existing facilities and a discussio, n of exlst[n.g levels of usage and projected future needs) 1. Educational facilities 2. Police prote.ction 3. Fire protection . 4, Itealth care facilities 5. Social services 6. Recreational ,aoht~es 7. Utilities .... 8. Public water supply- determine statt~ of public water itt~tatlation by $CWA and describe 9. Solid waste disposal CULTURAL RESOURCES I. Visual resources a) description of the phy, lcal character Of the community - views of area resources associa[ed with s~te - visibility of site from waterwa~,s a.n.d surrounding areas _b) description of natural areas of s~gnfflcance 2. Historic.and archaeological .resources . a) location and descript:on of historic areas or structures hs.ted on State or National R.~gister or designated by the commumty; or included on Statew:de Inventory b) ide .ntification of sites havingpotenttal significant archaeological value based on contact with State Parks c) contact local archaeological society with regar4 to historic/archaeological -resources 3. Noise a) identification of existing level of noise in the community - use published references SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Identify those aspe. cts of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adverse!y or benefic:ally affected by the proposed action and require discussion. Areas of pnmacg concern are listed as follows: A. "Potential for erosion and/or siltation to the. site waterway as a result of site construction. Topographic and sedimentation due to slope destabilizalion of erodable soils. Alteration of ground or surface water tluality f.rom inadequ.a.te s. anltary setbacks and/or unsaturated depth and potentml water quality ~mpacts due to water ~upply pumping. Nitro,.eh b.ud.g, et in consid~ratlon of recharge zones and groundwater flow. Describe ex,.stm$ motel santtary facillties. History of SCDHS al~provals, and location of well and sanitary system. Pages l~e~chcomber !1 Mote~ ~;copIng OuLIlne Ecological impacts resultlng from use.and occupation of the site for motel l?utposes, as related to id,e, ntified s, pec~es. Loss of unique wooded areas of site mr water supply and grading envcmPes. Conformance of proposed project to land use plans, with partlcu!ar .regard to Town.zoning and Article 6 requirements for density/discharge requirements, VI. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENV'IRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section V. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas of impact. Natural Re~,ource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) use excavated material for !and reclamation 2. Surface a) use topsoil stockpiled during construction for restoration and land, scapln$ b) mimmize aisturbance of non-construct[on sites - propose covenants c) design and implement soil erosion control plan WATER RESOURCES 1, Groundwater a) m,odif~, system of treatment for stormwater runoff of wastewater pn.or to recharge qf groundwater b) maintain permeable areas on the site 2. Surface water a) ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during constructkm and operation to avoid siltation . haYbales . tempora.ry restoration ofvegetatlon to disturbed areas - la. ndscapmg c~ design adequate stormwater control system mod, fly .sewag,e treatment facilities avoid direct d~scharges to surface water resources TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation ,~. . a) restn,~t clearing to only those areas necessa~ b) preserve part of site as a natural ar,ca c) after construction, landscape site w~th naturally occurring vegetation 2. Wildlife a) prey!de adequate habitat (skel[er and food) for remalniv, g wildlife species b) schedule construction to avoid sensitive periods of fish, shellfish and wildlife cycles Page 6 {! Mote! Outline Human P.e$ource$ Aa TRANSPORTATION I. Provide adequate horizontal and vertical road geometries for anticipated traffic 2. Provide mitigation for traffic impacts as identified through traffic evaluation LAND USE AND ZONING 1. .Existing land use and zoning . a) /:les!gn project to comply with existing !and u. se plans b) design fun~ional and visually .appealing facility to set standard and precedent tot future surrounding land use COMMUNITY SERI,qCES 1. Fire protection a) .use construction materials that minimke fire h~arda b) incorporate sprinkler and alarm system.,.s into building design c)... provide equipment, funds or serrates d~rectl7 to the community 2. Uuht~es install utility semces undergroun.d incorporate water saving fuctures into facility design incorporate energy-saving rne:~sures into facility design CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) design exterior of structure to physically blend wilh existing surroundings . b) minimize vFsual impact through thoughtfid ~nd innovative design (co.nsider: heigh, t, s~ze) design landscaping to be vkually pleasing an.d to serve as a buffer between surrounding land uses, parking areas, operational eqmpment and facilities c) Noise a) b) schedule construction/operation to occur during "normal business" hours minimizing noise impact during sensm've times (early morning, night) assl~re adherence to construction noise standards VII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Identify those adverse e. nvironmental effects is Section V that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigauon measures considered in Section VI. Vll. ALTEi~:NATIVES Th~s ~;ect~on contains cat%on.es of alternat~/es v. th exa.mples. D~sm~saon of each alternative should be at a level suffic:ent to permit a comparative ~ssessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative, It % not acceptable to make s~mple assert:OhS that a pamcular alternative ~s or u not feasible. A. AL2ERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES P~ge 7 Beachcomber Il l~lotel $coPlng Out!lne Site layout . a) locat!on of structures b) locauon of access routes,parking and utillty~ routes ALTERNATIVES SIZE 1. Incre~e or decrease project s!~e to minimize possible impacts NO ACTION " 1. Impacts of no action a) effect on pu.blJc need b) effect on private develop.ers' need c) beneficial or adverse environmental impacts IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Identif), those natural a. nd human resources listed in Section IV that will be consumed, converteo or made unavadable for future use. X. GRO}.VT~-I. I~DUCiNG ASPECTS (if applicable) Describe In this section the potential growth aspects the proposed project may t:ave. XI. APPENDICES Following is a list of materials typically used in support ¢f the ElS. repor.s and information cons:dered and relied on in List of.underlying studies, * .... preparing statement List all federal, state reglonal, or local agex~cles, organizations, consultants and private persons consulted tn preparing the statement Technical exhiblts'(if any) at a legible scale Relevant correspondence regarding the projec,s may be included (reqmred in the Final EI$) SENDER: SUBJECT: SCTM~: COMMENTS: SUBMISSION WITHOU.T COVER LETTER  GLENN SPETTA ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS · ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND ANALYSES · ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT STATEMENTS · COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT · AQUATIC AND ~ENTHIC SURVEYS 1050 SMITHTOWN AVE PO. BOX 94 ~OHEMIA, NY 11716 (516) 567-5859 January 22, 1993 Mr. Nicholas Aliano Aliano and Krupskl Ashley Lane, Shoreham 11786 Re: Beachcomber II Motel Site Plan Required Scope, Content and Format for Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) FOR USE AND DISTRIBUTION AT SCOPING MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 1990 - TOWN HALL Dear Mr. Aliano: The Town of Southold P!a.m. 'ng Board is providing.this scoping information in order to ensure that the Draft EIS whtch tsprepared for this. project pursuant to the Positive Declaration will provide a baseline of information which is necessary to consider in the decision-making process. Please review the attached information which reflects the Town's concerns as expressed through the consultants review of the project and contact with the Town on this matter. Attachment I includes the Positive Declaration which provides insight into the reasons for requiring a Draft EIS. Attachment II is the Long EAF which provides information on the expected impacts of the project and their magnitude. Attachment III is an outline which has been c.o. mpiled specifically for thisproject using the NYSDEC SEQR Scopin~. Checklist. This outhne should be followed for format as well as content. The depth of detail required should be comm.ensurate with the magnitude of the impact. Key impact areas identified in the documentation herein should be analyzed in great detail. The Draft EIS should be accurate, concise, and consistent, and information contained within should be referenced and supported. The Draft EIS shou. ld be prepared using accepted practice and literature for such documents, and analys~s and conclusions must be objective. Impacts should be r. tuantified where possible; ho..wever, qualitative discussions are appropriate where quantification is not appropriate or feasible. As consultants to the Town, our firm will review the Draft EIS. Therefore, if you have any questions during the course of preparation of the document, please feel free to call our office. Very tm~urs, . ~'i~! ~orhis, CEP, AICP 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 SEQR SCOPING CHECKLIST APPLICATION OF BEACHCOMBER II MOTEL Beachcomber ii Motel Scoplng Documentation This outline is based upon 6 NYCRR Pa~t. 617.21 as prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservatzon to provide a format .a~.d guidelines for the preparation of a Dr.a~ Environmental Impact Statement. The subject Draft EIS should conform to this outhne in terms of format as well a~ content. Cover Sheet All EIS's (Draft or Final) shall begin with a cover sheet that includes: A. Whether it is a draft or final statement B. Name or other descriptive title of the project C. Location (county and town, village or ci~) of the project D. Name and address of the lead agency which reqmredpreparation of the statement and the name and te. lephone number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further information E. Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and a contact name and telephone number F. Date of acceptance of the Draft EIS . G. In the case of a Draft ElS, the deadline date by which comments are due should be indicated II. Table of Contents and Summary A table of contents and a brief summary are required for Draft EIS and Final EIS's. The summary should include: A. Brief description of the action . B. Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts, 0ssues of controversy must be specified) C. Mitigation measures proposed D. Alternative considered E. Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, funding) IlL Description of the Proposed Action PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS 1. Bac.k. ground and histo~ 2. Pubhc need for the project, and municipality objectives based on adopted community developm, ents plans 3. Objectives of the project sponsor 4. Benefits of the proposed action economic LOCATION 1. Establish ge. ographic boundaries of the project (use of regional and local scale maps ~s recommended) 2. Description of access to site - Provide detailed discussion of adjacent roads. CRAMER, Vq~ ~)~/,~SOCIATES Page 1 Beachcomber I1 Motel $coping Documentation 3. Description of existing zoning of proposed site DESIGN AND LAYOUT - A detailed table of anticipated site coverage quantities is recommended. 1. Total site area / proposed impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots, roads) amount of lahd to be cleared open space - wetlands/water areas, natural and/or covenanted areas. Discuss non-use of land in order to meet SCSC Article 6. 2. Structures 9) total building ..area b) 1.ayout of buildings (attached, enclosed, separate) ~/ s~te.plans drainage plans 3. Parking a) pavement area b) number of spaces and layout 4. Sanitary System Design a) location and setbacks b) system design, leaching capability, depth to water c) Health Department compliance 5. Water Supply Design a) depth of well b) potential salt-water intrusion c) Health Department compliance Do CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. Construction ~}total construction pen'od anticipated schedule of construct;on future potential development, on site or on adjoining properties 2. Operation a) type of operation b) schedule of operation c) fertilization of landscaped areas d) seasonal use and maintenance Bo APPROVALS 1. Required changes or variances to the zoning regulations 2. Other. permit approval or funding requirements and status of required pernuts . a) Town planning and/or ZBA ~f applicable ~a~x$7~~5' b) Health Department permits . .r~0d '~ r v c) State well and discharge pernuts IV. Environmental Setting Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) composition and thickness of subsurface material CRAMER, V~ ~////ASOCIATES ENVIRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS Page 2 Bo Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Documentation b) test hole in accord with SCDHS requirements Surface a) .Li.'st of .soil types. . . . b) d~scusslon of soft characteristics - Dhys~cal propemes (indication of soils hydrol.ogical (infiltration.) capa. bflxties) . - engmeenng properties (soil beanng eapacaty) c) distribution of soil types at project site d) suitability for use Topography . a) description of topography at project site - slopes particularly on east side of site - prominent or unique features - beach, dune and bluff type environment WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) location and description of aquifers and recharge ares - depth of water table - seasonal variation - potential malfunction of sanitary system quality - suitability for consumptive use ~luantlty IlOW b) identification of present uses and level of use of groundwater - existing water supply for Beachcomber I Surface water a) location and description of surface waters located on project site or those that m. ay be influenced by the project - classification according to New York State Department of ~ -- Health and/or NYS~)EC b) identification of uses and level of use of all surface waters - recreational, shellfish, etc. c) descrip.tion of existing drainage .areas, pa.tterns and channels d) discussion of potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and eutrophication of surface water TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY i. Vegetation a) list vegetation types on the project site. and within the surrounding area b) discussion of site vegetation characteristics - species presence and abundance - size - distribution - dominance - co.mmunity types umque, rare and endangered species value as habitat for wildlife - productivity ENVIRONMENT~~* CONSULTANTS Page 3 Beachcomber 11 Motel Scoping Documentation 3~ Wildlife a) list of wildlife species on the project site and within surrounding ~ea, including migratory and resident species - b) discuss, ion of wildlife population characteristics - specxes presence and abundance - distribution - dominance - unique, .r.are and endangered species proaucuwty Wetlands list wetland areas within or contiguous to the project site discuss wetland characteristics - acreage. vegetative cover classification - benefits of wetland such as flood and erosion control, recreation Human Resources TRANSPORTATION 1. Transporting services a) descn~ption of the size, capacity and condition of services - access/egress from site b) descriptl'on of current level of use of services - source of existing traffic seasonal influence and use LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zon/ng . a) description of the extstmg land use of the project site and the surraund~' area . - residential - vacant, open spac. e b) description of existang zoning of site and surrounding area 2. Land use pi.ans. ~ "~' a) description of any land use plans or master plans which include p.roject site and surrounding area b) discussion of future development trends or pressures c) 208 Study recommendations and Article 6 implementation d) NURPS Study recommendations for surface water protection COMMUNITY SERVICES (for this section include a list of existing facilities and a discussion of existing levels of usage and projected future needs) 1. Educational facilities 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Police protection Fire protection Health care facilities Social services Recreational facilities Utilities ENVIRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS P~e4 Scoping Documentation 8. Public water supply co(-~./~d~- 9. Solid waste disposal CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) des.cription of the physical char.acter of. the community - v~ews of area resources associated vath site - visibility of site from waterways and surrounding areas b) description of natural areas of significance 2. Historic and archaeologi .cal .resourc.es a) location and description of h~storic areas or structures listed on State or National Register or designated by the community, or included ._~ on Statewide Inventory identification of sites havingpotential significant archaeological value based on contact with State Parks b) 3. Noise a) identification of existing level of noise in the community - use published references SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Identify those aspe. cts of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially a.ff. ected by the proposed action and require disCUssion. Areas of primary concern are hsted as follows: A. Potential for erosion and[or siltati.o.n to the site waterway as a result of site construction. Topographm and sedimentation due to slope destabilization of erodable soils. Alteration of ground or surface water quality from inadequ.a.te s. anitary setbacks and/or un:s. aturated depth and potential water quahty ~mpacts due to water supply pumping. Nitrogen budget in consideration of recharge zones and groundwater flow. Ecological impacts resulting from use .and ocCUpation of the site for motel purposes, as related to identified species. Loss of unique wooded areas of site for water supply and grading envelopes. e~. ~r ~..,~D. Conformance of nroposed project to land use plans, with partiCUlar regard to v~,~f Town zoning and~.~icle 6 requirements for density/discharge requirements. .~ VIL . MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ~ Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section /- V. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas of impact· Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) use excavated material for land reclamation 2. Surface ENVIRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS Page Beachcomber I1 Motel Scoplng Documentation use topsoil stockpiled during construction for restoration and landscapin minimize disturbance of non-construction sates - propose covenants design and implement soil erosion control plan WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) modify system of treatment for stormwater runoff of wastewater prior to recharge of groundwater . b) maintain permeable areas on the s~te 2. Surface water a) ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during construction and operation to avoid siltation - hay bales - temporary restoration of vegetation to disturbed areas landscaping b) design adequate stormwater co.ntrol system ~/ modify sewage treatment facilities avoid direct discharges to surface water resources Cw TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a) restrict clearing to only those areas necessary b) preserve part of site as a natural area c) after construction, landscape site with naturally occurring vegetation 2. Wildlife a) provide adequate habitat (shelter and food) for re~a.ining wildlife speci b) schedule construction to avoid sensitive periods of fish, shellfish and wildlife cycles Human Resources TRANSPORTATION 1. Provide adequate horizontal and vertical road geometrics for anticipated traffic 2. Provide nfitigation for traffic impacts as identified through traffic evaluation LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning . a) design project to comply vath existin.$ land u.,s.e plans b) design functional and visually apPealing facflxty to set standard and precedent for future surrounding land use COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Fire protection / use construction materials that minimize fire hazards incorporate sprinkler and alarm systems into building design provide equipment, funds or sermces directly to the community 2. Utilities a) install utility services undergroun.d b) incorporate water saving fixtures mto facility design ENVIRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS Page 6 Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Documentation c) incorporate energy-saving measures into facility design CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) design exterior of structure to physically blend with existing surrounding b) mim'mize visual impact through thoughtful and innovative design (consider: height, size) . design landscaping to be msually pleasing and to serve as a buffer between surrounding land uses, parking areas, operational equipment andfacilities c) Noise a) b) schedule construction/operation to occur during "normal business" hours minimizing noise impact during sensiUve times {early morning, night) assure adherence to construction no,se standards VII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Identify those adverse environmental effects is Section V that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section VI. VII. ALTERNATIVES This section contains catego.ri.es of aiterua.tives with examples. Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to perrmt a comparative assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. It ~s not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is or is not feasible. go ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES 1. Site layout a) location of structures b) location of access routes, parking and utility routes ALTERNATIVES SIZE 1. Increase or decrease project size to minimize possible impacts NO ACTION 1. Impacts of no action a) effect on public need b) effect on private developers' need c) beneficial or adverse environmental impacts IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be consumed, convertedor made unavailable for future use. X. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS (if applicable) Describe in this section the potential growth aspects the proposed project may have. XI. APPENDICES Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the EIS. CRAMER, V~ ~SOClATES E NVI R ON M E NT;~:~~ G CONSULTANTS A. C. D. Beachcomber 11 Motel Scoping Documentation List of.underlying studies, reports and information considered and relied on in preparing statement List all federal, state, regional, or local agencies, organizations, consultants and private persons consulted in preparing the statement Technical exhibits (ff any) at a legible scale Relevant correspondence regarding the projects may be included (required in the Final EIS) ENVIRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS Page 8 DEPARTHENT OF HEALTH SERVICES COUNTY OF SUFFOLK I,'muaq, 22, 1993 MARy E. Hi~ee~=. M.D,. M.PH. Valcrle Scopaz Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Beachcomber Motel Expansion 1000-$3-1-2, 83-1-17 De;u Ms. Scopaz: The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS; "l~pamnelxt") has ~eceivcd your lctler dated Januoa7 6, 1993, concerning the above-referenced project. Review of this action regarding natura[ resource concerns and sanitary concerns will take place as pall of the SEQRA impact statement process. The applicant must comply with the requhemems of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code and relevant construction standards for water supply and sewage disposal. Design and flow specifications subsurface soil conditions and complete site plan details are essential to the review of this project. These considerations are rzviewed completely at the thne of SCDHS application. Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. If you have any questions, ple use feel to contact the Office of Ecology at 852-2078. MJR/amf cc: Vito Minei, P.E. Stephen Costa, P.E. Charles Lind, SC Planning Sincerely Yours, Mark I. Reuscl'fle Envkonmental ]Planner Office of Ecology:~,.~:: 480 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD April ll, 1978 A regular meeting of the Southold Town Board was held at 3:00 P.M., Tuesday, April ll, 1978 at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Supervisor Martocchia opened the meeting with the following present: Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia Justice Martin Suter Councilman James Homan Councilman Henry W. Drum Councilman William R. Pell III Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker Highway Superintendent Raymond C. Dean Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Absent: Justice Francis T. Doyen On motion of Justice Suter~ seconded by. Councilman Homan, it was RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board minutes of March 28, 1978 be and hereby are approved as submitted. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell~ Councilman Drum, Councilman Homart, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. On motion of Councilman Homan, seconded by Councilman Pell, it was RESOLVED that the next regular meeting of the Southold Town Board will be held at 3:00 P.M., Tuesday, April 25, 1978 at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell, Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. Kofmal Presentation Lt. McIntire, U.S. Coast Guard, presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Fishers Island Constable Alfred Grebe in recognition of notable services by assisting greatly in furthering the aims and functions of the U.S. Coast Guard and enabling them to make a critichl decision when time was of the essence. On March 16, 1978~ during a northeast snow storm the barge Ocean 250 went aground at Watch Hill, Rhode Island, while carrying 250,000 barrels of gasoline. The Coast Guard called for assistance from people of Fishers Island to transport them from their Fishers Island C. G. Station to East Point, Fishers Island to survey the beach to determine there was no gasoline on the beach. On motion of Councilman Drum, seconded by Justice Suter, it was RESOLVED that the reports for the month of March 1978 from the Supervisor, Town Clerk, Building Department, Police Department, Assessors, Dog Wardens, Justice Suter be and hereby are accepted for filing. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell, Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Superv~aor Martocchia. This resolution was declared adopted. The various committees have had discussions with the Board, the beach, police department, street light and road committees to find out where each committee stands for the progress of the year 1978. The audit has not been comoleted at this time. This evening there will be two hearings on applications for change of zone: 7:30 P.M., North Fork Manor; 8:00 P.M., Aliano-Krupski. Supervisor Martocchia: 1. Letter from the Southold Town Fire Chiefs Council asking for a joint meeting w~hthe Police Chief, Highway Superintendent, and Supervisor relative to coordination during snowstorms, burning per- mits and disaster plan. A meeting will be arranged.--Relative to the burning permit problem, Supervisor Martocchia has talked to people at the air pollution group, Dr. Harris of the Health Depart- ment. They will get back to him withthe possibility of a solution. On motion of Councilman Pell, seconded by Councilman Drum, it was RESOLVED that the Greenport Fire Department be and hereby are granted permission to use the town roads north of Bridge Street to the traffic circle and west of Sixth Street to Moores Lane, Greenport for staging areas for the Southern New York Volunteer Fireman's Parade and Drill to be held on June 10, 1978; provided the Greenport Fire Department provides the proper insurance to hold the town of Southold harmless. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell, Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. Supervisor Martocchia: 2. Letter from the Suffolk County Department of Emergency Preparedness relative to the purchase of cots at $9.00 each and disposal blankets at $S.00 each for use during snowstorms and emergencies by the various townships and fire departments, schools and hospitals. This information will be forwarde~ to the various agencies in the town for a tabttlation. S. Letter from Trumble-McGuirk and Associates, New London, Connecticut requesting information on property owned by the Fishers Island Ferry District, a garage at S. Captain's Walk, New London; information to be used in a revaluation program throughout the city of New London being conducted by the TMA firm. This will be forwarded to the Secretary of the Fishers Island Ferry District. $. Notification of a hearing to be held at the Village Hall, Greenoort on Thursday, April 1S, 1978 at 10:SO A.M. and to be continued on Friday, April l~th, if necessary, relative to the application of Mascony Transport and Ferry Service, Inc. for a permit to enter on to a State highway~ pursuant to Part 125 of Title 17 of the Official Compilation of Codes~ Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. 5. Receipt of Certificate of Final State Equalization Rate 12.28 for the Town of Southold for the assessment roll completed and verified and filed in 1977. This is just a fraction lower than last year. 6. Request for payment by Greenman-Pedersen, Associates, P.C. for the engineering, inspection and administration portion of their work on the Town Hall addition. 7. Letter from the Long Island Lighting Company stating they are asking permission of the Public Service Commission to offer its seasonal commercial customers an optional rate, which will hope- fully resolve the long-standing dissatisfaction with the current "rachet charge" of their electric bills. The major change is that ther~ will no longer be any charges rendered in the off-season period when electric service is not being rendered. 8. Letter from the Long Island Lighting Company relative to the tax adder portion of the composite rental rates as provided in the agreement between the Town and LILCO for the rental of street lights. It is LILC0's intent that billing of street lighting service beginning with April l, 1978 be adjusted to reflect adjustments as sh~n through the tabulations based on the difference between the tax portion of the rental rate for the current year and that of the original year of contract (1976.) On motion of Councilman Homan, seconded by Justice Suter, WHEREAS~ the Town of Southold has requested the County of Suffolk to dredge a navStion channel in Little Creek, Town of Southold, and WHEREAS, the County of Suffulk proposes to do said dredging of Little Creek, in the Town of Southold at a nominal cost to the Town of Southold, and '~?rEREAS~ in order to accomplish said dredging~ plans, specifications~ agreements and other documents must be executed on behalf of the Town of Southold, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Supervisor be and he hereby is authorized to execute, on behalf of the To~m of Southold, all necemary plans and specifications, spoil area~reements, assurances to the County of Suffolk, license and/or dredging permit applications to Federal and State Agencies and all other documents that may be required to accomplish said dredging work. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell, Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: JusticeDoyen. This resolution was declared adopted. ~oved by Councilman Homan, seconded by Councilman Pell, WheREAS, the Town of Southold has requested the County of Suffolk to dredge a navigation channel in Cedar Beach Harbor Inlet Town of Southold, and WHEREAS, the County of Suffolk proposes to do said dredging of Cedar Beach Harbor Inlet, in the Town of Southold at a nominal cost to the Town of Southold, and WHEREAS, in order to accomplish said dredging, plans, specifications, agreements and other documents must be executed on behalf of the Town of Southold, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Supervisor be and he hereby is authorized to execute, on behalf of the Town of Southold, all necessary plans and specifications, spoil area~reements, assurances to the County of Suffolk, license and/or dredging permit applications to Federal and State Agencies and all other documents that may be required to accomplish said dredging work. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell, Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. Tais resolution was declared adopted. (Super visor Martocchia explained that residents of the Cedar Beach area requested that this application be made to the County of Suffolk.) Supervisor Martocchia: 9. This morning the Board met with a representative of Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. Consulting Engineers who made a presentation of the services they could provide in the area of solid waste management. In two weeks the firm of Sacco and Ahlers will make a presentation and possibly after that the firm of Greenman- Pedersen. 10. Letter from Mozes~& Pine who has completed the study for the Town of East Hampton relative to planning for housing, asking for an opportunity to meet with the Town Board to discuss what their firm has to offer to the Town of Southold. They would be prepared to submit a preliminary proposal outlining a housing study appropriate to our needs. On motion of Justice Suter, seconded by Councilman Drum, it was RESOLVED that Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia be a~d he hereby is' authorized to complete the ~eccessary forms for the Suffolk County Department of Labor S~mmer Youth Conservation Corps Project, and expend $2,500.00 from the Department of Public Works Account, and $2,500.OO from the Highway Department Account as the towns contributed funds to the project. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell, Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. (Supervisor Martocchia stated the Town participated in this project last year, expending the same amount of funds, and based on the reco~nendations of Highway Superintendent Dean, the employees did a fine job. Of the $5,000. invested, about $10,OO0 of payroll is provided the Town, for employees that would ordinarily be hired anyway.) Supervisor Martocchia: ll. Receipt of an invitation from the Suf~lk County Community College to join them at an Open House at the Marine Science Center, Bayview Road, Southold on Sunday, April 30, from 2 - 5 PM. There will be a guided tour of the facilities, a display of equipment and a specially prepared experiment for children. A nature walk along Peconic Bay is also planned. 12. Receipt of a letter from the Cooperative Extension, New York State, Sea Grant Advisory Service informing the Board of a meeting to be held at the Cooperative Extension building~ Riverhead, on April 19 at l:OO P.M. at which time they will learn what wo towns in Massachusetts have done in the development of clam management programs. 13. Receipt of a letter from the E~stern Suffolk Board of Realtors~ Inc.~ Riverhead~ asking that the Town of Southold join them in proclaiming April 16-22 Private Property Week. The following proclamation was read: WHEREAS~ the spirit of Free Enterprise that is the underlying spirit of America has always found praiseworthy expression in the spirit of the citizens of Southold and~ WHEREAS~ the industrious conduct of our citizens daily exhibits a laudable model to all Americans of honorable pursuit of the rewards and satisfaction that the Free Enterprise System extends and~ WHEREAS~ the high quality of life in our community is a noteworthy reflection of the care, cost~ and concern which our ~eople generously spend on their property, homes~ and places of busi- ness and, WHEREAS~ the Eastern Suffolk Board of Realtors~ Inc~ is a credit to ow community both by its assiduous cultivation of the free enterprise spirit to the benefit of all, and by the trustworthy a~ professional servises it renders in the performance of real estate transactions and~ WHEREAS~ Realtors have as one of their primary objectives the protection of the right of all citizens to own private property and in furtherance of this goal are consistently prominent in the community's effort to enhance the residential~ educational~ recrea- tional~ and economic well-being of our people and~ WH~REAS~ Realtors have designed an annual observance dedicated to the purpose of promoting deeper public awareness of the privilege Americans share as citizens of a nation where the bounty of free enterprise is limited only by individual initiative and willing response to challenge and, WHEREAS~ it is proper to encourage vocal expression of allegiance to America's values in our community and in every community, NOW THE~EFORE~ I~ Albert M. Martocchia, Supervisor~ Town of Southold~ do hereby proclaim April 16-22 to be Private Property Week. And I urge my fellow citizens to join with the Eastern Suffolk Board of Realtors, Inc. and the more than ~00,0OO Realtors and Realtor- Associates throughout the nation in this observance by taking an active part in appropriate and significant programs of national and community betterment during this week and during the coming year. Mr. John Nickles, Treasurer and Director of the Eastern Suffolk Board of Realtors, Inc.~ stated the program is national~ celebrating the legacy left to us from the founding fathers, which is the rare orivi- lege of right of orivate ~roperty ownership~ which is one of the freedoms we possess, which many other countries do not have. Supervisor Martocchia: 14. Letter from the Suffolk County Department of Transpor- tation~ Aviation Division~ stating they have contracted ~cith an airport consulting firm for the preparation of a Master Plan for the develop- ment of the Suffolk County Airport. They intend to establish a Technical Advisory Group which will meet at appropriate points in the process of review and discuss the work of the Consultant. They ask that the Board appoint an aopropriate representative to the Group. The Board has thought of quite a few individuals who are qualified along this line and will submit a list to the agency and let them select a representative. If anyone in the audience has anynames~ they should give the names to Supervisor Martocchia within a week for submission. On motion of Councilman Drum, seconded by Councilman Homart, ~t was RESOLVED that John Wickham be and he hereby is~thorized to expend up to $1000.00 on behalf of the Town of Southold, to prepare data to be presented to the Federal Insurance Administration questioning the accuracy of the preliminary flood plain maps. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell~ Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. Supervisor Martocchia: 15. Receiot of a letter from Dorothy W. Faucon, Southold, concerning the proposed residence for mentally retarded individuals~ which has been discussed at prior Town Board meetings~ and two meetings have been held with State officials~ County officials and representatives of the AHRC. Mrs. Faucon states her position on this matter as not objecting to such a residence in her neighborhood. 16. Request from Oysterponds Free School District for the total amount of local and state funds they can expect to receive for their summer program for the 1978 summer season.--This amount of money will be allocated shortly after they submit their program. 17. Each year the dry cleaning establishments in Southold Town are given an opportunity to submit their bids on dry cleaning the police department uniforms. This is not a formal bid~ as the cost is not great enough. The Board has the names of Home Town Cleaners, Mattituck, Village Cleaners~ Greenport, and Hoppy's, Greenport. If anyone in the audience has other names of cleaners inSouthold Town to submit, they should give them to the Supervisor as soon as possible. The present agreement expires the end of this month. 18. Notification from the Devartment of the Army Corps of Engineers upon application of Frank Bisk to bulkhead~ dredge, fill, ramp and float arrangement at Fordham Canal~ Greenport. Objections by April 28, 1978. 19. Request from the Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce for funds, normally supplied each year, for brochures. HoweVer, Supervisor Martocchia was at a joint meeting ~ the Southold Town Chamber of Commerce organizations and informally hewas asked if there is money available for the other chambers. There is a $3~000. fund for the brochures~ put out by the North Fork Promotion Committee. They are not responding at this time to the $3~O00 request from the Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce~ so that the Cutchogue and Mattituck Chambers Of Commerce may make a request of their own. 20. Receipt of a letter from Mary V. Tannenbaum, Coordinator for the Eastern Long Island Gymnastics Association. Last Year the Town gave $~00 to that organization to purchase gy~mastic equipment to be owned by the TO~ of Southold and stored in the Mattituck High School. Mrs. Tannenbaum has now reimbursed the Town in the amount of $62.00~ the money which was left over after the purchase of the equipment. 21. Receipt of a letter from Assemblyman Angelo F. Orazio~ l~th District, inviting the Town Board to participate in a public hearing being conducted on Friday~ April l~, 1978, by the State Assembly Real Property Taxation Committee on Mr. Orazio's bill A-2339~ pertaining to the financing of public education by the elimination of the real property~x.---Town Attorney Tasker stated he did not ~ad the bill completely, but basically a bill to impose cost of public education on the State and relieve it from the real property tax. 22. Receipt of a questionnaire from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation relative to State Environ- mental Quality Review. The Town has held a oublic hearing on a oro- posed local law for environmental quality review, but no action has been taken~ due to the fact the County of Suffolk was doing something similar to it at the time in 1977. The State is now asking the Town what has been done in our Township on the environmental quality review. Each Board member has a copy of the proposed local law and supporting information for review and action will be taken at the next meeting. 23. The next item concerns the recreation building the Town planned to construct in Peconic for the Senior Citizens and Youth of Southold Town. A letter has been received from the Department of Housing and Urban Development stating that the resolution adopted by the Town in November 1977 is not acceptable to them regarding the Year III funds. The Town Board~ at the time of adopting this reso- lution~ did not agree with HUD's resolution and chose to draft their own. HUD is now indicating the Town may lose the $93,000 Year III funds. However, Supervisor Martocchia has made contacts with the Director and Deputy Director of the program~ and a letter is being sent to HUD today stating that what they ask the Town to do has been done~ namely~ set aside parcels of land for Multiole Residence zone. On motion of Councilman Drum, seconded by Justice Suter, it was RESOL~D that Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia be and he hereby is authorized to send a letter to the Department of Housing and Urban Development giving the Town. of Southold assurances under the Housing Assistance Plan that the Town of Southold already has available undeveloped areas zoned for multiple dwelling uses which would be more than adequate to meet its proportionate share of housing units under the Housing Assistance Plan, and the Town of Southold will not impose any unreasonable impediments to the development of such housing units, as set forth in the Town Board's resolution adopted on November 29, 1977. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell, Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Surer, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. SuperVisor Martocchia: 2~. Letter from Stirling Eastern Shores Association, Greenport, opposing the construction ramp at Inlet Pond area, Eastern Shores.---Supervisor Martocchia stated he approved such construction of a ramp as his thinking at the time of the proposal was that there have been so many conditions in the past in the Long Island Sound of marine problems, and he felt this would aid the Bay Constables to have faster access to the Long Island Sound.---The letter from the Stirling Eastern Shores Association was directed to Pio Massetti, Principal Environmental Analysis, Department of Public Works, Suffolk County. On motion of Counc%lman Drum, seconded by Councilman Poll, WHEREAS a proposed Local Law No. 2 - 1978 was introduced at a meeting of this board held on the lOth day of January, 1978, and ,WHEREAS a public hearing was held thereon by the Board on the lkth day of February~ 1978, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Local Law No. 2 - 1978 be enacted as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. 2 - 1978 A Local Law to Amend Chapter 100 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Southold in Relation to Self-Service Gasoline Service Stations. I~ Section of Southold as follows: 1OO-13B of Article I of Chapter 100 of the Code of the Town is hereby amended by adding a new paragraph thereto to read PARTIAL SELF-SERVICE GASOLIh~ SERVICE STATION ~ A Gasoline service station primarily for the servicing of motor vehicles and the dispensing of gasoline by means of a qualified attendant controlling an approved console regulating the flow of gasoline into fixed and approved dispensing equipment thereafter to be operated by the customer at 486 one (1) set of oumps on one (1) pump island and by a qualified attendant operating dispensing equipment at all other pump islands. II. Section lO0-7OB of Article VII of the Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended by renumbering paragraph (5) to paragraph (6), and by adding a new paragraph (5), to read as follows: (~) Partial self-service gasoline service stations~ subject to all of the provisions of Section lO0-70B(~), and the following additional requirements: (a) Each gasoline partial self-service facility £- shall have a qualified attendant on duty wherever the station is open for business. It shall be the duty of the qualified attendant to control and operate both the console regulating the flow of gasoline to the dispensing equipment thereafter to be operated by the customer at the self-service pump island and the dispensing equipment on the other pump islands. (b) Gasoline shall at no time be dispensed without the direct supervision of the qualified attendant. A control shall be provided which will shut off the.flow of gasoline to the dispensing equipment at the self- service pump island whenver the qualified attendant is absent from the control console for any ~eason what- ever, including when he is operating the dispensing equipment on the other pump islands. (c) The console regulating t~ flow of gasoline to the remote dispensing equipment hereafter operated by the customer at the self-service pump island shal~ be situated in such a manner as to give the qualified atten- dant controlling said console an unobstructed v~w of the operationg of said remote dispensing equipment. (d) The self-service pump island shall have controls on all pumps that will permit said pumps to operate only when a dispensing nozzle is removed from its bracket on the pump and the switch for this pump is ma~ually ~- operated. (e) The self-service pump island shall be protected by an automatic fire protection system in the form of an approved system of dry powder release which will act as an auto~ic fire extinguisher. (f) No customer shall be permitted to dispense gasoline unless he shal~, possess a valid motor vehicle operator's license. (g) There shall be no latch-open device on any self-service dispensing nozzle. III. This 16cal law shall take effect immediately. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell~ Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Surer, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. On motion of Councilman Homan, seconded by Justice Surer, it was RESOLVED that $11,9OO.OO be and hereby is transferred from Item ~720 Antirecession Account to A1620 Buildings. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell~ Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter~ Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. (Mrs. Barbara Schriev~asked what Antirecession Funds are?--- Supervisor Martocchia stated that it is money received based upon the unemployment rate in our area. A small check than usual was received recently due to the unemployment rate being reduced for this area.) (Supervisor Martocchia stated the reason for putting the Antirec funds in the Buildings account is for building sanitation facilities at the Goose Creek Beach. The sanitation facilities were purchased last year but a ~uilding and sewage facilities and water must be constructed.) On motion of Justice Suter, seconded by Councilman Drum, it was RESOLVED that the resignation of Mary E. Dawson as secretary to the $outhold Town Board be and hereby is accepted, with regrets, effective May ~, 1978, and best wishes extended to Miss Dawson in her future ventures. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell, Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Surer, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. (Supervisor Martocchia announced that there will be an opening as of May Wth in the Appeals Board as a stenographer. This is a civil service appointment.) Supervisor Martocchia: 25. Letter from the Town of Huntington transmitting a reso- lution adopted by the Huntington Town Board opposing the proposed law allowing the StateBoard of Equalization and Assessment to Remove Town Assessors. This pertains to non-elective assessors. On motion of Councilman Homan, seconded by Justice Suter, it was RESOLVED that the Board of C~mmissioners of Fishers Island Ferry District be and hereby are authorized to approve the change order for the additional expense of $13~615.OO for driving spiles for the new ferry boat ramp at New London, Connecticut. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell, Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Surer, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. Supervisor Martocchia: 26. Request for summer employment from John Delaney, Jr. who worked last year as a radio operator with the Southold Town Police Department. 27. Receipt of a letter of commendation from the U.S. Coast Guard Shinnecock~ Hampton Bays, New York to the Police Depart- ment for the assistance rendered during the search for members of the Hepworth family off Greenport on April I & 2, 1978. Bay Constables Januick and Lang assisted in this search. On motion of Councilman Homan, seconded by Justice Suter, it was RESOLVED that 3:30 P.M., April 25, 1978, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York as time and place for hearing upon applica- tion of Stanley S. Corwin a/c Frank S. Rosenberg and Margaret E. Rosenberg for a wetland permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold for per::ission to do maintenance dredging at head of Stifling Creek, south side of Champlin Place, Greenport, New York, and to deposit some of the excavated material on adjacent land. All persons interested in said matter should appear at the time and place above specified and will be given an ooportunity to be heard. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell, Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. Supervisor Martocchia: 28. Receipt of a letter from Lawrence W. Stephenson, Phoenix, Arizona offering for sale a parcel of land at Soundview Avenue, Southold, better known as Hummel's Pond. This parcel is approximately ~ acres of land, the pond included. The Board briefly discussed this offer today, and will further discuss it later in the day. 29. The Town Clerk has been instructed to make inquiries of General Code Publishers for the cost of reproducing the various ordinance pamphlets. At the present time the Code is being sold for$~O.O0 and the cost of new copies exceeds $60.00. It is possible the present prices for the various pamphlets is too low also. 30. Receipt of tentative special franchise assessments - Fishers Island Electric Corp., Long Island Lighting Co., Fishers Island Water Works, Fishers Island Telephone Co., New York Telephone Co., So. New England Telephone Co. and L.I. Cablevision. 31. Receipt of a letter from the Greenport School relative to the summer recreation program. The school is having a problem because of the construction going on at the school and would like to consider a fall program. The Board is of the opinion an outside ~ summer program should be developed at the school site. Supervisor Martocchia will discuss this matter with Dr. Kalish. 488 APR 1 ). 197~ 32. Receipt of a check in the amount of $10,035.7~ for the Cabletelevision franchise fee. On motion of Justice Surer, seconded by Councilman Drum, it was ~qESOLVED that Serge Doyen Jr., Fishers Island, New York, be and here- by is appointed a member of the Southold Town Zoning Boarder Appeals effective April 19, 1978 through April 19, 1983. (Supervisor Martocchia asked if there are any other names to be considered?---Mr. Pell asked if Supervisor Martocchia or any other ::~ember of the Board let it be known on Fishers Island that this is to be an appointment from Fishers Island, that the position is open to see if anyone else is interested? Mr. Pell feels that Mr. Doyen has served several years, and it is the resoonsibility of the Town board to pick the bestpossible person for the slot.---Supervisor Martocchia stated they did not notify fishers Island of the vacancy. Serge Doyen has been on the Board of Appeals a number of years. He has served well. Based on where he lives, he has attended a great number of meetings. When an incumbents turn runs out, and if he wishes to serve again, and he has done a reasonably good Job, Supervisor Martocchia feels he should be renominated. When he was originally appointed several years ago, he fit all the criteria they were looking for, he is an educated person, his input to the Board is very good. He does not make 100% of the ~eetings due to his location and weather conditions.---Mr. Pell stated that the people of the Town of Southold had Mr. Demarest serve them n~%ny years and serve them well, but yet, when it came to evaluation time they felt something should be done and they did it, and Mr. Pell does not f$91 they should go on past performances without evaluation.---Supervisor ~artocchia stated to Mr. Pell that it is his opinion he is bringing politics where it doesn't belong, for the reason the people turned do~n~ Mr. Demarest was the way the ballot layed. Mr. Demarest served the Town very very well and he feels by Mr. Demarest losing, the people were the losers.---Mr. Homan stated there is a motion on the floor and he suggests they vote on it. Mr. Drum seconded Mr. Homan's request. (The followin~ vote was taken on the appointment of Serge Doyen, Jr. to the Board of Appeals effective April 19, 1978 through April 19, Vote of the Town Board: No: Councilman Pell (Mr. Pell asked that the record so state that he is not voting against Mr. Doyen, he is voting no becausethey did not n~ake, a search to see if any other qualified person was interested.) Ayes: Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. Councilman James Homan moved for the appointment of Mrs. Anna Hataier for the position of Town Trustee for the balance of the year 1978 by making the following statement: Mrs. Hataier is well qualified she has a lot of knowledge of the work of the Town Trustees inasmuch as she went with her husband, Joseph Hataier, on all the inspections. She came with her husband to Councilman Homan's office the day after he was elected, she read all the Trustee minutes, and he feels she is well qualified to serve in the position.---Justice Suter seconded the motion: RESOLVED that Anna Hataier, Beebe Drive, Cutchogue, New York, be and she hereby is apoo!nted Town Trustee effective May l, 1978 through December 31, 1978. (Supervisor Martocchia asked if there are any other nominations?--- Councilman Pell stated he would like to discuss the recommendation made by ~r. Homart and ask him on what grounds, other than the two years she served with her husband in visiting the sites, what else did he feel she is qualified in?---Councilman Homart stated she has a very good education.---Mr. Pell said, y~s, she speaks Spanish, German, French and Italian. Mr. Pell said he would like to bring up the name of Robert Hamilton who has a degree from L.I.U. in marine biology, which he feels is a very helpful background for being a Town Trustee. Ronnie Wacker (another applicant) has seven years of attending the board meetings of the Trustees and getting the feel of the people and feels Mrs. Wacker should be considered. Mr. Hamilton has a lifetir~e of scalloping, clamming, fishing in our local waters. He is past president of the Baymen's Association, he is on the Board of Trustees of it now. He is on Sea Grant Advisory Service to the Shellfish Industry. He feels Mr. Hamilton is far more qualified than Mrs. Hatai~. Furthermore he comes from an area in Greenport and Greenport has no Trustees on the Board. Cutchogue has two right now and Mrs. Hataier will be three. He is going to vote APR 1 against Mrs. Hataier~ he has worksheets that he did take time to compare and offered them to the Board to compare before they vote. He feels Mr. Hamilton comes out far beyond Mrs. ttataier.--- Super- visor Martocchia stated he does not dispute that~ Mr. Hamilton has very good credentials.---Mr. Pell stated he did not check~ as the Suffolk Times indicated~ to see wh~.t party Mr. Hamilton is affiliated with his town leader as some board members did check with Mr. Guittard who is town leader for the Conservstives~ which Mrs. Hataier belongs to. He did not go into that facet of it1 he believes it ~ none of his business. He is definitely submitting the name of Robert Har~ilton. ---Supervisor Martocchia briefly reviewed the resumes submitted for the position of Town Trustee~ and read~ completely~ the resume Mrs. Hataier.---Mr. Pell asked how much of Mrs. Hataier's resume pertained to the position of Town ~rustee?---Supervisor Martocchia stated that knowi:~E the area is very important~ and like many of the jobs~ you learn as you go along in it. He cited another example of when A. Halsey Brown a former Assessor died~ his wife Edna was appointed to take his place. She did a tremendous job and was one of the better assessors. Senator Humphrey's wife as appointed to take his place. This appointment is until December 31~ 197~ and someone else may be nominated and elected in November.---Mr. Pell again,stated he does not agree with Supervisor Martocchia, it is Board's responsibil~.y to put the best qualified person in to represent the people of Southold Town as Trustee or any other appointment. In comparing the seven resumes, Mrs. Hataier does not come in number one~ Mr. Hamilton does i~ his estimation. (The following vote was taken upon the motion of Mr. Homan~ seconded by Mr. Surer for the appointment of Anna Hataier to the oosition of Town Trustee from May l~ 1978 through December 31, 1978:) Vote of the Town Board: No: Councilman Pell~ Ayes: Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter~ Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. On motion of Justice Suter, seconded by Councilman Drum~ it was RESOLVED that the Mattituck Fire Department be granted a special license to hold a carnival in the former Bohack Villase parking ~ot, Main Road~ Mattituck~ New York on August 28~ 1975 through oeptember 5~ 1978. This special license is granted in accordance with Article XI, Section lOO-114, Subsection C of the Code of the Town of Southold~ provided the Mattituck Fire Department secures the necessary approval from the Southold Town Board of Appeals. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell, Councilman Drum~ Councilman Homan, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. On motion of Councilman Homan, seconded by Councilman Pell~ it was RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby approves the cluster concept on the property of Barbara Schrieveron the east side of Tabor Road, 0rient~ New York and more particul~ly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the point of intersection of the southerly line of Main Road with the easterly line of Tabor Road; ~roceeding along said southerly line of Main Road North O degrees 31 minutes 30 seconds East 226.00 feet to land of Ferreira; thence along said land of Ferreira and other land of Schriever the following two courses: (1) South 9 degrees 28 minutes 30 seconds East 169.30 feet~ and (2) North 87 degrees~7 minutes 30 seconds East 224.52 feet to land of Terry; thence along said land of Terry South 21 degrees 20 minutes OO seconds East 606.13 feet to the northerly line of Orient Central Cemetery; thence along said northerly line of Orient Central Cemetery the following two courses: (1) South 82 degrees 48 minutes 20 seconds West 16~.93 feet~ and (2) South 83 degrees 03 minutes West 519.10 feet to the easterly line of Tabor Road; thence along said easterly line of Tabor Road t~ following two courses: (1) North O degrees 38 minutes O0 seconds West 6~2.77 feet~ and (2) North ~ degrees 39 minutes OO seconds West 116.75 feet to the southerly line of Main Road and the point or place of BEGINNING~ containing 8.80~O acres. 490 Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilm~n Pell, Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter~ Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. On motion of Councilman Pell, seconded by Councilman Homan, it was RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby aporoves the cluster concept on the property of John Simicich located on the easterly side of Mill Road~ Mattituck~ and more particularly bounded and described as follows: B~GIN~I~G at a point on the easterly line of Mill. Lane at the south-westerly corner of the premises herein described adjoining land of Charles H. Smith on the South~ said point being North 18 degrees 58 minutes lO seconds West, 300.00 feet as measured along the easterly line of Mill Lane from its intersection with the northerly line of Wickham Avenue (also known as Middle Road); from said point of beginning, running thence along the easterly line of Mill Lane North 18 degrees g8 minutes l0 seconds West lOl~.O1 feet to land now or formerly of John Sidor; running thence along said land North 72 degrees 46 minutes 10 seconds East 6~2.08 feet to land now or formerly of Martin Sidor; running thence along said land of Martin Sidor, two (2) courses and distances as follo~ s: l) South 20 degrees ~0 minutes l0 seconds East 23~.7~ feet; 2) South 20 degrees 09 minutes OO seconds E~st 789.~9 feet; running thence South 76 degrees 25 minutes 20 seconds West 317.37 feet to land of Charles H. Smith; running thence along said land of Charles H. Smith South 71 degrees O1 minute ~O seconds West 359.76 feet to the point or place oflBEGINNING. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell, Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. On motion of Justice Suter, seconded by Councilman Drum, WHEREAS, James Bitses has heretofore filed an application with the Planning Board for the approval of a subdivision map embracing a parcel of land containing approximately 15.~ acres known as "01d Town Park" and located at Main Bayview Road, So~ hold, New York~ and WHEREAS the said James Bitses requested that said plat be ap0roved for development as a cluster development pursuant to the provisions of Section 100-136 of the Southold Town Code and Section 281 of the Town Law~ and WHEREAS~ the Planning Board has referred said application to this Board's authorization to permit the development of such lands as a cluster development, 'WHEREAS~ this Board upon examining the proposed subdivision and the character of the lands embraced therein finds that approxim~ ely 5.~ acres of the land consists of filled land a partof which is subject to flooding and therefore finds that after excluding the filled area and the area subject to flooding that the remaining parcel would be approximately lO acres, which in the opinion of this Board is not of sufficient size to be developed as a cluster develop- ment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board does not authorize the development of said subdivision as a cluster development Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell, Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. On motion of Councilman Homan, seconded by Justice Suter, I~HEREAS L Section 6~ of the Town Law requires the Town Board to designate, by resolution~ banks in the State in which the Supervisor or any other officer of the Town shall deoosit all monies coming into their hands by virtue of their offices~ and WHEREAS the Town Board may require any bank, so designated to deposit with such Board bonds or certificates of the United States, of the State of New York~ or any county~ town, city~ village or school district of the State of New York as security for such funds so de- posited but such bond or certificate shall be subject to the approval of the Town Board and shall be deposited in such place and held under such conditions as the Town Board may determine~ and ¥~REAS at a regular meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Southold held on January 3, 1978~ the Town Board designated said depositories and set the amount of security for each respective bank, and '~HEREAS the Town Board of the Town of Southold now wishes to change the amount of security for these banks~ NOW~ THEREFORE~ BE IT RESOLVED that the amount of security set forth for each respective bank hereby approved is as follows: Bank of New York (Greenport) ....... $2~000,000 Chemical Bank (Southold ....... $2~000~O00 (Tax Receivers money shall also be deposited in the Chemical Bank~ Southold.) North Fork Bank & Trust Co. (Mattituck)~- $1~500~000 AND~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Supervisor be empowered to substitute~ increase or decrease collateral in escrow collateral accounts for demand and time deposits as deemed necessary with respect to the amounts of deposits in the various accounts. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell~ Councilman Drum~ Councilman Homan~ Justice Suter~ Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was. declared adopted. Supervisor Martocchia stated he wished to respond to some of the questions that were asked by the public, and noticed in minutes of previous meetings when he was on vacation.---Mrs. Gladys Csajko had asked about the railroad overpass. He has made contact with certain officials. About a month and a half ago there was a fire on the bridge and new safety features have been developed at the State Building in Hauppauge~ and mailed them on to Albany for review. As of today~ he received a telephone call from Hauopauge that they have been in contact with Albany and there is no decision as yet. As to when the construction will resume~ the officials in Hauopauge do not know. In the matter of the "S" turns in Laurel at Aldrich Lane, the bidding is being let out for May 25th. There are planned additional signs on the Expressway giving further direction to the North Fork.---Mr. Charles Hickey broughtup the question of why there is no sign on Route 27 giving directions to Southold. There are signs to Peconic~ etc.---Supervisor Mar tocchia and Highway Superintendent Dean stated there is a sign directing the traveling public to Southold Village at Abram's Garden Center. ---Superintendent Dean will check to see if the sign is still there. On motion of Councilman Homan, seconded by Justice Suter, it was RESOLVED that Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia be and he hereby is authorized to execute the application to the Federal Government for federal assistance in the amount of $25~88 on behalf of the Fishers Island Development Corporation for the following project: Fishers Island Sewage Collection~ Treatment and Disposal System; said project consists of studying the Island and existing collection system in Fort Wright area where untreated sewage is discharged into Long Island Sound~ designing and constructing appropriate treatment and disoosal facilities. Vote of the Town ~oard: Ayes: Councilman Pell~ Councilman Drum~ Councilman Homan~ Justice Suter~ Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. 492] Mrs. Gladys Csajko stated the Supervisor mentioned Mrs. Brown succeeding her husband and Mrs. Hataier succeeding her husband, can the public look forward to anytime someone takes another office or dies, their wives will take over?---Supervisor Martocchia stated he can't say the~ are following that pattern, but feel Mrs. Hataier is well qualified.---Mrs. Csajko stated Suffolk Life ran the story a week ago that M~'s. Hataier would be aopointed. How could that be before the Board voted on it?---The matter was discussed this morn- ing by the Board.---Mr. Pell said it was discussed only about two minut-s prior to coming into the Board n:eeting this afternoon.--- Councilman Homan stated that matter was thoroughly discussed at the last executive session before the Board meeting and he wanted tomke the aopointment at that meeting. However, Justice Suter asked that the appointment be held until this meeting as Supervisor Mar- tocchia and Councilman Pell were absent from the March 28th meeting. ---Mrs. Marie Johnson stated she would like to comoliment the Board on having upgraded the value of education. It seemed to have played a big oart in their deliberations today. She remen~ers when she brought up the matter of education regarding a previous appointment she was told it wasn't imoortant. John Nickles asked what is new with the Mill Creek Bridge, when will it be completed?---Supervisor Martocchia said that Austin Emor~- will be calling him tomorrow about the overhead sign, and he will raise the question of the completion date. On motion of Justice Suter, seconded by Councilman Homan, it was RESOLVED that a recess be called at ~:35 P.M., meeting to reconvene at 5:30 P.M. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell, Councilman .Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Ju~tice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. Meeting reconvened at 5:30 P.M.--Councilman Pell and Justice Doyen absent. On motion of Councilman Homan, seconded by Justice Suter, it was RESOLVED that the following audited bills be aporoved for payment: General Fund Whole Town bills in the amount of ~23,W08.10; General Fund Part Town bills in the amount of $9,980.~3; Highway Department bills in the a~.ount of ~20,960.O~ Fishers Island Ferry District bills in the amount of $30,622.77. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Surer, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Councilman Pell~ Justice Doyen. %his resolution was declared adopted. On motion of Councilman Homan, seconded by Justice Suter, it was RESOLVED that modification of the budget for the General Fund Whole Town, Town of Southold and the budget for Highway Account, Town of Southold be the following: Salaries and fringe benefits for the Superintendent of Highways, Deputy Superintendent of Highways and Clerk to the Highway Department be removed from the Highway budget and added to the General Fund Whole Town budget with the exception of payment for workmen's compensation as of January l, 1978. Voteof the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Councilman Pell~ Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. (The foregoing resolution was proposed at the direction of the auditors for the Town of Southoldo) On motion of Councilman Drum, seconded by Justice Suter, it was RESOLVED that there being no further business to come before this Town Board meeting adjournment be called at 6:05 P.M. Vote of the Town Board: Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan~ Absent: Councilman Pell, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. ~Judith T. Terry Town Clerk I have significant effacts on the local environment. Moved by Councilman Pell, seconded by Councilman Homan, WHEREAS North Fork Manor~ Inc., by application dated November 15, 1977 petioned the Town Board of the Town of Southold for a chanqe of zone on certain property situated at Mattituck, New York, from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B" Light Business District, and WHEREAS the said petition was referred to the Southold Town Planning Board and the Suffolk County Department of Planning for official recommendation and report, and WHEREAS, the Town Board, pursuant to due notice, held a public hearing thereon on the llth day of April 1978 at 7:30 P.M., at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, NOW, T~EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that North Fork Manor, Inc. be and hereby is ~ranted a chan~e of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "B" Light Business District on their property situated at Mattituck, New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the northerly side of Sound Avenue where same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of Long Island Lighting Co. and running thence along the northerly side of Sound Avenue, the following: (1) North 85 degrees 03' 20" West, 180.80 feet; (2) North 79 degrees 56' West, 108.88 feet; (3) Northwesterly along a curve bearing to the right and having a radius of 667.97 feet, a distance of 135.60 feet; (4) Northwesterly along a curve which bears to the right and has a radius of 390.0 feet, a distance of 134.34 feet; thence along - curve which connects the northerly side of Sound Avenue with the southerly side of Middle Road, northerly and northeasterly along a curve which bears to the right and has a radius of 40.0 feet, a distance of 83.68 feet; thence along the southerly side of Middle Road, the following: (1) Easterly along a curve which bears to the right and has a radius of 2908.79 feet, a distance of, 287.69 feet; (2) easterly along a curve which bears to the right and has a radius of 2820.79 feet, a distance of 109.39 feet; thence along land now or formerly of Joseph Gilles, south 35 degrees 38' 50" East, a distance of 169.94 feet, thence along land now of formerly of Long Island Lighting Co., the following: (1) South 54 degrees 44' West 100.0 feet; (2) South 35 degrees 16' East, 183.72 feet to the northerly side of Sound Avenue at the point or place of beginning. Containing about 2½ acres. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell, Councilman Drum, , Councilman Homan, Supervisor Martocchia. No: Justice Suter. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. Moved by Councilman Drum, seconded by Councilman Homan, WHEREAS Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski, by application dated Decembe~ 2, 1977 petitioned the Town Board of the Town of Southold for a change of zone on certain property situated at Cutchogue, New York, from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M-i" Multiple Residence District, and WHEREAS the said petition was referred to the Southold Town Planning Board and the Suffolk County Department of Planning for official recommendation and report, and WHEREAS the Town Board,~ pursuant to due notice, held a public hearing thereon on the llth day of April, 1978 at 8:00 P.M., at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski be_qranted a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M-l" Multiple Residence District on their property situated at Cutchogue, New York, and more Particu- larly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a monument at the intersection of the easterly line of Duck Pond Road and the southerly line of Duck Pond Road which monument is distant North 29 degrees 50' 50" East 213.08 feet from the northwesterly corner of lands of N. Aliano; thence from said point of beginning running North 52 degrees 31' 10" East partly through lands of N. Aliano and Patricia Krupski to lands of R. Hammel; thence along said lands of R. Hammel and J. zuhoski the following two (2) courses and distances: (1) South 45 degrees 52' 40" East 39.06; and (2) South 46 degrees 17' 50" East 367.21 feet; thence'from said point running along lands of Aliano et ano. South 43 degrees 42' 10" West 946.44 feet to lands of Fellinger- Ihar; thence ~along said last mentioned lands North 42 degrees 01' 40" West 465.90 feet to the southerly side of Duck Pond Road; thence along the southerly side of Duck Pond Road North 29 degrees 50' 50" East 213.08 feet to the monum~t at the point or place of beginning. SUBJECT, HOWEVER, TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: That no buildings shall be permitted to ~e constructed in the area embraced within 200 feet measured perpendicular to the western boundary line of the premises described in the application. Vote'of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman pell, Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. On motfon of Councilman Drum, seconded by Justice Suter, it was RESOLVED that Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia be recommended to serve on an 9dvisory committee for organizing a center for local government studies at Southampton College. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell, Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. On motion of Councilman Homan, seconded by Councilman Drum, it was RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold approve a voucher in the amount of $2000.00 payable to John Jernick, Post- master, ~outhold post Office, for postage for the postage machine at the Town Hall. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell, Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared ad, ted. On motion of Justice Suter, seconded by Councilman Drum,, WHEREAS the Griswold-Terr¥-Glover Post ~803~ American Legion, Southold, New York has applied to the Town Clerk for a Bingo L~cense! and WHEREAS the Town Board has examined the application, and after investigation, duly made findings and determinations as required by law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Supervisor be and he hereby is authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the Town Board of the Town of Southold the findings and determinations as re- quired by law, and it is further RESOLVED that the Town Clerk be and she hereby is directed t~ issue a Bingo License to the Griswold-Terry-Glover Post ~803, American Legion, Southold, New York. Vote of the Town Board: Ayes: Councilman Pell, Councilman Drum, Councilman Homan, Justice Suter, Supervisor Martocchia. Absent: Justice Doyen. This resolution was declared adopted. On motion of Councilman Homan, seconded by Councilman Pell, WHEREAS the Griswold-Terry-G lover Post ~803~ American Legion Auxiliary, Southold, New York has applied to the Town Clerk for a Bingo License,, and WHEREAS the Town Board has examined the application, and after investigation, duly ~ade findings and determinations as required 3 ~NOZ B 3NOZ 8 3NOZ (INFI OK (JN V'ISI ~),x, TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President Henry P. Smith John B. Tuthill William G. Albertson Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUPERVISOR SCOTT L. HARRIS Town Hall 53095 Main Road EO. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TO; FROM: RE: DATE: Southold Town Plannin~B~ard Southold Town Truste~ Beachcomber Motel Expansion SCTM #1000-83-2-1 January 21, 1993 The Southold Town Trustees will be unable to attend the scoping session in this matter tomorrow 1/22/93. This Board issued an emergency repair authorization for this facility on December 21, 1992 under the Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard and Wetland Ordinances. The owner is authorized to perform emergency repairs to the foundation of the existing motel undermined by ghe December 11, 1992 storm and must submit a full permit application to the Trustees for this work. The Board specifically limited the repair to the foundation and recommended that the owner submit an application for an erosion protection structure (bulkhead/revetment) capable of withstanding severe storms over a 30 year period. In light of the recent storm of December 11, 1992, this office suggests that this facility should consider a selective retreat at this time in order to property fortify the shoreline with such a structure noted above. The Coastal Erosion Hazard area line should be placed on the site plan by the project engineer or architect so that in future applications or permit discussions its' location is readily apparent. · TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President Henry R Smith John B. Tuthill William G. Albenson Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA AND TOWN WETLAND EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION(S) Applicagion No. SCTM.#1000- ¢~3-- Name: Date: December 21, 1992 SUPERVISOR SCOTT L. HARRIS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RESOLVED that pursuant to the Town Code in relation to Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, Chapter 37, Section 20, 21 and Town Code Chapter 97, Wetlands, the Southold Town Trustees, as Administrator, have determined that the activities proposed by your emergency activity request are necessary to protect property and important coastal natural resources. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Reasons supporting this determina~ion-- 1. An on site inspection has been conducted by the board of Trustees or their authorized representative. 2. The Trustees have considered the emergency request and find that if the work is not completed as authorized and measurable loss of property and important coastal natural resources is likely to occur. This authorization is not a permit. You must complete the Coastal Erosion and wetland permit process where applicable for all authorizations given under this section. This authorization should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS· Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 11, 19993 SCOTt L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel $CTM91000-83-2-1 Dear Mr. Raynor: As per our conversation earlier today, the purpose of this letter is to advise you on the procedure we will follow with the Beachcomber Motel scoping session. · The fee for the scoping session is $250.00 payable the day of the session. The check should be made out to the Town of Southold. The procedure we usually follow at scoping sessions is to provide each attendee with a packet which will include the scoping session outline, and a copy of any written comments that we may have received from any of the coordinating agencies. Representatives of the coordinating agencies may be present. The public is allowed to attend and to contribute information. The purpose of the scoping session is to outline all the information that must be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in order to facilitate an adequate environmental review. After the session, a synopsis of the session will be sent to you and all the coordinating agencies for your records. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Valerie Scopaz. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward chairman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latharn, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TO .' FROM: RE: Ail Involved Agencies Richard G. Ward~ Chairman ~/~ Scoping Session for Beachcomber Motel SCTM~1000-83-1-2 & 17 DATE: January 6, 1993 A ScopinG Session has been set for 2 P.M., Friday, January 22, 1993, for the above mentioned site plan application. The meeting will be held in the conference room of the Town Hall which is located at 53095 Ma~n Road in Southold. A copy of the Positive Declaration may have been sent to you on November 4, 1992. Another copy is enclosed with this letter for your convenience. If you are unable to attend the Scoping Session, please send any comments you may have as to items you wish addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, to the Planning Board office. The Board's facsimile number is 765-1823. If you have any guestions, please contact the Planning Board office at 765-1938. Encl. cc: John M. Bredemeyer, III, president, Board of Town Trustees Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Raymond Jacobs, Superintendent HiGhway Department, Southold James Richter, Engineering Inspector Suffolk County Department of Health Services - Steven Costa, Vito Minei, Paul P0nturo Frank Dowling, Suffolk County Department of Planning Michael LoGrande, Ed Rosovitch - SC Water Authority David Morrell, NYSDEC, SUNY Stony Brook Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Henry Raynor, Agent for Applicant Planning and Zoning Committee, Southold PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQ R POSITPgE DECLARATION Nofic~ of Intent to Pt .pare a Draft EI$ Determination o' Slgnificance SCO'I'r L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Lead.4gency: 'Address: Plann ng Board of the Town of .S. outhold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. ! ;ox 1179 South )Id, New York 11971 Dcae: November 2, 1992 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 61, of the ~n:vlementlns re~,~lat~ons pc. framing ' to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Re:qc x,) of the EnvironmentarConsev.'anon Law. Th,,o Iv. ad aoency ,~, %~ de termlned that the p rovosed action described below ma. y have a significant ~gffecf on t-he environment and that ~ D~aft Environmental );n:pact Statement will be prepared. Title ot' Actlo n: SEQR Statu:n Project Description: Beachcomb¢r Motel II ~ype I'action The project, ~hich is the subject of this Long EAF involves a r.equest fo~ site plan approval to construct 86. motel umts on a 14,1 acre parcel. The proposed project calls. for construct on of 86 motel units accessed from a circular patt~ rn driveway ';,'h/ch surrc, unds tb.e recreation complex. A ot:d of eight bu!ld./ngs areproposed of whic'h five, wlll contain 12-umts, two will-contain 9-units, and one will :ontain g-units. Seven of the. buildings have a footprint o ',3,0'x120' a. nd one building will have a footcrint of: 0 xg0'. It ~s noted that the 9-unit buildings (buildings I ,:nd 2) have 6-units, wh{ch appear to be 2- stet4./, and co fid fuactlon a~ aoartments fig. ring floor areas of 1,2(; ) square feet. Ail other unit~ appear to have · fleer areas e Yapproxlmately 600 square feet. l~eachtomber Motel II SEQR Dd~rmlna~lon $CTM Numberf Location: DistriCt 100( - Sect;on 083 - Block 01 -Lots 1, 2 & 17 The site of tte subject appli,ration is located on the east side of Duck Pot ~ Lane and the Long Island Sound in · tow Yor}c. Cutchogue, ' ' ' Reasons Supporting Thls Determin~t,.'om This determination is issued Jn full consi ~eration of the criteria for determination of significance ,:ontained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11 the Long Em,-ironmenta! 'Assessment Form Parts I~ II and the following specific reasons: 1. The l:.roposed project repre.sents a m~m inc~rease in intensity of use of :he parcel. The ['art !I Loves EAF provides an outlir e or several areas of significan.t envlronment.al impact expected as a resu t of theproject. B.asea on rev{ew, it has been determined that an En,,~:omnental impact Statement ~s appropriate in order to .... co~,rdmanon, and ex~plore asses.,; ~mpacts, provide a means et rater- ~genc5' ^ ' ' ' * "" measures and alternatives. 2. Buildings I, 2 and 3 are located ia a stee'} slope a.rea (> 25%). Grade =amitions of 20-25 feet are apaarent .across the length of buildings 2 and 3, and buildings 1 and 4 have ?.rude transt'tions 9f 10-!5 feet acre: ~ the length, of the buildings. Tlni'~ area is . consmered to be sensitive due to coarse, rodable so~ls. The area must be avoided or developed in an extremely sensitive man :er. As proposed significant excavation and associated sell de-stabilization is expecte I and d,ve.ropment would reqt:ire extensive structure reta~mnent or other measures t ) allow constmctlon ~ proposes. Th¢ area ts somewhat prox{mate to Lo:eS Island ,>c t, nd, and de-sla, bthzat}on could nave ram~f:.cat~ons .n t~ rms of transport of sea meat to the ex{sting she and potent~a!lv to the Sound, Additional c.onfiderafion she ~ld .be given to design in this a'rea to minin'd~.e loss of vegetauon~ and redt~ce t res:on and sedimentation. Design ' alternatives shouldbe considered... 3. The project involves construction of 86-u ~its on 14..I acres. SCDI-IS indicates that motel units in excess of 490 square feet h we a design flow of !50 gallons per (,qpd). This would result m aflow of 12,.c ~0 gall.o, ns~oer day which exceeds the. ~ll'owable flow for 14.1. a.cre$ (4,230 gpd). A preliminary report submitted by the applicant addresses th~s ~ssue through ter ~porary sterilization of adjacent lands of the owner untd au. ch t~me a.s pubbc water SUl: ply is. avadable, however, th{s should oe incorporated rote the s~te plan rewew pr{ cess m terms of acreage proposed for use. In addition, the allowable flow would eft', ctlvely be doubled ff p-ub'i~c water supvl¥ is avmlable, therefore, the design flow ~ ou. :1 sdll exceed the allox, able flo~ ba~edon 14.1 acres, therefo.re, s.ome portion of th~ adjacent lands must remain undeveloved in perpetuity. Coerdmatmn w{th $CDHS tt rough the site plan review and E!S Pr~)cess would be beneficial. - - 4. In addition to design flow and dem,.ty, a ~)raft lEIS should cons~d..r samtary system desigr~ shouId be considered in terms of c ispersal of sanitary waste, depth to water ,, e Beachcomber Motel and design constraints for umts in 15 foo~ elevation ~rca, a~d mtrcgen looo w~th tramport of contaminant, to Long Island Sound. Wa/el use issues are ~rlilcal in tho T?~')~ ff~outhold. A prelimJna~ water use report submlrted by ~he apphcant provides ming ~t into intended water ~upply. ~e report however is not consistent w~kh the site pk n, deplcfina alternate access road, and well tleld location which do not correspond with the si:e ~Ian. In additiov~ due to anUc~pated s~gmfic{at x, ater use, potent~: 1 increment of me stat w,?r m.e~face~ need tgr well pumping control and distrit ufion, water quaEry, and integration x~th the Beachcomber I project, discussion of wot :r supply i~sues should be incorporated into the EIS process for inter-ageng' review a ~d more detailed analysis by t~e lead and involv,d agencies. .- ~e pro, ecl will result in th~ {emoval oft erhaps up to 2 ac(e~ of vegetation in a sensnive sl?~p area. In addmon, depend ag u~on the locaU?~ of the water supply system addmonfl acreage, possibly m th~ steep slope heavily wooded ~ea may also b~ r~r;oved. Proper design, and qfearin~ [~mkations shoFld be considered. s~gmficance of the small man-mace pono should be comtdered and appropriate setbac~ obse~'ed. ~e knpact on inff~/ructure and commu ~ity se~'ices should project will produce approximately 65 ve'.:icle trips per hour during pea~ t[afflc hours on Saturday. ~e ability ot ~h~urround~ 2g:roaO ~2~ste,~ to ~coE:moda;e metered trafqc should be determineo.' 'lne area r, ,aGs are tvca~/rural m character, ~o ~nere are constraints noted in terms of horizon: al and vertical alignment and traffic control s/~n,~e on Duck Pond Road. Other dcm md for community seduces should be de~errm,,ed m connecUo,. ~th a motel u: For Further l!nformatlon: Contact Person: Address: Phone: No.: Bennett Orlc',','ski, Jr. Chairman, P:anning Board Town of Sou hold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1177 Town Hail, ~ lain Road, $outhold (516) 765-191 ;8 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Com. mls~_iom!.r..Depaxtment of Environmental C reservation Reg,onal Offic¢-~ew York St.ate the Depaztme.' t o,' Env~ronn;cnta! Conservation Sou thold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Ap icant , . Su~;lk Cou=ty Departmcnt of Health Services Suffolk Coun.0Departmer:t of Planning : . . NYS Legisla,:ive Commissmn.on Water Resourc.' Neeas ~or Long Island SoutholdTo,,,-n Board of Zon ng Appeals Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Building Department Page 3 of 3 (516) 734-6370 (516) 744-1448 *'Member - Long Island Tourism & Convention Commlsllon" Resort Motel & Restaurant DEPOT LANE ON L.I. SOUND RR. #1, BOX 161 H CUTCHOGUE, N,Y. 11935 December 19, 1992 To DEC and Southold Town Trustees: Regarding Storm Damage December 1992 It is my intention to replace and repair all damage due to storm(see survey attached). I do not intend to add 1" to that which was damaged. I do however question the intense scrutiny of each and every project I have ever attempted to complete in this Town and wonder how you allow Rambo Company to parade hack and forth across the front of my Motel. High Tide, Low Tide and use Depot Lane and the west side of my building to store, dump and remove tons of rocks, bulkheading, huge dump trucks, earth movers and what have you. Very effectively waking up and disrupting the entire West Wing. My guests have no access to the front beach of our motel for fear of being run over. I have complained numerous times to Mr. Samuels of Rambo and to Ray Jacobs. Mr. Jacobs had done his best to curtail such activities such as when they dumped huge loads of bulk- headin~ half way across the road directly in front of my entrance and left it there on Memorial Day Weekend. I complained that these huge dump trucks carrying tons of rocks were using my entrance for a turn-a-round effectively busting my entrance asphalt and interfering with my guests entering and leaving. I had to block off half my driveway all summer to put a stop to it but to no avail. Mr. Samuels excuse that they are sub-contractors and he can't helotry as he may. When I asked for a No-Parking zone in this area because of noise of cars and trucks and blocking emergency entrance to beach, the Fir~Department stated that they can cut through farms in any emergency. So,Why then didn't you give Rambo this information? I respectfully sutx~it my $40,000.~ax Bill and expect to be compensated by way of a reduction since my business has been severely affected.beth this year and in the past. Vacation Paradise on Long Island Sound V~ry truly ~--% ~icholas Aliano New York State Depart t of Environmental Conservat ~ Building 40--SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 (516) 751-1389 FAX (516) 751-3839 Thomas C. Jorling Commissioner December 7, 1992 Mary and Henry Raynor 275 Cardinal Drive Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: NYSDEC Permit Application #1-4738-00511/00001-0 Raynor Motel - Addendum to Notice of Incomplete Application Dated 11/9/92 Dear Mr. and Ms. Raynor: The'Department has made an initial review of your application for a motel. The Department has jurisdiction over portions of the project. Please address the following items: The Department will require a cross section showing the proposed condominium unit installation. ¸2. How will they be built? (By adding fill or by building them on pilings, by excavating the slope to provide a level base?) The Department does not plan to approve any project that will alter the bluff or slope without a plan for stabilization of the existing naked and eroding bluff face (preferably by plantings). ~zywe~s should be shown on the cross section that can retain a 2 inch rainfall. Will you want access catwalks from building ~1 to the beach? If so, this should be shown on plans (and cross section). Revised plans must show how you will cause all fill and exposed faces to be vegetated to prevent erosion, as this will be a special condition of any permit issued. 7 o Revised plans must show a permanent vegetated buffer zone with no disturbance to the natural vegetation or topography within an area extending 70 linear feet landward of the tidal wetland boundary. If development exceeds 20% of the adjacent area, parking areas and roads must be pervious. The Department will require roof runoff to be directed to drywells a minimum of 100 feet landward of the tidal wetland boundary for immediate on-site recharge. Ail fill must be "clean" gravel and soil (not asphalt, slag, flyash or broken concrete or demolition debris. 11. The Department does not plan to approve bulkheads or hard stabilization structures this site. at 12. The Department will require vegetation of fill in front of the restaurant with beach grass. Please direct a response to each item to my attention. Plans must be submitted in triplicate. By copy of this letter I am notifying the Town of Southold Planning Board, the Lead Agency for the purpose of the State Environmental Quality Review, of the Department's concerns. This letter may serve as an initial scoping comment letter. -Very truly yours, Sr. Environmental Analyst KM/rw cc: file BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAIVl, JR. ' RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOV~N OF SOUTHOLD August 25, 1999 Gregory J. Tarone JD Post Office Drawer 1270 Southampton, NY 11969 RE: FOIL Request for Beachcomber Motel Dear Mr. Tarone, The Planning Board has received your FOIL request for access to the records of the Beachcomber Motel. The records are available for inspection and copying at the Planning Board office. Please make an appointment with the Planning Board Secretary before your arrival in order to have the file available for your use. If you have any questions, or require additional assistance, please contact this office. .: - . // / ~ 4 /' ~Sart G. Kas~n~r Site Plan Reviewer cc: Elizabeth A. Neville, Freedom of Information Officer InterRealty Gregory J. Tarone JD Licensedj~. I j~Real E~state Broker Post Office Drawer 1270 Telephone 516 283 6137 Southampton NY I 1969 Facsimile 516 283 6155 ~ OF THE TOWN CLERK ~)WN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Mam~Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (51,6) 765-180~_ APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS$°uth°idT°wn pl~i~lrllng Board INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim response. TO: . (Department or Officer, if kno~vn, that has the mformabon you are requesting.} RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent i~nformation.) ~ Signature of Applicant:' .(~,.~^ [ ' lc.v-- ..... Telephone / [ I APPROVED [ ] APPROVED WITH DELAY* Freedom of Information Officer [ ] DENIED* P. lor k Nltll[hdlfJ Date * If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK' ROBERT J. (~AFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE CHARLES J. BARTHA, P.E. COMMISSIONER June 28, 1999 Town of Soutfiold Planning Boar¢ 53095 Main Rbad P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NeW York 11971 Attention: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman RE: Not on (~ounty Road - Beachcomber II Motel - SCTM #1000-83-1 1,2 & 17 Gentlemen: This Department has previously reviewed the above-referenced project. Enclosed please find a copy of our cdmments (copy enclosed) which were sent to the Town of Southold on April 16, 1999. If you have any questions, kindly contact this office at 852-4099. Very truly yours, Enc. By: Richard J. LaValle, P.E. Chief Engineer Southold Town Planning Boar~l 335 YAPHANK AVENUE SUFFOLK COUNTYIS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER B YAPHANK, N.Y. I1980 · (516) 852-4000 FAX (~5 ! 6) 852-41 SO DEPARTMENT Of PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE April 16. 1999 CHARLES J, BARTHA, P.E. COMMISSIONER Town of Sonthtdd Plalming Board ()l'fice Town I lall 53095 Mail] Rtiad P.O. Box 1179 South(fid. New,York 11971 Attention: Robert G. Kassner RE: Not on Cgllllty Road - Beachcoml}er II Motel - SCTM $1000-83-1 I, 2, & 17 Gentlemen: We have reviewed fl}e above-reFerenced FEIS. Specifically note tl}at: This l)epartmcnt has no o~jeclion lo the Town assuming lead agency status tbr this proposed development. Since this prop9sed development is not adjacent to a County maintained mad or a mad proposed tbr improvements by the County, a permit will not be required fi-oin this Depailment. If you have an~ questions, kindly contact this office at 852-4099. Vei~ truly yours. Richard J. LaValle, P.E. Chief Engineer Pe~lts Engineer V RJIJMPC/j tb 33S YAPHANK AVENUE SUF~'OLK COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER {516) 852- 4000 · YAPHANK, N,Y. 11980 · FAX (SI6) 852-4] 50 PLANNING BOARD MEMB]~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 18, 1999 Nicholas Aliano Ashley Lane Shoreham, NY 11786 RE: Proposed Site Plan for Beachcomber Motel Duck Pon(~ Lane, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2, &17 Dear Mr Aliano,, The Planning Board has received a letter from your agent, Henry Raynor, indicating that the above property has transferred title. Your site plan is still pending before this Board. The Board would like to know the status of your application. If the new owner is not going to continue with your application the Board would appreciate a letter from you stating that the application is withdrawn. Unless we hear from you to the contrary, a resolution to withdraw your application will be on the agenda of the Boards public meeting on July 19, 1999. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact this office. ~A~be~ t~/~. Kassner Site Plan Reviewer CC: Henry Raynor, Agent Harvey Arnoff, Attorney HENRY E. RA YNOR, JR. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY f1952 5f6-298-8420 June 14,1999 Bennett Odow~ki, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, NY i1971 Re: Beachcor~ber at Cutchogue, New York Dear Mr. OdoWski: Please be advlSed that the above referenced property has transferred title. At this time I will no Iot~ger be processing the site plan before you on behalf of Nicholas Aliano. I want to express our appreciation of your time and efforts of both the Board and staff with regard to ~his property. I has been a long and timely process and we appreciate the courtesies ~xtended to us. H~n~Ray~r, Jr. HER:mi JUN 16 1999 Southold Town Planning Board ~6 ?ILE NUMBER:~iiiiiP1473800-00107iiiiiiiiiiiiTown of SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK County 'AGENCY: 473800.'...'''.'.'Town of SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK County or BoARD:..:Planning Board .i ....... ' ' <Y/N '.' · · '..i.. .... :'..:..'.:'..:'.'.' :'. "i'CLASS::T'Unlis~ed .GENERIC EIS:. N 'LE:'.Beachcomber Motel II ..... " .Type 1'' ' i'" 'ENCON INVOLVED: N 46 motel units on 14.1 ac. A total of 8 bldgs are prop. Loc. S/E/C LI Sound & Duck Pond Lane. TYPE: C Residential subdivision Industrial iiiPrivate Other Governm't ~TATUS: O OK Withdrawn Void DATE RECEIVED: Positive Declaration 11/12/92 EIS Notice Completion 03/25/96 Draft EIS 03/25/96 Hearing Scheduled 04/08/96 Changed To Neg Dec / / Final EIS 04/16/99 filed /99 Pages 85 Current Record '11 00 IMPORTANT >> File Number: P1-473800-00107 Use the above number in all correspondence about this action! To the Lead Agency: The above information confirms that filings on the described Positive Dec SEQR Reposit above. The that box. Ti document was For correcti or write to: [aration were officially received by, and entered in the )fy on the date(s) shown in the box headed DATE RECEIVED atest filing is indicated by the most recent date in ~e date and time in the second line show when this printed. Please check the information above carefully. )ns or questions contact Charles Lockrow, (518)457-2224, Town of SObTHOLD Planning B~ard 53095 Mainl Road-P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 SEQR Repository NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs 50 Wolf Road, Room 514 Albany, NY 12233 ~~~~ JUN k 'l~ Southold Town Planning Board PLANNING BOARD MEMBER~ ~j~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS ~ GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 4, 1999 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, 11952! RE: Beachcomber Motel Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor, The Board, by }esolution on May 24, 1999, adopted its written findings statement. Before any poss!ble final approval the following additions/changes/ actions must be !taken: 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Merge all three lots prior to final approval or covenant the same. Special Exception from the Board of appeals. Elevatioo drawings and floor plans for review by the Architectural Review Committee. Review by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Scale of site plan 1" = 20'. Retaining wall should be shown on site plan. Percent landscaping and lot coverage not shown on site plan. Handicapped parking must be shown. Outdoor lighting must be shown. 10. Any proposed sign must include sketch, to scale, showing materials and color· 11. Dumpster/transformer must be shown. 12. Covenalqts must be prepared for the following items and reviewed by the Town Attorney: · No repair to existing motel and restaurant located in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area if damaged by storm or ~ fire. These units must be moved to the designated area I shown on the plan within six months after damage. Site to remain as a motel until public water is extended to the site· No cooperative, condominium or time share development is allowed in this RR zone· · Agricultural land to remain fallow or be used for crops which require limited application of fertilizers. · Soil conservation management plan developed in consultation with the US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 13. Dry w~lls and septic system not shown on site plan. 14. Landscaping plan. 15. Owners of property must be shown on the plan· 16. Zoning lines and tax map number must be shown on the plan· 17. DEC a~d Trustee permits. 18. Sediment and erosion plan required· 19. Suffollt County Department of Health Services requires that an area b~ shown on the site plan to allow for water treatment should it become necessary in the future· 20. Allowable density is 42 units, not 46 units as shown on the plan. These units should be removed from the plan. 21. Re-vegetate the pond area with native species. 24. Place {top sign to control northbound traffic at intersection of Duck Pond Road, Vista Place and Birch Lane. Trim bushy vegetation at S/E corner and prune large evergreen on the corner of Duck Pond and Oregon Road. Submit mitigation and t~affic calming measures for this intersection as part of the revised site plan. 29. Place additional screening evergreens at end of Duck Pond Road to screen motel from residential area to the west. 30. Soil conservation plan. 31. Two wells are recommended by SCDHS. NYSDEC well permit required. 32. Grading and erosion control plan. 33. Pond landscaping plan. 34. Separaie key map showing owners within 500' of the property. 35. Maximu~n square footage permitted under Town Code for the units iS 600 square feet. A Supplemental~IS will be necessary in the event that public water and sewer become a'~ailable in the area and a further increase in density is proposed. The Board will ~ontinue processing the application when the requested data is receivedI. If you have any questions, or require additional information, pie,se contact this office. Site Plan RevieWer cc: Glen ~petta, Glen Spetta Associates Gerar~l P. Goehringer, Chairman, Board of Appeals Nicholas Aliano PLANNING BOARD MEMBER~ BENNET? ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 4, 1999 Harvey R. Arn0ff, Attorney at Law 206 Roanoke A'~enue P.O. Box 329 Riverhead, NY !11901 RE: Beac*comber II Motel Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2, & 17 Dear Mr. Arnoff, The Planning Board has received your letter of May 18, 1999, in regard to a lot line request for the above property. The Planning Board has a site plan application for this motel which it is currently processing. The Board cannot comment on your proposal at the same time that it is processing a site plan for a 42 unit addition to the motel. If the owner agrees in writing to withdraw the site plan and gives you permission to ~ct as his agent for the lot line change, the Board will review your p~oposal. If you have any questions, or require assistance, please contact this office. S in~e lY~/~/// Chairman cc: Henry Raynor, Agent Nicholas A]iano PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS~ ~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman EDWARDS ~ WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. ~ GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICI-IARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 4, 1999 Harvey R. Arnoff, Attorney at Law 206 Roanoke Avenue P.O. Box 329 Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Beachcomber II Motel Duck l~ond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2, & 17 Dear Mr. Arnoff, The Planning Board has received your letter of May 18, 1999, in regard to a lot line request for the above property. The Planning Board has a site plan application for this motel which it is currently processing. The Board canrrot comment on your proposal at the same time that it is processing a si~e plan for a 42 unit addition to the motel. If the owner agrees in writing to withdraw the site plan and gives you permission to act as his agent for the lot line change, the Board will review your proposal. If you have any questions, or require assistance, please contact this office. Chairman cc: Henry Raynor, Agent Nicholas Aliano 05.'"24..' ~. a':'9 ! J: 0C, 5~.E,-'2'~S-21'°.-7 P,A'/NC'F SUTER HDI4E P,~,:--4E 01 HENRY E. RAYNOR. A.I.C.P. Realty Plannln~ Consul{ant 'Tel: $16,291~o8420 Fax: 516-298-2127 320 Love Lane Mattituck, N,Y. 11952 lv~ay 2,4, 1999 Re: Eeschce~ahm' 8it~ Pal~ De~' Mr. 0CT-05-1998 i1:36' NELSON & POPE,LLP STATE ENVIRONMENTAl. QUALITY REVIEW ACT STATEMENT OF FINDINGS Town of $outhold, N.Y. 24 May, 1999 NAME OF ACTION: LEAD AGENCY: AGENCY JURISDICTION: Beachcomber Motel (I1) Expansion of the Beachcomber Motel Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Contact: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner, 516-765-1938 Special Exception under Town Code PRoa~c-r LOCATION: Between Oregon Road ~d ~ng hl~d So~d, ~t of Du~ Pond Ro~ Cutcho~e, To~ of Sou~old, ~ of S~o~ S~OLK Co~ ~ P~CE~: 1~0-083-2-1, 2, ~d 17 DA~Fm~E~ ~EB: 24 May, 1999 FACTS AND CONCLUsIoNS RE!,~ UPON TO SUPPORT THE DECISION: Introduction A Draft Environm~tal Impa~t Statement (ELS) and Final ELS have been prepared for the Beachcomber Motel (H) Exp~neion which address the potential environmental impacts and available mitigation measures associated with the p, oposed project. The subject application involves constructic~n of 46 additional units on a pmpm'o/which contains an existing motel with 36 units, three apartments and a restaurant. During preparation of the Final ELS, it was determined that thc maximum yield of the parcel under existing conditions should be only 42 additional units. The project site consists oft[amc tax parccls totaling 48.2 acres. The northem portion of thc propei'ty is zoned for Resort Residential Development, while the southern portion, which will remain undeveloped, is zoned for Agricultural Conservation. The EIS record assumes as a worst case scenario that the proposed motel would be operated on a year-round basis, and these findings are based on this assumption. In fact, the motel is likely to be operated on a 0CT-05-19S8 11:36 NELSON & POPE,LIP 515 42? 5620 P,03/12 Beachcomber Motel (II) Statement of Findings seasonal basis, which would provide additional mitigation for many of the impacts discussed in thc Draft ELS. Although the project sponsor has made previous applications to expand the motel, the current application was submitted on January 23, 1992, however, the application was not complete until July 31, 1992. The $outhold Town Planning Board assumed ~ Agency status on October 20, 1992, and issued a positive declaration on November 2, 1992. The Draft ELS was then submitted to the Town of Soathold on March 28, 1995. After several revisions and a reduction in the requested number of units, the Draft ELS was accepted by the Planning Board on March Ii/, 1996, and a Notice 0£Completion was i~sucd. The Draft EIS was then circulated for comment, and a Public Hearing was held by the Town Planning Board on April g, 1996. The hearing was continued until April 29, 1996, and the minimum 30 day public corem,mt period was held open until May 9, 1996. Thc applicant submitted a response to the commcIlls on September 7, 1996, which was then utilized by the Town to prepare a draft of a Final EIS completed in February, 1997. Thc Final ELi addressed all of the substantive concerns raised during thc comment period. Issues regarding Water usc remained, and the applicant was asked to provide further documentatio.n, on Water quality and availability. Once the necessary information was obtained from thc applicant, a final version of the Final F.2S was completed and filed in OctOber 1998. These findings use the SEQR r~.,ord to weigh social, economic, and enviromnental issues as a basis for a decision 0n the project. Geologic Resources Thc project siteI is located within a swale locatexi on the bluffs ovcrlooki%~ Long Island Sound, with many areas of steep slopes in eacess of 15 percent and high potential for erosion. The existing motel and proposed development ama arc locatexl on a relatively flat plateau appro×imat~ly 10 to 13 feet above the beach, with a slight bluff along the shoreline. To the cast, west, and sbuth, the bluffs rise to an elevation of approximately 50 feet. Thc proposed plan has bccn designed to minimize disturbance in areas of steep slopes. The new units most be located at least 100 fcct from thc coastal zone hazard area boundary, as is shown on the site plan. The boundary approxirnat~ the edge of the bluff, and a 100 foot sctback from the bluff as required by Town Code. Construction withi~ 100 feet of thc bluff would require a variance, and there is no compelling reason to consider such a variance as there is ample ar~ to locate the development in a manner which is consistent with Town land usc goals. Thc existing motel and restaurant have bccn subject to damage from past storms, and are located partially within the Coastal Zone H~,a,d Area as determined by the Town. Relocation of ~c structures which arc currently within thc Coastal Zone Hazard Area is likely to be neeeesary in the future, and should be outlined within the Covenants and Restrictions with regard to the proposed project. The applicant has agreed to relocate any unsafe units once the new units arc provitti,~g sufficient income. Thc relocated units should be situated at le~t 100 feet from the bluff; and their locations should be clearly delineated on the final site plan. As the appropriate deusity of the parcel has been det,~mfined to be 42 new 2 0CT-05-1998 11:371 NELSON & POPE,LLP 516 429 5628 P.04×12 2esch~m~ Motel Statement of Findings units rather than 46, four of the relocated units could be located within the building footprints shown on the current sit~ plan. It should be possible to alter the site plan slightly to locate thc additional two units landward of the 100 foot setback. Relocation of the restaurant beyond the 100' setback would be more difficult, and the location proposed on thc current site plan is acoeptable. Thc covcnant requiring removal of dzm~gcd structures should bc clearly worded, setting a time limit for such relocation. 4. Both the existing motel and thc new units arc also within the 100 year flood zone as outlined on the Federal Flood Insurenco Rate Map. Thc base elevation shown is 11 feet, and thus the first floor of th~ proposed structures must be located at least 11 feet above mean sea level. The proposed site plan shows all structures at an elevation of more than 14 feet, and thus conforms to thi~ design standard. 5. The Carver andIPlymouth soils found within the proposed development area have a modcratc to s~ver~ potential for erosion. Thc pwposed site plan avoids constmc~on in areas of steep slopes, howev~, o~ of exo~ion control measures will be necos~ry during construction to mlnlmi~e lo~ otsoils. A s~im~t and erosion control plan sho~d be required by the Town as part of the!site plan review process. Disturbance to existing vegetation should be mip!mi=ed, par~cularly at the ba~ of the slopes, and cl~-'ed areas should Im revegetated as soon as poss~l¢ after disturbance. The erosion control plan should include mitigation measures for k~tallation of the water supply line, which will occur in an area of extreme slopes. , Hydrogeologic ResOurces 6. Water quality intormation obtained during preparation of the Fi~l BIS shows elevaxed levels of fertilizers and ni~xates in groundwater beneath the site. 7. Based on water ~uality information fi'om the project site, the Suffolk Co. unty Department of Health Services ~, indicated that an area must be shown on thc final site plan to allow for water treamaentishould it become nccessmy in the future. The proposed lxeamaent area should be large enough for storage of water treatment chcmicals and to instaU an ion exohangc unit fdr nitrate removal and granular activated carbon units (GAC) for thc removal of pesticides. 8. The Suffolk Cou?aty Department of Health Services has also determined that groundwater on site is not suitable for use as a community public water supply, Thus, the use of the site for cooperative units or condomlnlnrn.~ would not be permitted unless public water is supplied, and the proposed project should be covenanted remafa a motel until public water is extended to thc site. Suc~ a we would require a change in zoning designation, and therefore is not currently feasible. 9. Due the existing high levels of nitrogen and pesticides on site, the existing agricultural land on site should be covenanted to either remain fallow or be used for agricultural crops which limited abplication of fertilizers. This enuld be accomplished through a requirement r~lui~ 0CT-05-1998 11:37 SON ~, POPE, LLP Beachcomber Motel Sta~-ment of Find/ngs 516 42? 5620 P.05/12 of a Soil Conservation Management Plan for any agricultural usc of thc property in the future. Thc covenant should stipulate that the plan be developed in consultation with the US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, which regularly prepares agricultural management plans to minimize soft loss as well as to limit the use of nitrogen and pesticides. 10. It is estimated within the Draft EIS that the saltwater int~ace is approximately 120 feet below sea level beneath the proposed well site. Prior to 1990, saltwater intrusion was a problem at an eXisting well near the southeast comer of the existing motel. This may have been due to excessive well pumpage due to a leak in the piping for the swimmi,~$ pool. The well was replaced, and screened to a depth of approximately 50 feet. Subsequent water quality tests re~orted in the Draft EIS do not suggest any reoccurrence of saltwater contamination at the well. The proposed well will be located to the south of the existing developed area ~t the top of the bluffin order to minimize the likelihood of further saltwater intrusion. 11.Thc Suffolk County Department of Health Services ~ indicted that at least two wells will be neCeSSary to provide water for the proposed expansion, which is expected to have a peak demand of 100 gallons per minute(gpm). Two we, lb will .p, rovide the ability to conduct intermittent pu~ing to reduce excessive drawdown In a specific locatio,n...Additional wells could be necessXty if salt water intrusion occurs. As the water demand will exceed 45 gpm, a New York Stat~ Department of Environmental Conservation Well Permit will be necessary for the proposed[project prior to final approval. 12. The project site is located on- Long Island Sound, in an area in which water quality is generally good. ]Impacts to the water quality of the Sound can be minimized by reduction of nilrogen input tO groundwater, as was discussed above, as well as containment ofrun-offon site. The propgsed project would dircct runoff from thc site to a drainage area in the southcastcm comer of the site, with no direct outlet to thc sound except under extreme flood conditions. Ecological Resources 13. The project site gun'ently contains a mix of habitat ~ypes which have been impacted by past disturbance, incl~llng a largc agricultural field on the southern potlion of thc propcrty. Thc area near the ex~sting motel is mown turf; and successional woodland and a xeric habitat dominated by b~yberry, sumac and cedar arc pre~cnt on thc bluffs above. These habitats suppo~ plant end wikllife species which are relatively common on Long Island, and no rare, threatened or endangered species were observed on or near the site. 14. M..o, st of the prol~osed development area is mown field, and only a'small area of woodland will be removed. Thus, impacts to ecological resources are expected to be minimal. Clearing limits should be Clearly delineated on the grading and erosion conuol plans, as well as in the field prior to conStruction, in order to protect vegetation and minimize disturbance to slopes. 4 0CT-05-1998 11:38 NELSON & POPE,LLP 516 42? 5620 P.06×12 Beachcomber Motel (II) Statement of Finding5 15. Thcrc is a small vernal pool which serves as a dralnagc area in thc southwestern portion of the proposcd devclopmcnt area. This area was the historic localion of a pond, which was filled in the late 1950's. It has minimal valuc az a wetland, and is vogetatod by non-native spcci~. The applicant intends to expand and mgradc this area, which should be revegetated u~ing native wetland species such as ru~es, sedges, bayberry and sweet peppcrbush. This would result in a net improvcmcnt to this habitat at minimal cost to the applicant, and a pond landscaping plan _~hould be required for final approval. Trnnsportntion 16. The Draft F_,IS donoluded thai the proposed project will not result in a significant impact on local traffic. Th~ maximum number of additional cars gcncratcd during a one hour period by the proposed pr6ject would be 33, or approximately taro per minute. This maximum traffic generation would occur only seasonally during the peak weekend period, and would not be expected to impact thc capacity of ~ roads. It is noted, however, that mitigation is necessary to ensm~ safe operation of the local access road, a~ is discussed b~low. 17. Whether or not ~ proposed project is approved, installation of a stop sign is recomm _e2a. de.d to contwl northbound traffic, at the intersection of Duck Pond Road, Vista Place and Bach Lane. In addition, trimming of the brushy vegetation at the southeast comer of the intersection andlpruning of the large evergreen on the northeast comer of Duck Pond Road and Oregon Road should also be requital within the Town right-of-way. If trimming beyond the Town fight~f-way, would add sight distance and increase the level of safety, the applicant shall leek to obtain the l~rmission of the adjacent property owner in order to perform such mitigation. The existing basic road configuration should remain in order to maintain thc existing rural character of the roads; however, striping may bo necessary to promote driver lawareneas and pedestrian safety. Thc applicant shall consider this and propose a balance of mitigation measures for this intersection in the submission of a revised site plan. Land Use 18. The subject application is for thc cxpansion of a prccxisting motel on a large property which also CO~tnln~ nn a~'.i.'cultllral field. The southern portion of thc site is zoned Agricultural Conservation D~ct (AC'), and the northern dcvclopcd portion is zoncd for Residential (RR] development The surrounding land uses include siugle family homes and agricultural fields. The zoning of thc adjacent propcrtics to the south is AC, while along Long Island Sound, the zoning to the east of the site is Residential-80 and thc zoning to thc east of the site is lResidential-40. 19. The proposed project is an allowed, special exception usc within thc cxisting Resort Residential zoning district, and as such is a contemplated u~e within the RI[ zone consistent with Town land USc goals. In addition, a large area on the southern portion of the site would SON POPE, LLP Beachcomber Motel Sta~mcm o f ~'~i~dings 516 42? 5628 P.87/12 be preserved as open space or in low intcmsity agricultural usc. ~ is also consistent with municipal laud us~ goals. 20. The three properties involved in the subject application are under separate ownership, and the impact analysis presented in thc Draft EIS and Fi.al ElS record address development on the combined parcels. The project sponsor is willing to merge the properties, but would hke them to remain m separate ownership if thc project is not approved. Thc merger of these properties should be made a condition of final approval of the proposed project. 21. The proposed yield of the propc'rty presented in the Draft EIS was determined to be too intense given the site attributes, sensitivity and constraints, and that the yield of the parcel would be only 42 additional units. Thus four units should be removed from the final site plan. This assumes that public water and sanitary waste treatment are not avsilsble as under existing conditiqns. Thc determination of yield involves consideration of reasonable density, Town Cod, and Suffolk County Health Department Standards, and the most restrictive regulations apply on any particular property. Thc determln~tion of yield on the subject parcel was made as follows.: The subject application involves three tax paraels, and all three are ne, c~sary to obtal~ the de, ired yield. The exlstlng units have been included in the calaulati.~n of the yield of the combined parcals. Co~ty Health Department standard~ are generally more restrictive than zoning regulations in unsewered areas, however, this is not true for tl~ subject site due to the presence of environmentally sensitive land. The maximum yield should be based on the overall 8creage of the site, in consideration of the area of sensitive environmental land. The 16.5 acre RR zoned portion of the site contains both waterfront property and areas of steep slopes, These areas total 4.8 acres, and thas, it he total non-steep area toned for RR d~velopme.nt is 11.7 acres. Zoning regulations limit d~elopment wlthin RR zoned districts to one unit per 6,000 s.~. ~ the site is unsewered, and one unit per 4,000 $.f. if the site is sewered and has public water. This would rexult in a yield of 85 hotel units on a vacant property based on the balance on non-environmentally sensitive land, However. the yield calaulations must also constder the e~cisting dev~Iopmk, nt on ~ite, including 36 motel units, three aparfment and the restaurant. The apartrnznt~ and existing units can be directly subtracted from the overall yield, however, the restaurant is a pre,~risting, non-conforming use which is ~ot discussed under the zoning code. The minimum lot size on which a restaurant would be allowed ts 20.000 s.f. in a Hamlet Business district. Thus, it i~ reasonable to subtract 20,000 $.f. from the buildable land to allow for the rgstaurant, which wouM result in a total of 11.3 acres of buildable land on 9ite. Baz~l on thi~ figur,,, th~ total number of units allowed on site would be 81. /As there are currently 36 units and thre~ apartments on site. the total number of additional units which should be pe~,,dtted is 42. 6 0CT-05-1998 11:59 NELSON & POPE,LLP 516 4~? 56~ P.OB?I~ Beac~mb~Motel(iI) S~t~a~ato£F~d~gs The preceding density de, termination discusae~ only the 16.5 acre RR zoned portion of the site. The remaining 31.7 acres of the site is zoned AC, which would allow subdivision of the property into 80,000 s.f., or approximately 12 new homes with roads and a recharge basin. Although this yield would be permitted under the Zoning Code, County Health Department standards are more re, vtrictive. County Health Department standards limit the total wastewater discharge on a site to 300 gallons per day (gpd) per acre in areas without public water and sewage treatment. Thus, the total flow permitted on the 48.2 acre combined parcel would be 14,460 gallons per day (gpd) under existing conditions. /,s calculated in the Draft ElS, the proposed project would result in a total flow of 14,425 gpd, which would not allow development of the r~maining AC portion of the site, however, subtraction of four units as discussed above would reduce this flow by 150 gpd per unit, or 600 gpd. This would allow construction of two single family hames on the AC portion of the site. Thus, under tlw, se conditions, the appropriate density on the overall site should be 42 additional motel units and two new single family homes. The existing motel currently includes six traits which are tn located within the Coastali Zone Hazard Area, and are in danger of potential storm damage. A reduction in yield to an appropriate density of 42 additional units would allow these units to be relocated with a setback of at least 100 feet to the Coastal Zone Hazard Area Boundary. Four of the relocated units could be located wlthin the building foot. prints shown on the site plan, taking the place of the four unRs which were subtracted from the original yield. The remaining two units could be added to on of the proposed buildings with only minor alteration of the site plan. The development potential of the property would increase if public water and/or sewage treatment were available on site. Under County Health Department Standards the maximum sanitary flow allowed would increase to 600 gpd per acre if public water were provided. County Health Department Standards do not limit sanitary flow if both sewage treatment and public water are provided. Town zoning regulations require that both public water and sewage treatment be provided before the yieM is increased within the RR zoning district, allowing one unit per 4,000 s.f. of butldable land rather than one unit per 6,000 s.f. Within the AC zoning district, the development potential is the same whether or not sewage treatment or public water are provided. Thus, if only public water were provided on site, the yield on the RR portion of the site iwould not change. The y~zld of the AC portion of the site would increase, as the combined acreage of the three parc~ls would no longer be necessary to meet County Health Department standards. Thus, In the event that public water is provided at the site, the appropriate density on site would be 42 additional units and 12 stngle family homes. If both public water and sewage treatment were provided, the yield on the ~ toned portion of the 7 0CT-05-1998 11:40 NELSON & POPE,LLP 516 ~27 5620 P.09/12 Beachcomber Motel (II) Sta~ment of Fiudings property would increase to one unit per 4,000 $.f., which would allow a total of 83 additional units. Thus, the maximum developmer[t potential on the subject property under any conditions is 83 additional motel units and 12 single family homes. This wouM require that the applicant construct a sewage treatment plant, as it is unlikely that public sewers would be extended to the area. Such a plan would require site plan approval. In addition, location: of additional unlts in an appropriate and environmentally sensitive manner would be of concern and would warrant additional detailed environmental review. A supplemental ElS wouM most ltkely be necessary to address these issues. 22. The proposed uaits will be 600 s.f. in size, which is the maximum permitted Under Town Code. Multifamily development, including condominiums, are not allowed within the RR zoning district, however, local residents have expressed concern that the property owner may seek a cho-ge df. zone in the future in order to convert the motel to a condominium use. A covenant prohil~lt/ng a future change of zonc to allow mttltifamily usc could be mede a condition of final approval of the project. Community ServiCes 23. The pr.o?osed pr°ject is extracted to generate significant tax revenues, which should offset any additional demand for community servaces generated by the expansion. A significant increase in taxes will be generated for the local school district, with no associated increase in the number ofs~hool aged children. 24. A fire well is indicated on the site plan, and should be installed according to Cutchoguc Fire Department spe~ificatious outlined in a letter appended to thc Dratt EIS. The Depad~uent requested that the well be located on the west side of thc proposed development area, just south of thc existing basketball court. The following specifications were outlined: 20 H.P., 3 phase, submersible pump capable to deliver 400 gpm at 10 PSl discharge at center, of tee at top of well. Pump shall be of submersible turbine type, equipped with grease packed bearings in bowl assemblies. The bowls shall be of a smooth finish design to guide the water from one stage to the next wtth a minimum of turbulenVe. Top of th~ well is to be finished off-with a 8" x 4" well seal, 4" galvanized tee and plug, and 4"x4~ " solid brass ferrule and cap. 2'be hose threads and hydrant wrench nut shall ~onform to the standards of the Cutchogue Fire District. Cultural Resources 25. The proj~t site is located in a Iow point along thc bluffs which characteriz~ much of Long Island's North Shore. Thus. thc project site is visible only from Long Island Sound and from 8 0CT-05-1998 11:40~ NELSON & POPE,LLP Ji~ 4~Y ~bz~ ~.lUXiz Beachcomber Motel (Il) Statement of Findings thc properties immediately adjacent to the site, although vegetation provides part/al 26. As the adjacent properties are at a significantly higher elevation, perimeter plantings arc not likely to bc useful in providing visual mitigation. Foundation plantings, appmpr/ate building design, and other landscaping should be utilized to create an attractivc overall site design. A landscaping plan and building elevations shouM be required as part of thc site plan review process, with particular attention to the impact to perspectives from the adjacent residential properties. 27. A Stage IA an4 IB Archaeological Study were performed on the subject site, and based on these reports, nO si~ificant historic or prehistoric resources are expected on site. A~ternatives 28. Alternatives in,4cstigated included the no-action alternative, as well as two altcrnatc site lay- outs of 4? additional units. The current site plan was selected as the preferred alternative, as it minlnnzes di~L~bance to steep slopes and other impacts of the proposed project. Growth Inducing impact~ 29. Tourism is a major industry ,~th;n thc T.o, wn of Southold, and the proposed project is expected to result in generaUon of si~ficant revenues to local taxing jurisdict/ons. Generation of employment opi~ortunities will also occur as a result of thc project, although most of thc jobs would be expected to be relatively low paying, seasonal jobs. Short tcnn construction employment is also expected to occur es a result of the proposed project Summary of Mitigation Measures Not Incorporated in Submitted Design The new umts ~rlll be located at least 100 feet from the coastal zone h~-~rd area bounda~. The siX units c~rrently located within the Coastal Zone Hl~lT~qrd ~ g in potential danger due to erosion a~d storm damage, and should be relocated outside of the Hazard Arcs, with a setback of at least I00 feet. b.) A sediment and i erosion control plan should be required by the Town as part of the site plan review process to minimize disturbance to the areas of steep slopes. The erosion control plan should include mitgation measures for i~tallation of the water supply line, which will occur in an area of extreme slopes, and clearly delineate thc proposed limit of clearing. c.) A Covenant and Restriction on the proposed project site should preclude the conversion of the motel into time-share units or condominiums in the future. 0CT-05-1998 11:~11 NELSON & MU~,LL~ )lb 4ZY ~bZ~ ~.llXlZ Bcachcomb~ Mo~I (II) Ststcmcnt of Fiadh~gs d.) The Covenant and Restrictions on thc project should stipulate that the a Soil Conservation Management Plan be developed in consultation with the US Depa~uuent of Agriculture Soil Conservation Serv/ce for any future agricultural use of the property. e.) As recommended by thc SCDHS, an area must be set aside on the final site plan for a water treatment facility should it become necessary in thc fuuam. Thc proposed treatment ama should be large enough for sto~agc of water treatment chemicals and to install an ion exchange unit for mtrate removal and granular activated carbon units (GAC) for the removal of pesticides. A l~.ndscapmg plan should be submitted which considers ov~'all landscape dr, sign as well as mitigation of' potential visual impacts and planting of the proposed drainage area with wetland shrubs and other suitable spccies. Attention will b~ given to supplemental plantings on the west side of the proposed devdopment area as green plantings along Duck Pond Road. g.) A stop sign should be installad (with the consent of the Highway Superintendent) to control northbound traffic at the intersection of Duck Pond Road, Vista Place and Birch Lane as a condition of site plan approval. Trimmiug of the brushy vegetation at the southeast comer of the intersection iand pruning of the large evergreen on the northeast comer of Duck Pond Road and Oregon Road should also bc required within the Town fight-of-way. If trimming beyond the Town fight-of-way, would add sight distance and increase the level of safety, the applicant shall Seek to obtain thc permission of thc adjacent property owner in order to perform such mitigation. The existing basic road configuration should rema/n in order to maintain thc existing rur~ character of the roads; however, striping may be necessary to promote driver ~awareness and pedestrian safety. Thc applicant shall consider this and propose a balan0e o£ mitigation measures for ~is intersection in the submission o£ a revised site plan. The appropriate idensity of the project site has been determined to be 42 additional units, due to the presence of environmentally sensitivc land on site. Thus, the total yield should be r~luced by four Units on the final sito plan. A Supplemental EIS or other further env/ronmental review wiU be n~cessa~ in the event that public water and sewer connection become available in the area and a further increase in density is proposed. 10 Beachcomber Motel (II) Statcm~-m of Findings CERTIFICATION OF FINDINGS TO APPROVE/UNDERTAKE Having considered the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement, and having considered the preceding writtea facts and conclusions relied upon to me~t the rextuirexnents of the State Environmcntal Rc~cw Act, thc Town of Southold Planning Board as Icad agency cc-Tt/.fics through th~s Statement of Findings that: I. Thc requirements Part 617, Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations have been met, and; Consistent wi~h social, economic, and other essenti~ considerations from among the reasonablc alternatives thereto, the action appwved is one which minim/zes or avoids adverse environmental ~effects to the maximum extent praclicable, and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized by incorporation as conditions to the decision those mitigation measures which wcrc identified as practicable and listcd in these Finding. TownI Hall. 53095Main Road. P.O. Box 1179. Southold. l~. E 1197! Add~.~ of Agency 11 TOTglL P.12 rILE NUMBER: ?P14738¢ ~EAD AGENCY: 473800 of SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK County Town of SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK County OFFICE or BOARD: Planning Board TITLE: Beachcomber Motel II CLASS: T Unlisted Type i DESCRIPTION:..Const. 46 motel units on 14.1 ac. A total of Loc. S/E/C LI Sound & Duck Pond Lane. TYPE: C subdivision Industrial <Y/N> GENERIC EIS: N ENCON INVOLVED: N 8 bldgs are prop. Void 11 O0 IMPORTANT >> File Number: ~1-473800-00107 Use the above n-mher in all correspondence about this action! To the Lead Agency: The above information confirms that filings on the described Positive Declaration were officially received by, and entered in the SEQR Repository on the date(s) shown in the box headed DATE RECEIVED above. The latest filing is indicated by the most recent date in that box. The date and time in the second line show when this document was! printed. Please check the information above carefully. For corrections or questions contact Charles Lockrow, (518)457-2224, or write to: Town of SOUTHOLD Planning BOard 53095 Main! Road-P.O. Southold, Ny 11971 SEQR Repository NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs 50 Wolf Road, Room 514 Albany, NY 12233 ~-~ c-~,~,~,~'~'~7~ Box 1179 Southold Town Planning Board BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 25, 1999, Henry Raynor P.O. Box 1459 Mattituck, NY'11952 Re: BeachComber Motel I1: A proposed site plan for an additional 46 motel units on three separate parcels of land encompassing 48.2 acres and accommodating an existing motel complex consisting of 38 motel units, three apartments, a restaurant and a swimming pool. SCTM# 1000-83-2- 1,2&17 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, May 24, 1999: WHEREAS, the Planning Board conducted an environmental review of the aforesaid described site as a contiguous entity; and WHEREAS, the Statement of Findings pertains to a 42 unit expansion (representing! a reduction of 4 motel units from the original application) on three subject parcels, which total 48.2 acres; be it therefore RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby adopts the Statement of iFindings dated 24 May, 1999. Page 2 Proposed site ptan for Beachcomber Motel II May 25, 1999 Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Bennett Orlo,,Vski, Jr. Chairman enc. cc: Mr. AliClno, owner, c/o Henry Raynor John I~. Cahill, DEC Albany Roger !Evans, DEC Stony Brook Mohal~ir Perseud, NYS Dept. of State Vito Minei, Stephen Costa, Suffolk County Dept. of Health Steve +Jones, Frank Dowling, Suffolk County Planning Commission Suffolk County Dept. of Public Works Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk South~ld Town Board Southeld Town Building Dept. Southbld Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Trustees PublicL_Notice Bulletin Board HENRY E, RAYNOR. A.I.C.P. Realty Planning ¢onsultanl Tel: $16.2915-8420 Fax: ~ 16-298-2127 320 Love Lane Mattiluck, N.¥, I 195~ 999 $outhold Town Planning Board HARVEY A. ARNOFF Attorney At Law 206 Roanoke Avenue, P.O. Box 329, Riverhead, NY 11901-2794 Harvey A. Arnoff Paul K. Siepmann NY & MI P~aleual Colleen Grattan-Arnoff May18,1999 (516) 727-3904 Fax No. (516) 727-3940 Mr. Bennett Orlowski Chairman Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Chairman. Orlowski and Members of the Board: Southold Town Planning Board This letter will confirm the fact that on May 18, 1998 1 had occasion to meet with two members of your staff to discuss a proposed lot line change with reference to certain properties contiguous to certain property. I am aware that there has been a substantial amount of work done referenced the proposed expansion of the motel by Mr. Aliano, however, I represent an individual who intends to purchase the subject property. It is my client's intention to purchase and Mr. Aliano's intention to sell to him, three separate and distinct parcels. I have designated those parcels as parcels "A", "B", and "C" on a map enclosed for your review. You will see that parcel "A" is owned by Pond Enterprises, parcel "B" is owned by Palficia Krupski and parcel "C" is a portion of a larger piece owned by Mr. Aliano. Essentially what is happening is that we are expanding what will be the entrance to the motel itself by the acquisition of parcel "C" and leaving access on the north for Mr. Aliano and the remainder of his original 30-acre parcel. It is my opinion that this conveyance represents a lot line change and nothing more since parcel "C" will be acquired by and become part of an expanded parcel "B". The purpose behind this letter is to inquire of the Board its opinion of this application and to solicit its comments prior to an actual submission so that this matter may be handled in as expeditious a manner as is possible. I recognize that these conveyances will essentially undo virtually all of the work that Mr. Aliano has previously embarked upon for an expansion of the motel. This, however, should not in any way impact upon the matter before the Board now. Mr. Bennett Orlowski Page 2. I look forward for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yo~uys, HARVEY A. ARNOFF HAA:rd P.S. I would welcome the opportuni~ of addressing the Board on this at a work session, should you feel same appropriate. HAA 1050 SMITHTOWN AVENUE PO. BOX 94 BOHEMIA, NY 11716 (516) 567-5859 GLENN SPETTA ASSOCIATES CONSULTANTS · ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND ANALYSES · COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT · ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS · AQUATIC AND BENTHIC SURVEYS April 30, 1999 Town of Southold Planning Board Office Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Robert Kassner Site Plan Reviewer Re: Beachcomber Motel II Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Kassner: In accordance with your request, enclosed please find ten additional copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC for the referenced proposed development. Please contact me on 738-5926 if I can be of further service in this regard. Sincerely, GD$ cc: N. Aliano H. Raynor [gsa:beach:99-003] Southold Town Planning Board DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT J, ('~AFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE April 16, 1999 CHARLES J. BARTHA, P.E. COMMISSIONER Town of Southold Planning Board Office Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Robert G. Kassner RE: Not on CoUnty Road - Beachcomber I1 Motel - SCTM #1000-83-1 1, 2, & 17 Gentlemen: We have reviewed the above-referenced FEIS. Specifically note that: This Department has no objection to the Town assuming lead agency status for this proposed development. Since this proposed development is not adjacent to a County maintained road or a road proposed for improvements by the County, a permit will not be required from this Department. If you have any questions, kindly contact this office at 852-4099. 335 YAPHANK AVENUE RJL/MPC/j fb Very truly yours, Richard J. LaVal!e, P.E. Chief Engineer Perm'lB Engineer ~ :~ . ~ /A ? ~'~ APR 2'/ 1999 $outHold Town Plannin9 Goard (S16) FAX (5 ! 6) SS~- 4150 BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM. JR. RICHARD G. WARD '~ -,u, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM TO: All Involved Agencies FROM: The Planning Board Office Final Environmental Impact Statement for Beachcomber II Motel DuckI Pond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-83-1 1, 2, & 17 DATE: April 13, 1999 Enclosed pleasei find a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Beachcomber II Motel. This document is being sent to you for public comment. Comments must be received within ten (10) days of the date of ihis Memorandum (April 13, 1999). For Further Information: Contact Person: Mr. Robert G. Kassner Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1938 Copies mailed to the following: Southold Town Board Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town iBeard of Trustees Suffolk County, Dept. of Health Services Suffolk County lDept, of Public Works NYS Dept. of State, Coastal Resources & Waterfront Revitalization Division NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation- Albany & Stony Brook offices NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Federal Emergency Management Agency Highway Dept., Southold Suffolk County Water Authority Southold Public Library North Fork Enviormental Council Property Owners Association Applicant Cutchogue Public Library 1050 SMITHTOWN AVENUE P.O, BOX 94 BOHEMIA, NY 11716 (516) 567-5859 GLENN SPETTA ASSOCIATES CONSULTANTS · ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND ANALYSES · COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT · ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS · AQUATIC AND BENTHIC SURVEYS March 18, 1999 Town of Southold Planning Board Office Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Robert Kassner Site Plan Reviewer Re: Beachcomber Motel II Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Kassner: In accordance with your request, enclosed please find twenty copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC for the referenced proposed development. The copies are for distribution dudng the public comment pedod. The FEIS has been slightly modified to address your comments of Apdl 29, 1998 in which you requested the addition of a letter from Mr. Robert Farmer, P.E. of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. His letter has been added as Attachment D. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments in this regard. Sincerely, Glenn D. Spetta GDS CC: N. Aliano P. Grosser S. Hyman H. Rayn0r [gsa:beach:99-001] Southold Town Planning Board PLANNING BOARD M~MBER~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 22, 1998 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor, This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of this date. As discussed, the items contained in the Board's letter to you of October 26, 1998, (copy enclosed), are still outstanding. Specifically these items are: 1. Twenty copies of the FEIS for distribution during the public comment period. 2. Elevation drawings and additional data as listed on the enclosed form. 3. Special Exception by the Board of Appeals. When the above has been accomplished, the Board will request the merger of all three lots and Covenants and Restrictions for a soil conservation plan and such other C & R's as determined by the Board after the Public comment period. Final plans, with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services stamp, will be required before any possible final approval. If you have any question, or require additional information, please contact this office. Site Plan Reviewer Encls. CC: Glen Spetta, Glen Spetta Associates Gerard P. Goehringer, President, Board of Appeals Nicholas Aliano PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSI<-I, JR. Chairman V~iLLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 26, 1998 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor, The Planning Board has received a report from its Environmental Consultant concerning the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and has deemed the (FEIS) complete. As discussed in the Board's April 29, 1998, letter To Mr. Glenn Spetta, we will need Twenty (20) copies of the FEIS for distribution during the public comment period. Please arrange for this number of copies to be sent to this office. After the minimum ten (10) day public comment period, public hearing on the FEIS and review by the Architectural Review Committee, the Board will adopt a resolution at its next public meeting to issue a notice of complete FEIS and to issue its written findings statement. Please submit current elevation drawings for review by the Architectural Review Committee. Enclosed is a check sheet of additional ARC requirements. When this process is completed, the Board will request a revised site plan and request covenants and restrictions be prepared for review by the Town Attorney. A Special Exception will be required by the Board of Appeals for a transient motel before the Board renders its decision. If you have any questions, or require assistance, please contact this office. Site Plan Reviewer Encl. Charles Voorhis, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis Glen Speta, Glenn Spetta associates Gerard P. Goehringer, President, Board of Appeals Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J~ CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fmx (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 26, 1998 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor, The Planning Board has received a report from its Environmental Consultant concerning the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and has deemed the (FEIS) complete. As discussed in the Board's April 29, 1998, letter To Mr. Glenn Spetta, we will need Twenty (20) copies of the FEIS for distribution during the public comment period. Please arrange for this number of copies to be sent to this office. After the minimum ten (10) day public comment period, public hearing on the FEIS and review by the Architectural Review Committee, the Board will adopt a resolution at its next public meeting to issue a notice of complete FEIS and to issue its written findings statement. Please submit current elevation drawings for review by the Architectural Review Committee. Enclosed is a check sheet of additional ARC requirements. When this process is completed, the Board will request a revised site plan and request covenants and restrictions be prepared for review by the Town Attorney. A Special Exception will be required by the Board of Appeals for a transient motel before the Board renders its decision. If you have any questions, or require assistance, please contact this office. Site Plan Reviewer Encl. Charles Voorhis, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis Glen Speta, Glenn Spetta associates Gerard P. Goehringer, President, Board of Appeals Edward Forrester, Director of Code Enforcement NE/OON~ POPE & VOOI~IHIO~ LLC October 5, 1998 Valerie Scopaz Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Beachcomber Motel (Il) Final EIS and Findings N&P .lob No 97056 Dear Valerie: Attached, please find one bound and one unbound copy of the Final ElS for Beachcomber Motel (II). This document contains the revisions identified in your earlier markup and changes discussed at our last meeting on this project. In addition, attached, please find a copy of the Statement of Findings, which has also been modified to reflect our previous discussions. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services, and please call if you have any questions. Ellc: Southold Town Planning Board Very truly yours, .0CT-05-1998 11:36 NELSON & POPE,LLP 516 42? 5620 P.02/12 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT STATEMENT OF FINDINGS Town of $outhold, N.Y. October 1998 NAM~ OF ACTION: LEAD AGENCY: AGENCY JURISDICTION: Beachcomber Motel (Il) Expansion of the Beachcomber Motel Southold Planning Bo~rd Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southol~ N.Y. 11971 Contact: Valerie Scopaz. Town Plarmcr, 516-765-1938 Special Exception under Town Code PROJECr LOCATION: Between Oregon Road and Long Island Sound, East of Duck Pond Road Cutchogue, Town of Southold. County of Suffolk SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX PARCELS: 1000-083-2-1, 2, and 17 DATE FINAL EI~ I~ILED: October 1998 FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT THE DECISION: Introduction A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) and Final ElS have been prepared for the Beachcomber Motel (H) Expamion which address the potential environmental impacts and available mitigation measures associated with the proposed project. The subject application involves construction of,S6 additional units on a property which contains an existing motel with 36 units, three apartments and a restaurant. During preparation of thc Final BIS, it was determined thaz the maximum yield of the parcel under existing conditions should be only 42 additional u,~its. The project site consists ofthrcc tax parccls totaling 48.2 acres. The northern portion of the property is zoned for Rosen Residential Development, while the southern portion, which will remain mudevaloped, is zoned for Agricultural Conservation. The BIS record assumes as a worst casc scenario that thc proposed motel would be operated on a ycar-round basis, and these findings are based on this assumption. In fact, thc motel is likely to be operated on a ,0CT-05-1998 11:36 NELSON & POPE~LLP 516 42? 5628 P.03/12 Beachcomber Mo~l (II) Stats'merit of Findings seasonal basis, which would provide additional mitigation for many of the impacts discussed in thc Draft EIS. Although the project sponsor has made previous applications to exp,,~,t the motel, thc currcnt application was submitted on Sanuary 23, 1992, however, thc application was not complete until July 31, 1992. The Southold Town Planning Board assumed Lead Agency status on October 20, 1992, and issued a positive declaratiun on November 2, 1992. The Draft BIS was then submitted to the Town of Southold on March 28, 1995. After several revisions and a reduction in the requested number of units, the Draft BIS was accepted by the PJanning Board on March 18, 1996, and a Not. icc Of Complet/on was i~sucd. Thc Draft BIS was then circuletcd for comment, and a Public Hearing was held by the Town Planning Board on April g, ] 996. The hearing was continued until April 29, 1996, and the minimum 30 day public comment period was held open until May 9. 1996. Thc applicant submitted a response to the comments on September ?, 1996, which was than utilized by the Town to prepare a draR of s Final EIS completed in February, t997. Thc Final EIS addressed all of the substantive concerns raised during thc comment period. Issues regarding water use remained, and the appl/cant was asked to provide further documentation on water quality and availability. Once thc necessary information was obtained from the applicant, a final version of the Final BIS was completed and filed in October 199g. These findings usc the SBQR record to weigh social, economic, and environmental issucs as a basis for a d~cision on the project Geologic Resources Thc project site is located within a swale located on thc bluffs overlooking Long Island Sound, with many areas of steep slopes in excess ell5 percent and high potential for erosion. The existing motel and proposed development area arc located on a relatively flat plateau approximately 10 to 13 feet above the beach, with a slight bluff along thc shorelhte. To the cast, west, and south, the bluffs rise to an elevation of approximately 50 feet. The proposed plan has been designed to mivimi~e disturbance in areas of steep slopes. The new units must be located at least 100 feet from the coastal zone hazard area boundary, as is shown on the site plan. The boundary approximates the edge of the bluff, and a 100 foot setback from the bluff as required by Town Code. Construction within 100 fcct of thc bluff would require a variance, and there is no compelling reason to cons/der such a variance as there is ample area to locate the development in a manner which is consistent with Town land use goals, The existing motel and rcstaurant have been subject to damage from past storms, and are located partially within the Coastal Zone Hazard Area as detenrfined by the Town. Relocation of the structures which are currently within thc Coastal Zone Hazard Area is likcly to be ncccssary in the future, and should be outlined within the Covenants and Restrictions with regard to the proposed project. The applicant has agreed to relocate any unsafe units once the new uuits are providing sufficient income. Thc relocated units should be situated at least 100 feet from the bluff, and their locations should be clearly delineated on the final site plan. As the appropriate density of the parcel has been determined to be 42 new 2 0CT-05-1998 11:37 NELSON & POPE,LLP 516 42? 5628 P.04/12 Beachcomber Motel (1I) Statement of Findings units rather ~ 46, four of the relocated units could be located within the building footprints shown on thc current site plan. It should be possible to alter the site plan slightly to locate the additional two units landward of the 100 foot scthack. Relocation of the restaurant beyond the 100' setback would be more difficult, and the location proposed on thc current site plan is acceptable. The covenant requiring removal of damaged smzctures should bc clearly worded, setting a time limit for such relocation. 4. Both the existing motel and the new units arc also within the 100 year flood zone as outlined on the Federal Flood Inanrance Rate Map. The base elevation shown is 11 feet, and thus the first floor of the proposed structures must be located at least 11 fect above mcan sca 1¢v¢I. The proposed site plan shows all structures at an elevation of moro than 14 feet, and thus conforms to this design standard. The Carver and Plymouth soils found within the proposed development area have a moderate to severe potential for erosion. The pwposed site plan avoids construction in areas of steep slopes, however, us~ of erosion control messures will be necessary during construction to minimize loss of soils. A s~im~nt and erosion control plan should be required by the Town as part of the site plan review process. Disturbance to existing vegetation should be minimized, particulm'ly at the base of the slopes, and cleared areas should be revegetated as soon as possible after disturbance. The erosion conlrol plan should include mitigation measures for installation of the water supply line, which will occur in an area of ¢xtrcm¢ slopes. tlydrogeologic Resources 6. Water quality information obtained during prcparation of thc Final BIS shows elevated levels of fertilizers and nitrates in 8roundwater baneath the site. Based on water quality information from the project site, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services has indicated that an area must be shown on the final site plan to allow for water treatment should it become necessary in the future. The proposed treatment area should be large enough for storage of water treatment chcmicals and to install an ion cxchangc unit for nitratc removal and granular activated carbon units ((3AC) for thc removal of pesticides. $. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has also determined that groundwater on site is not suitable for use as a community public water supply. Thus, the use of the site for cooperative units or condominiums would not be permit~d unless public water is supplied, and the proposed project should be covenanted remain a motel until public water is extended to the site. Such a uae would r~qui~ a chango in zoning designation, and therefore is not currently fee~ible. Due the existing high levels of nitrogan and pesticides on site, the existing agricultural land on site should be covenanted to either remain fallow or be used for agricultural crops which require limited application of foailizers. This could be accomplished through a rcquirem~t 0CT-05-1998 11:37 NELSON & POPE,LLP 516 42? 5628 P.05/12 Beachcomber Motel (Il) Staternen~ of]Findings of a Soil Conservation Management Plan for any agricultural use of thc property in the future. The covenant should stipulate that the plan be developed in consultation with the US DeparUnent of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, which regularly prepares agricultural management plans to mininuz' e soil loss as well as to limit the use of nitrogen and pesticides. I0. It is estimated within the Draft EIS that the sfltwater interface is approx/rnately 120 feet below s~a level beneath the proposed well site. Prior to 1990, saltwater intrusion was a pmbl~rn at an existing well near the southeast comer of the existing motel. This may have been duc to excessive well pumpage due to a leak in the piping for the swimming pool. The well was replaced, and screened to a depth of approximately 50 feet. Subs~uent water quality tests reported in the Draf~ EIS do not suggest any reoccurrence of saltwater cont~mi,~tion at the well. The proposed well will be located to the south of the existing developed area at the top of the blulTin order to minimize thc likelihood of further saltwater intrusion. 11.Thc Suffolk County Dep~t~ent of Health Services has indicted that at least two wells will be necessary to provide water for the proposed expansion, which is expected to havc a pcak demand of 100 gallons per minute (gpm). Two wells will provide the ability to conduct intermittent pumping to reduce excessive drawdown in a specific location. Additional wells could bc necessary ffsalt water intrusion occurs. As the water dc~mm~l will cxcccd 45 Spin, a New York State Dep~,uent of ~nvironmcntal Conscrvat/on Well Permit will be necessary for thc proposed project prior to final approval. 12. The project site is located on Lon~ Island Sound, in an area in which water quality is generally good. Impacts to the water quality of the Sound can be minimized by reduction of nitrogen input to groundwater, az was discussed above, as well as containment sit~. The proposed project would dh'oct runoff from thc site to a drainage area in thc southeastern corner of the site, with no direct outlet to thc sound except under extre~ie flood conditions. Ecological Resources 13. The project site currently contains a mix of habitat types which have been impacted by past disturbance, including a largc agricultural field on the southern portion of the property. Thc area near the existing motel is mown turf, and successional woodland and a xeric habitat dominated by bayberry, sumac and cedar arc present on the bluffs above. These habitats support plant and wildlife species which are relatively common on Long Island, and no rare, threatened or endangered species wer~ observed on or near the site. 14. Most of the proposed development area is mown field, and only a small area of woodland will be removed. Thus, impacts to ecological resources are expected to be minimal. Clearing limits should be clearly delineated on the gradhlg and erosion control plans, as well as in the field prior to construction, in order to protect vegetation and minimize disturbance to slopes. 4 OCT-OS-199B I1:38 NELSON & POPE,LLP S16 429 5620 P.O6x12 Beachcomber Mo~el (Il) Statement of Findings 15. There is a small vernal pool which serves as a drainage arca in thc southwestern portion of the proposed dcvclopmcnt area. This area was the historic location of a pond, which was filled in the late 1950,s. h has minimal valuc as a wetland, and is vcgetatcd by non-nativc species, The applicant intends to expand and rcgradc this arca, which should be revegetated using native wetland species such as ru-~hes, sedges, baybeny and swcct peppcrbush. This would result in a net improvcment to this habitat at minimal cost to the applicant, and a pond landscaping plan should be required for final approval. Transportation 16. The Draft BIS concluded that the proposed project will not result m a si/ni£cant impact on local ira/ftc. The maximum numbcr of additional cars gcncralcd during a one hour period by thc proposed project would be 33, or approximately two per minute. This maximum traffic gencration would occur only seasonally during the peak weekend p~iod, and would not be cxpectcd to impact thc capacity of area roads. It is noted, however, that mitigation is necessary to ensure safe operation of thc local access road, as is discussed below. 17. Whcthcr or not the proposed project is approved, installation of a stop sign is recommended to control northbound traffic at tho intersection of Duck Pond Road, Vista Place and Birch Lane. In addition, trimming of thc brushy vegetation at thc southeast comer of the intersection and pruning of the large evergreen on the northeast corner of Duck Pond Road and Or~gon Road should also be requirexi within the Town right-of-way. If trimming beyond the Town right-of-way, would add sight distance and increase the level of safety, the applicant shall s~k to obtain thc pcrm/ssion of thc adjaccnt prepay owner in order to perform such rniMga~ion. The existing basic road configuration should remain in order to maintain thc exist/rig rural character of the roads; however, str/ping may be neceasa~y to promotc dr/ver awareness and ped~an safety. Thc applicant shall conaider ttfis ~d propose a balance of mitigation measures for this intcrsection in thc submission of a revised site plan. Land Use 18. The subject application is for thc cxpandon of a prccxisline motel on a large prop~'y which also co~tlinl an agricultural field. The southern pordon of the site is zoned A~ricultural Conscrvation Disuict (AC), and the nor, hem dcveloped portion is zoned for Resort Residential (RR) development. The surrounding land uses include siugle family homes and agricultural fields. The zoning of thc adjaccnt propcrdcs to the south is AC, while along Long Island Sound, the zor~g to the east of the site is Residential-80 and the zoning to thc east of the site is Residentlal-~0. 19. The proposed project is an allowed, special exception use within the existing Resort Residential zoning district, and as such is a contemplated use within the RR zone consistent with Town land usc goals. In addition, a large area on the southern porMon of the site would 5 .0CT-05-1998 11:38 NELSON & POPE,LIP 516 42? 5628 P.07/12 Bc~hcombcr Mot~l (II) Stateroom of FLudings be preserved as open space or in low intensity agricultural use. This is also consistent with municipal land use goals. 20_ The three properties involved in the subject application are under separate ownership, and the impact analysis presented in the Dra~ ElS and Final ElS record address development on the combined parcels. The project sponsor is willing to merge the properties, but would like them to remain in sepm'ate ownership if the project is not approved. Thc merger of these properties should be made a condition of final approval of the proposed project. 21. The proposed yield of the property presented in the Draft ELS was determined to be too intense given the site attributes, sensitivity and constraints, and that the yield of thc parcel would be only 42 additional units. Thus four units should be removed from the final site plan, This assumes that public wa~er and sanitary waste treatment are not available as under existing conditions. The d~tcrmination of yield involves consideration of reasonable density, Town Coctc and Suffolk County Health D~artment Standards, and the most restrictive regulations apply on any particular property, The dcterm/nation of yield on the subject parcel was made as follows.: The subject application involves three tax parcels, and all three are necessary to obtain the de~tred yield. The existing units have been included in the calculation of the yield of the combined parcels. County Health Department standards are generally more restrictive than zoning regulations in unsewered area~, however, this i$ not true for the subject site due to the presence of environmentally sensitive land. The maximum yield should be based on the overall acreage of the site, in consideration of the area of sensitive environmental land. The 16.5 acre RR zoned portion of the site contains both waterfront property and areas of steep slopes. These areas total 4.8 acres, and thus, the total non-steep area zoned for RR development i~ 11.7 acres. Zoning regulations limit development within RR zoned districts to one unit per 6,000 s.f. if the site i~ unsewered, and one unit per 4,000 s.f. if the site is sewered and has public water. This would result in a yield of 85 hotel unitr on a vacant property based on the balance on non-environmentally sensitive land. However, the yield calculations must also consider the existing development on site, including 36 motel units, three apartment and the restaurant. The apartmentr and existing units can be directly subtracted from the overall yield, however, the restaurant is a preexisting, non-conforming use which is not di~cu.~ed under the zoning code. The minimum lot size on which a restaurant would be allowed ts 20,000 s.f. in a Hamlet Business district. Thus, it is reasonable to subtract 20,000 s.f, from the buddable land to allow for the restaurant, which would result in a total of 11.3 acres of buildable land on site. Based on this.figure, the total number of units allowed on site would be 81. As there are currently 36 units and three apartments on site. the total number of additional units which should be permitted is 42. 6 DCT-05-199S 11:39 NELSDN & PDPE,LLP $1& 42? 5&20 P,08/12 Beachcomber Motel (H) $~at~m~nt of Findings The preceding density determination discusses only the 16.5 acre RR zoned portion of the site. The remaining 31.7 acres of the site is zoned `4C, which wouM allow subdivision of the property into 80,000 s.f., or approximately 12 new homes with roads and a recharge basin. ,4lthough this yield would be permitted under the Zoning Code, County Health Department standards are more restrictive. Coun[y Health Department standards limit the total wastewater discharge on a site to 300 gallons per day (gpd) per acre in areas without public water and sewage treatment. Thus, the total flow permitted on the 48.2 acre combined parcel would be 14,460 gallons per day (gpd) under existing conditions. ~ calculated in thc Draft £IS, the proposed project would result in a total flow of 24,425 gpd, which would not allow development of the remaining ,dC portion of the site, however, subtraction of four units as discussed above would reduce this ftow by l$O god per unit, or 600 gpd. This would allow construction of two single family homes on the AC portion of the site. Thus, under these conditions, the appropriate denaity on the overall site should be 42 additional motel units and two new single family homes. The existing motel currently includes six units which are in located within the Coastal Zone Hazard Area, and are in danger of patential storm damage. ,4 reduction in yield to an appropriate density of 42 additional units wouM allow these units to be relocated with a setback of at least lOO feet to the Coastal Zone Hazard ,4rea Boundary. Four of the relocated unite couM be located within the building footprints shown on the site plan, taking the place of the four units which were subtracted from the original yield. The remaining two units could be added to on of the proposed buildings with only minor alteration of the stte plan. The development potential of the property would increase if public water and/or sewage treatment were available on site. Under County Health Department Standards the maximum sanitary flow allowed wouM increase to 600 gpd per acre if public water were provided. County Health Department Standards do not limit sanitary flow if both sewage treatment and public water are provided. Town zoning regulations require that both public water and sewage treatment be provided before the yield is increased wahin the RR zoning district, allowing one unit per 4,000 s.f. of bulldable land rather than one unit per 6,000 s.f. tYithin the `4C zoning district, the development potential is the same whether or not sewage treatment or public water are provided. Thus, if only public water were provided on site, th~ yield on the RR portion of the site wo~ld not change, The yield of the `4C ~ortion of the ~ite would incrvaaae, as the combined acreage of the three parcels would no longer be necessary to meet County Health Department standards. Thus, In the event that public water is provided at the site, the appropriate density on site would be 42 additional units and 12 single family homes. If both public water and sewage treatment were provided, the yield on the RR toned portion of the 7 0CT-05-1998 11:48 NELSON ~ POPE,LLP 516 429 5620 P.09/12 Beachcomber Motel (II) Statement of Findings property would increase to one unit per 4,000 $.f., which would allow a total of 83 additional units. Thus, the maximum developmen't potential on the subject property under any conditions is 83 additional motel units and 12 single family homes. This would require that the applicant construct a sewage treatment plant, as it is unlikely that public sewers wouM be extended to the area. Such a plan would require site plan approval. In addition. location of additional unlts in an appropriate and environmentally sensitive manner wouM be of concern and wouM warrant additional detailed environmental review. A supplemental ElS would most llkely be necessary to address these is~ue~. 22. The proposal units will be 600 s.f. in size, which is the maximum perrmUed under Town Code. Multifamily development, including condominiums, are not allowed within the RR zoning district, however, local residents have expressed concern that the property owner may seek a change of zone in the future in order to convert the motcl to a condominium usc. A covcnant prohibiting a future changc of zonc to allow mulfifarnily usc could be made a condition of final approval of the project. Community Services 23. The proposed project/s expected to generate significant tax revenues, which should offset any additional dcmend for community scrviccs generated by thc expansion. A significant increase in taxes will be generated for the local school dislrict, with no associated increase in the number of school agcd children. 24. A fire well is indicated on the site plan, and should be installad according to Cutchoguc Fire Department specifications outllned in a letter appcndcd to thc Draft BIS. The Depa~t~acnt rcqucsted that the well be located on the west side of the proposed dcvclopment area, just south of thc ex/sting basketball court. Thc following speci£cations were outhncd: 20 H.P., 3 phase, submersible pump capable to deliver 400 gpm at 10 PSI discharge at center of tee at top of well. Pump shall be of submersible turbine type, equipped with grease packed bearings in bowl assemblies. The bow]~ shah be of a smooth finish design to guide the water from one stage to the next with a minimum of turbulence. Top of the well is to be finished off with a 8" x 4" well seal, 4" galvanized tee and plug, and 4"x4~ " solid brass ferrule and cap. The hose threads and hydrant wrench nut shall conform to the standard~ of the Cutchogue Fire District. Cultural Resources 25. Thc project site is located in a low point along thc bluffs which characterize much of Long Island's North Shore. Thus, the project site is visible only from Long Island Sound and from 0CT-05-1998 11:40 NELSON & POPE,LLP 516 427 5620 P.10x12 Beachcomber Motel (Il) Statement of Findings the properties immediately adjacent to the site, although vegetation provides partial 26. As the adjacent properties are at a significantly higher elevation, perimeter planting~ are not likely to be useful in providing visual mitigation. Foundation plantings, appropriate building design, and other landscaping should be utilized to create an attractivc overall site design. A lendscepmg plan and building clcvafions should bc required as part of' thc site plan review proccss, with particular attention to the impact to perspectives from the adjacent residential properties. 27. A Stage IA and lB Archaeological Study were performed on the subject site, and based on thcsc reports, no si~ificant historic or prehistoric resources arc cxpected on site. Alternatives 28. Alternatives invcstigated included the no-action alternative, as well as two altematc sitc lay- outs of 46 additional units. The current site plan was selected as the preferred alternative, as it minimizes disturbance to steep slopes and other impacts of the proposed project. Growth Inducing lmpact~ 29. Tourism is a major industry within thc Town of Southold, and the pwposed project is expected to result in generation of si?ificant revenues to local taxing jurisdictions. Generation of employment ~rtunities will also occur as a result of the project, although most of the jobs would be expected to be relatively low paying, seasonal jobs. Short term construction employment is also expected to occur as a result of the proposed project Summary of Mitigation Measures Not Incorporated in Submitted Design a.) The new units will be located at lea~t 100 feet from the coastal zone hazard area boundary. The six units currently located within the Coastal Zone Hazard Area are in potential danger due to erosion and storm damage, and should be relocated outside of the Hazard Area, with a setback of at least 100 feet. b.) A sediment and erosion control plan should be required by the Town as part of thc site plan review process to minimize disturbance to the areas of steep slopes. The eros/on control plan should include mitigation measures for installation of the water supply line, which will occur in an area of extreme slopes, end clearly delineate the proposed 1/mit of clearing. c.) A Covenant and Restriction on thc proposed project site should preclude the conversion of the motel into time-share units or condominiums in the future. 0OT-05-1998 11:41 NELSON & POPE,LLP 516 42? 5520 P.11/12 Beachcomber Motel Statement of F/ndings d.) The Covenant and Restrictions on thc project should stipulate that the a Soil Conservation Management Plan be develol~d m consultation with the US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service for any future agricultural use of the property. e.) As recommended by the SCDHS, an area must be set aside on the final site plan for a water treatment facility -~he~uld h become necessaxy in the future. Thc proposed trealment area should be large enough for storage of water treatment chemicals and to install an ion exchange unit for nit.re removal and granular activated carbon units (GAC) for thc removal of pesticides. f.) A landscaping plan should be submitted which considers overall landscape d~sign az well az mitigation of potemial visual impacts and planting of' the proposed drainage area with wetland shrubs mci other suitable species. Attention will be given to supplemental plantings on the west side of thc proposed development area as screen plantings along Duck Pond Rna& g.) A stop sign should be installed (with the consent of the Highway Superintendent) to control northbound traffic at the intersection of Duck Pond Road, Vista Place and Birch Lane as a condition of site plan approval. Trimming of the brushy vegetation at the southeast comer of the intersection and p~ml.g of the large evergreen on the northeast comer of Duck Pond Road and Oregon Road should also bc required within the Town fight-of-way. If trimming beyond the Town right-of-way, would add sight distance and increase the level of safety, the applicant shall seek to obtain the permission of the adjacent property owner in order to perform such mitigation. The existing basic road configuration should remain in order to maintain thc existing nn'al character of the roads; however, striping may be necessm'y to promote driver awareness and pedestrian s~fety. The applicant ghall consider this and propose a balance o£ mitigation measures for t.his intersection in the submission of a revised site phn. h.) The appropriate density of the project site has been dete, rmined to be 42 additional units, due to the presence of env/romnentally sensitive land on site, Thus, the total yield should be reduc.~d by four units on the final site plan. i). A Supplemental ElS or other further environmental review will be necessary in the event that public water and sewer connection become available in the area and a further increase in density is proposed. 10 0CT-05-1998 11:41 NELSON ~ POPE,LLP 516 429 5620 P.12/12 Beachcomber Motel (II) ~taterngnt of Finding~ CERTIFICATION OF ~'LNDINGS TO APPROVE/UNDERTAKE HaVing considered the Draft and Final Environment. al Impact Statement, and having considered thc prcceding written facts and conclusions rehed upon to meet the requirements of the State .~,Ilvironmcntal Review Act, thc Town of Southold Pl~,~,~ing Board as lead agency certifies through this Statement of Findings that: 1, Thc rcquiremems Part 617, Titlc 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations have been m~ and; 2. Consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations from among the reasonable altcrnativ~ thereto, the action approved is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized by incorporation as conditions to the decision those mitigation measures which were identified as practicable and listed in these Findings. Town of $outhold Planning Board Name of Agency Si~nst~ of l~sponsiblc Official Name of Responsible Official Title of Responsible Official Date Town Hall. 53095Main Road. P.O. Box 1179. Southold, ~ Y, [1971 Addre~ of Agency 11 TOTAL P.12 PLANNING BOARD MEMBEI~ BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCI-IIE LATI{AM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 18, 1998 Charles Voorhis Nelson, Pope & Voorhis 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, NY 11747-2189 RE: Preparation of findings statement for Beachcomber Motel Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-82-2-1, 2, & 17 Dear Mr. Voorhis, The Planning Board has received your cost estimate for the above project. The applicant has paid the Town the review fee of $1,250.00 for the preparation of the findings statement. The purchase order will he sent to you under separate cover. As indicated in your letter we would be happy to meet with you to review all issues in order to develop the findings statement. Please contact this office in order to arrange the meeting date. · e ey, egt G. Kassner Site Plan Reviewer Submission Without a Cover Letter Sender: Subject: SCTM#: 1000- Date: Comments: ~ /~ ~ 5-~. ~ ~ w ~_ ~IAY ~. 5 1998 Southold Town Planning Board Vlizrf -04-1'-398 09:2-'I 14ELSOH S POF'E.LLP 516 4="' 5c,-'u P'.uz, UE To: Date: Re: Robert G. KasSner Site Plan Reviewer Town of Southold Planning Board Charles I. Voorhis, CEP AICPa/ ManagingPartner '/ Nelson, PoPe & Voorhis, LLf~,'v May 4, 1998 Beaciw. omber. Motel 1I Proposal for Services; Statement of Findings Dem' Bob: As per your request, this memo provides you with a proposal for services for the above referenced project. This office is able to prepare a Draft Findings Statement for Town review and consideration for a fee of $1.,250.00. We will m~et with the Planning Board and/or staff to review input and issues, draft a complete Findings Statement in accordance with SEQKA Part 617.11, and will revise the findings per Planning Board input if necessary Thank you for the opportunity to present you with this proposal, and please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Please advise if you wish ,as to pro{~ed. PlAY 0 4 1998 Southold Town Planning Board TOTPlL P. 03 BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS ~ GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICI-L~RD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southo]d, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 4, 1998 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor, The Planning Board has received a cost estimate of $1, 250 from their Environmental Consultant for the preparation of the findings statement. The above mentioned sum must be paid in full before we can authorize our consultant to proceed with the findings statement. The check should be made out to the Town of Southold. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact Site Plan Reviewer NELSON :2 F'OPE,LLF' 516, 4.=",''-_~,,:C' * F',UZ, uj NIBL~ON~ F~OI=E & VOORHIS, L~ To: Date: Re: Robert G KasSner Site Plan Reviewer Town of Southold Planning Board Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICPa] Managing Panner J ! Nelson, PoPe & Voorhis, LL~ May 4, 1998 Beachcomber Motel II Proposal for Services; Statement of Findings Dear Bob: As per your request, this memo provides you with a proposal for services for the above referenced project. This office is able to prepare a Draft Findings Statement for Town review and consideration for a fee of $1,25Q00. We will meet with the Planning Board and/or staff to review input and issues, draft a complete Findings Statement in accordance with SEQRA Part 6t7. I1, and will revise the findings per Planning Board input if necessary. Thank you for the opportunity to present you with this proposal, and please feel fi'ce to contact me should you have any questions. Please advise if you wish us to proceed. Southold Town PJanning Board TOTAL P. 05 BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman v~rILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 29, 1998 Glen Speta Associates Environmental Consultants 1050 Smithtown Avenue Bohemia, NY 11716 RE: Proposed Site Plan for Beachcomber Motel II SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2, & 17 Dear Mr. Speta, As discussed, I have reviewed your request to review the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prior to distribution for public comment with the Town's Environmental Consultant Charles Voorhis. A copy of the FEIS is enclosed for your review. As recommended by Mr. Voorhis, a copy of the letter from Robert J. Farmer, P.E. Senior Public Health Engineer Bureau of Drinking Water Suffolk County Department of Health Services, should be added to the FEIS as an appendix. We will need twenty copies of the FEIS for distribution during the public comment period. Please arrange for this number of copies to be sent to the planning office after your review. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Site Plan reviewer Charles Voorhis, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis ,~ ~ Robert J. Farmer, Senior Public Health Engineer, SCDHS ~ DEPARTMENTOFHEALTHSERVlCES COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT 1, GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE CLARE B. BRADLEY, I~.D., March 24, 1998 Town of Southold Attn: Mr. Robert G. Kassner 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 Subject: Beachcomber Motel Proposed Expansion S.C.T.M.: 1000-83-2-(1,2 & 17) Water Supply Dear Mr. Kassner: MAR 1998 Southold Town Planning Board We have reviewed our existing files and monitoring data, and the water quality data, collected on 8/27/97, from the test well located on the northeastern portion of the referenced property, submitted by Paul W. Grosser, Ph.D., P.E., the consulting engineer for the water supply at the site. The data shows the water from this well contains detectible levels of agricultural fertilizers, (Nitrates), and pesticides, (Aldicarb sulfoxide, Aldicarb sulfoxide, 1,2- Dichloropropane and 1,2,3- Trichloropropane). None of these detectable levels exceeded the Maximium Contaminant Levels (MCL's) established by Federal and New York State agencies, although the levels were high enough to warrant concem. Consequently, any water supply system design will have to provide an enclosed area large enough to contain and support treatment, should it becomes necessary. The proposed treatment area will be large enough to ~nstall an ion exchange unit for nitrate removal and GAC, (granular activated carbon), unit(s) for the removal pesticides and adequate storage for water treatment chemicals, as per conversations with Dr, Grosser. The proposed motel expansion will be classified as a non-community public water supply, which is its current classification. If the units were sold as or converted to co-op's or condominiums, with multiple owners, then the system would become a community water supply subject to more stringent regulations. Given the present water quality at the site, we would not approve it as a community water supply for new construction. Therefore, restrictive covenants must be placed upon the property, as a conition of approval, to assure it remains a motel, until such a time that it could be connected to an existing approved community public water supply. As indicated in our letter of 3F/'/97, the peak domestic water demand will be about 100 gpm which would necessitate multiple wells for the project. Two new wells are being proposed to provide water for the expansion. If salt water intrusion becomes a problem, then additional wells may be required. Additionally, since the pumping capacity for the site will exceed 45 gpm, a Long Island Well Permit must be applied for and obtained from NYSDEC. The comments presented in this letter are general comments concerning the water supply for the proposed project and should not be construed as tacit approval for construction by Suffolk County Department of Health Services. A formal application "For Sewage Disposal Facilities and Water Supply Systems for Other Than Single Family Residences" must be submitted to our Bureau of Wastewater Management in Riverhead in order to proceed with construction approval. Please feel free to contact this office at 853-3t95, if you have any questions concerning this matter. Very truly yours, Robert J. Farmer, P.E. Senior Public Health Engineer Bureau of Drinking Water cc: Paul Grosser, Ph.D., P.E. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 13, 1998 Glen Speta Associates Enviormental Consultants 1050 Smithtown Avenue Bohemia, NY 11716 RE: Proposed Site Plan for Beachcomber Motel II SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2, & 17 Dear Mr. Speta, The Planning Board has received your facsimile message of March 10, 1998, in regard to the water issue for the above project. I have discussed Mr. Grosser's December 4, 1997, letter with the Town's Consultant, Charles Voorhis. The Planning Board and our consultant both agree that a letter from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services is required stating that sufficient quantity and quality of water is available for this project. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Site Plan reviewer cc: Charles Voorhis, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis  GLENN SPETrA ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX CC: REMARKS: [] Urgent [] For your rev ~0~0 SMITNTOwN AVE Number of pages including cover sheet: ew Fax phopei ~1~- 7;~- Idi lO [] ' Reply ASAP [] Plea.se comment Planning Board GLENN SPE;tTa ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FAX Ii Number of pages including cover sheet: To: I Phone: P,~ pho.,: From: Phone: _ Fax phone: Iii I REMARKS: I~rgent ~'~or your review ~ Reply ASAP [] Please comment GLENN SPETTA ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS ~0~1SMITHTOWN AVENUE P,O, ~Ox 94 ~OH~MIA, NY 11716 · ENVIRONMENTAL GONSULTiNG AND ANALY$~$ · COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT - ENVf~ONMENTAL IMPACT STA?EMEN?S · AOUATJC AN0 SENTHIC SURVEYS Decen~ber 12, 1997 Mr. Robert Kassner. Site Plan Reviewer Town of Souihold I~lenning Department Town Hall, 53095 !¥1ain Road Souihold, NewYo~l( 11971 Subject: Reference: Beachcomber Motel Il FEIS SCTM# 1000-83-2-1.2& 13/o 17 1) 2) Letter from Glenn Spetl. a Associates to Bennett OrlOwsld Jr,, Planning Board Chain~an dated September 26, 1997 Letter froi13 Chades Voorhis. Nelson, Pope & V00111i$, LLC to Robert Kassr~er. Town of $0uthold Site Plan Reviewer dated October 21, 1997 Letter from Robert Kassner to Glenn Sparta Associates dated October 27, 1997 Dear Mr. Kessner. On behalf of Mr. I, licholas Aliano. Applicant for the subject project, enclosed please find the following Information from P.W. Gross~:r Consulting Engineer & Hydrogeologist, P.C, in response to questions raised in references 2 and 3: · A map del3ictlng the location of the sampling point for data submitted in reference 1 and the depth from which the =sample was collected for water sample data. · Evidence .3f contact with fie Health Department toward updating the water supply report, and the ability for p~table water to be supplied to the project site, The lwo enclosures can be used as an appendix to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEI$) to form pad of the basis for Findings on this project. The Applicant respectfully requests the opportunity to review and comment on the Final ElS that the Town has prepared prior to the oimulation of Ihs document to involved agencies. Please contact me on 738-,5926 with any questions regarding the information supplied to the Town and to discuss the Applicant's receipt of a review copy of Ihs FEIS prior to its circulation. Sincerely. Glenn D. Spetta GDS N. Aliano P. Grosset (without enclosures) S. Hymen H, Raynor P. W. GRO$51~FI CONSULTING ENGINEER & HYDROGEOLOGIST, PC KALOGERAS & GROSS£R CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P-C. ACEC }&. Glenn Spetta 1050 Smithtown Avenue Bohemia, New York 11716 December 4 1997 Re: Beachcomber Motel Dear Mr. Spetta: The purpose of this letter is to respond to the letter from Charles Voorhis to Robert Kassner, dated October 21, 1997. The attached drawing show the location of the test well which was sampled on July 28, 1997. This well is 50 feet deep and screened in the proximity of that expected for the permanent water supply wells. We have contacted Paul Ponturo of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services relative to any change in opinion or stares of the project as they see it, lie indicated that there is no change, They still expect that the ~vater supply system will be for a non-community water supply and will have the potential to treat the water for potential agriculturally ~elated contaminants, ])lease call if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, Very truly yours, P.W, Grosser Consulting Paul W. Crosser, Ph.D.,P.E. President facsimile TRANSMITTAL Pages: (IneJUdlng COver) 55095 Main Rd. P.O. Box 1179 Southolcl. NY 11971 Phone: f5161 765-1958 Fax #: (516) 765-5156 RICHAIt'~D. WARD ~' Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, .IR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KIglqNETH L. EDWARDS H.II, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Sou[hold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765- 193S PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TO!~N OF SOUTHOLD February 4, 1997 Joseph Baier, Director Suffolk County Health Services Division of Enviormental Quality 225 Rabro Drive East Hauppauge, NY 11188-4290 RE: Beachcomber Motel, Cutchogue, NY Dear Mr. Baler, Pursuant to our conservation last week, enclosed is a copy of the site plan for the Beachcomber Motel. Also included are relevant pages from the Draft Enviormental Impact Statement pertaining to the ground water at this location. The Planning Board's snviornmental consultant, Charles Voorhis, will be calling you or Paul Ponturo within the next few days to compare n~tes. The Planning Board has asked Chic to prepare an FEIS; but with the recent news, wanted him to confer with you and Paul before accepting the FEIS document he prepared. I have sent Chic all correspondence that was distributed at last week's meeting, (Commissioner Hibberd's notice, your memo and Ray Cowen's letter). If you have any questions about the site plan, please speak with Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer at 765-1938. Sincerely, Town Planner Enc. See clipped pages from the DEIS NELgON. POPE & VOOF1HIS~ LLC October 21, 1997 Robert G. Kassner. Site Plan Reviewer Town of Southold Planning Board Office Town Hall, 53095 Main Roed P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Beachcomber Motel SCTM/~ 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17 Dear Bob: I am in receipt of your letter of October 3 regarding the above referenced site. At .pr s~ent we have no contract for services regarding follow-up work in review of the Final EIS for this project. However, I have briefly reviewed the information included with your letter as submitted by Glenn Spetta. Based on this review, I would suggest that a map depicting the location of the sampling point, and the depth from which the sample was collected be provided to assist in your review. In addition, evidence of contact with the Health Department toward updating the x0ater supply rep?rt, and the ability for potable water to be supplied to' the project site as determined by the appropriate regulatory agency would be useful. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this information, and please feel flee to contact me should you have any questions. IIJlll. uo! co '. Very truly yours, PLANNING BOARD 'MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM g. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 19, 1997 Paul Ponturo, Supervisor of Drinking Water Suffolk Counity Department of Health Services 225 Rabro Drive East Hauppagale, NY 11788 RE: Beachcomber Motel Duck Pond Read, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-83-2-17, 2 & 1 Dear Mr. Ponturo, The Planning Board has been reviewing the DEIS for the above project to determine if it is complete to send out for public comment. Attached are correspondence relating to the water supply. The Board would appreciate it if you could review this material and your records to determine the ability for portable water to be supplied to this project site as determined by the appropriate regulatory agencies. The Board would appreciate a written response to this request. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact this office. ~'~r~y,.~ ~, // Site Plan Reviewer Encls. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMER$ I<ENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 19, 1997 Paul Ponturo, Supervisor of Drinking Water Suffolk Counity Department of Health Services 225 Rabro Drive East Hauppague, NY 11788 RE: Beachcomber Motel Duck Pond Road, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-83-2-17, 2 & 1 Dear Mr. Ponturo, The Planning Board has been reviewing the DEIS for the above project to determine if it is complete to send out for public comment. Attached are correspondence relating to the water supply. The Board would appreciate it if you could review this material and your records to determine the ability for portable water to be supplied to this project site as determined by the appropriate regulatory agencies. The Board would appreciate a written response to this request. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact this office. Site Plan Reviewer Encls. NELSON~ POPE & V'OORI'IIS~ I.I.C October 21, 1997 Robert G. Kassner. Site Plan Reviewer Town of Southold Planning Board Office Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Beachcomber Motel SCTM # 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17 Dea~ Bob: I am in receipt of your letter of October 3 regarding the above referenced site. At .present we have no contract for services regarding follow-up work in review of'the Final EIS for this project. However, I have briefly reviewed the information included with your letter as submitted by Glenn Spetta. Based on this review, I would suggest that a map depicting the location of the sampling point, and the depth from which the sample was collected be provided to assist in your review In addition, evidence of contact with the Health Department toward updating, the x0ater supply report, and the ability for potable water to be supplied to the project site as determined by the appropriate regu atory agency wou d be useful. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this infOrmation, and please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. 0CT23 '" : '- Very truly yours, PLANNING BOARD RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE BITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS K~NNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLA1VNI/WG BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 4, 1997 Joseph Baler, Director Suffolk County Health Services Division of Enviormental Quality 225 Rabro Dr/ve East Hauppauge, NY 11188-4290 RE: Beachcomber Motel, Cutchogue, NY Dear Mr. Baler, Pursuant to our conservation last week, enclosed is a copy of the site plan for the Beachcomber Motel. Also included are relevant pages from the Draft Enviormental Impact Statement pertaining to the ground water at this location. The Planning Board's enviornmental consultant, Charles Voorhis, will be calling you or Paul Ponture within the next few days to compare n6tes. The Planning Board has asked Chic to prepare an FEIS; but with the recent news, wanted him to confer with you and Paul before accepting the FEIS document he prepared. I have sent Chic all correspondence that was distributed at last week*s meeting, (Commissioner Hibberd's notice, your memo and Ray Cowen's letter). If you have any questions about the site plan, please speak with Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer at 765-1938. Sincerely, Valerie Town Planner Enc. See clipped pages from the DEIS DEPARTM£NT OF HEALTH SERVICES Town of Southold Attn: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 COUNTY OF SUFFOLI~ ROBE:RT J. (~AFFNEY March 7, 1997 Subject: Beachcomber Motel Proposed Expansion S.C.T.M.: 1000-83-2-(1, 2 & 17) Water Supply Dear Ms. Scopaz: tn response to your letter, dated February 4, 1997, concerning the FEIS for the referenced project, I would like to offer the following comments concerning the water supply. 1. The site is west of the parcels downgradient from the Southold Landfill which has been designated by SCDHS for no further development until public water is available. The proposed flow of 14,425 gallons per day would require a well with a pumping capacity of approximately 100 gpm. A well with this pumping capacily would require a L.I. well permit issued by NYSDEC. Our construction standards require a well with the top of the screen set a minimum of 40 feet below the water table. At this depth salt water intrusion may be present or the potential for salt water upconing exist when placing a single well with a 100 gpm pumping capacity at this site. Therefore, a more appropriate water supply strategy would be to install and spread out multiple wells, each at lower capacity to yield the necessa~/100 gpm and still reduce the upconing of salt water. The water demand from this proposed project would require a minimum sized water storage tank of 1,000 gallons or equivalent. This does not include any anticipated fire flow which may also require booster pumps. Fire flow requirements, including sprinkler system needs, would be determined by the Town Fire Marshall in conjunction with the project engineer or architect. used for pump testing as well as water quality analysis. The water quality of any new well may potentially be impacted from agricultural chemicals such as aldicarb, dacthal, alachlor, 1,2-dichloropropane and nitrate-nitrogen. To properly assess water quality impact would require the construction of test well(s). These would be 5. Our Bureau would require covenants to be placed on the facility to ensure that it remains a motel, which is currently classified as a non-community, public water supply. If the units would be offered for sale, it would change the designation to a community public water supply and require more stringent construction and monitoring standards, pursuant to Part 5 of the New York State Sanitary Code. 6. The water supply and storage system would have to be designed by a licensed professional engineer and approved by our department, as part of the application for expansion. The water quality would be required to meet all New York State and Federal standards. If you have any questions please contact my office at (516) 853-3195. Robert J. Farmer, P.E. Public Health Engineer Bureau of Drinking Water GLENN SPETTA ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 1050 SMITHTOWN AVENUE P.O. BOX 94 BOHEMIA, NY 11716 (516) 567.5859 · ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING ANO ANALYSES · COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT · ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS · AQUATIC ANO SENTHIC SURVEYS Mr. Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Town of Southold Planning Department Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Reference: Beachcomber Motel II FEIS SCTM# 1000-83-2-1,2& p/o 17 1) 2) 3) December 12, 1997 Letter from Glenn Spetta Associates to Bennett Orlowskl Jr., Planning Board Chairman dated September 26, 1997 Letter from Chades Voorhis, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC to Robert Kassner, Town of Southold Site Plan Reviewer dated October 21, 1997 Letter from Robert Kassner to Glenn Spetta Associates dated October 27, 1997 Dear Mr. Kassner. On behalf of Mr. Nicholas Altano, Applicant for the subject project, enclosed please find the following information from P.W. Grosser Consulting Engineer & Hydrogeologist, P.C. in response to questions raised in references 2 and 3: · A map depicting the location of the sampling point for data submitted in reference I and the depth from which the sample was collected for water sample data. Evidence of contact with the Health Depadment toward updating the water supply report, and the ability for potable water to be supplied to the project site. The two enclosures can be used as an appendix to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to form part of the basis for Findings on this project. The Applicant respectfully requests the opportunity to review and comment on the Final ElS that the Town has prepared prior to the circulation of the document to involved agencies. Please contact me on 738-5926 with any questions regarding the information supplied to the Town and to discuss the Applicant's receipt of a review copy of the FEIS prior to its circulation. Sincerely, Glenn D. Spetta GDS CC: N. Aliano P. Grosset (without enclosures) S. Hyman H. Raynor [rnsw:c:gsasocs:beachli:gT-003] P. W. GROSSER CONSULTING ENGINEER & HYDROGEOLOGIST, P.C. KAl OGERAS & GROSSER CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C, NEW yORK lt782-3148 PHONE: 516'589-6353 FAX: 516-589-8705 E-MAIL: pWgc-kg O worldn®t,att.net ACEC December 4, 1997 Mr. Glenn Spctta 1050 Smithtown Avenue Bohemia, New York 11716 Re: Beachcomber Motel Dear Mr. Spetta: The purpose of this letter is to respond to the letter from Charles Voorhis to Robert Kassner, dated October 2 I, 1997. The attached drawing show the location of the test well which was sampled on July 28, 1997. This well is 50 feet deep and screened in the proximity of that expected for the permanent water supply wells. We have contacted Paul Ponturo of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services relative to any change in opinion or status of the project as they see it. He indicated that there is no change. They still expect that the water supply system will be for a non-commnnity water supply and will have thc potential to treat the water for potential agriculturally related contaminants. Please call if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. Very truly yours, P.W. Grosser Consulting ~rogeoiogist, P.C. Paul W. Grosset, Ph.D.,P.E. President 1050 SMITHTOWN AVENUE PO. BOX 94 BOHEMIA, NY 11716 (516) 567-5859 GLENN SPETTA ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS · ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING ANO ANALYSES · COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT · ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT STATEMENTS · AQUATIC AND BENTHIC SURVEYS September 26, 1997 Bennett Odowski Jr., Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Subject: Beachcomber Motel II FEIS SCTM# 1000-83-2-1,2& p/o 17 Reference: 1) Letter from Town of Southold Planning Board Chairman, Benneff Orlowski, Jr. to Glenn Spetta Associates dated March 10, 1997 Dear Mr. Odowski: In accordance with discussions with Bob Kasner from the Planning Department and your referenced letter request for us to prepare an update to the water supply study to demonstrate the ability of the Applicant to provide potable water to the proposed subject development I submit to you the following information: · A summary letter from P.W. Grosset Consulting, Engineer & Hydrogeologist, P.C. dated September 17, 1997 (enclosure 1) confirming that the water sample taken on July 28, 1997 meets with Suffolk County, New York State and Federal Drinking Water Standards for the 106 parameters analyzed. · Laboratory test results (enclosure 2) for the water sample. The two enclosures can .be used as an appendix to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to form part o~f the basis for Findings on this project. The Applicant respectfully requests the opportunity to review and comment on the Final ElS that the Town has prepared prior to the circulation of the document to involved agencies. Please contac! me on 738-5926 with any questions regarding the Wafer sample results and to discuss the Applicant's receipt of a review copy of the FEIS 3dor to its circulation. Sincerely, Glenn D. Spetta GDS CC: N. Aliano P. Grosset (without enclosures) S. Hyman B. Kasner H, Raynor [msw:c:gsasocs:beachii:97-002] PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD GEORGE RiTCI-!IE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOIVSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Tzlephone (516) 765-1938 March 10, 1997 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Glen Spetta Glen Spetta Associates P.O. Box 94 Bohemia, NY 11716 Re: Beachcomber Motel II Final EtS SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & p/o17 Dear Mr. Spetta: We have nearly completed preparation of the Final ElS for the Beachcomber Motel project. At this time, questions from the Board, communication with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) and comments from the public has raised the need to update one aspect of the project. Please prepare an update to the water supply study to demonstrate the ability of the applicant to provide potable water to the expanded development on the site. Information concerning water c~uality, new location and pumping rates should be addressed. Inasmuch as the SCDHS will want floor plans to do a bedroom count, this Board would appreciate receiving a copy of the floor plans that you submit to the Health Department. This information will be referred to in the response to comments and will be attached as an appendix to the report. Supply of potable water to the site is a requirement of the SCDHS. SCDHS and the Town require this information as part of the Final ElS to form part of the basis for Findings on this project. Subsequent to completion of the SEQRA process, the applicant may proceed with final permitting of the site plan, sanitary and water supply approvals with the Town and SCDHS. × Page 2 Beachcomber Motet II Final ElS March 10, 1997 Upon receipt of this information, we will complete the Final ElS for the Beachcomber Motel ii. The cost of printing will be the responsibility of the applicant in order to circulate the document. Following a minimum 10 day period for circulation of the Final EIS, the Planning Board and involved agencies will adopt Findings and issue independent decisions on the project. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman . GLENN SPETTA ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 1050 SMITHTOWN AVENUE PO. I~OX 94 BOHEMIA, NY 11716 (516) 567 5859 · ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND ANALYSES · COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT · ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS · AQUATIC AND BENTHIC SURVEYS December 12, 1997 Mr. Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Town of Southold Planning Department Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Beachcomber Motel II FEIS SCTM# 1000-83-2-1,2& p/o 17 Refemnce: 1) 2) 3) Letter from Glenn Spetta Associates to Bennett Odowski Jr., Planning Board Chairman dated September 26, 1997 Letter from Chades Voorhis, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC to Robert Kassner, Town of Southold Site Plan Reviewer dated October 21, 1997 Letter from Robert Kassner to Glenn Spetta Associates dated October 27, 1997 Dear Mr. Kassner: On behalf of Mr. Nicholas Aliano, Applicant for the subject project, enclosed please find the following information from P.W. Grosset Consulting Engineer & Hydrogeologist, P.C. in response to questions raised in references 2 and 3: · A map depicting the location of the sampling point for data submitted in reference I and the depth from which the sample was collected for water sample data. · Evidence of contact with the Health Department toward updating the water supply report, and the ability for potable water to be supplied to the project site. The two enclosures can be used as an appendix to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to form part of the basis for Findings on this project. The Applicant respectfully requests the opportunity to review and comment on the Final ElS that the Town has prepared prior to the cimulation of the document to involved agencies. Please contact me on 738-5926 with any questions regarding the information supplied to the Town and to discuss the Applicant's receipt of a review copy of the FEIS prior to its circulation. Sincerely, Glenn D. Spetta GDS N. Aliano P. Grosser (without enclosures) S. Hyman H. Raynor [msw:c:gsasocs:beachii:97-003] P. W. GROSSER CONSULTING ENGINEER & HYDROGEOLOGIST, P.C. KALOGERAS & GROSSER CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C, SAYVILLE NEW YORK 11762-3148 PHONE: 516-589-6353 FAX: 516-589-8705 E-M AIL: pwgc-kg @ worldnet.att,net ACEC Member Supporting Engineering December 4, 1997 Mr. Glenn Spetta 1050 Smithtown Avenue Bohemia, New York 11716 Re: Beachcomber Motel Dear Mr. Spetta: The purpose of this letter is to respond to the letter from Charles Voorhis to Robert Kassner, dated October 21, 1997. The attached drawing show the location of the test well which was sampled on July 28, 1997. This well is 50 feet deep and screened in the proximity of that expected for the permanent water supply wells. We have contacted Paul Ponturo of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services relative to any change in opinion or status of the project as they see it. He indicated that there is no change. They still expect that the water supply system will be for a non-community water supply and will have the potential to treat the water for potential agriculturally related contaminants. Please call if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. Very truly yours, P.W. Grosser Consulting ~er~d ro geo lo gis t, P.C. Paul W. Grosser, Ph.D.,P.E. President NELBON, POPE & VOORHli=, I./C CHARLESJ VOORHIS CEP AICPoARTHUR J. KOERBER, PE 'VINCENTG DONNELLY, PE · VICTOR BERT, RE * JOSEPH R. EP~FANIA, RE · ROBERT G NELSON. JR. RE · CHRISTOPHER W ROBINSON, PE October 21, 1997 Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Town of Southold Planning Board Of~ce Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Beachcomber Motel SCTM # 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17 Dear Bob: I am in receipt of your letter of October 3 regarding the above referenced site. At print we have no contract for services regarding follow-up work in review of the Final EIS for this project. However, I have briefly reviewed the information included with your letter as submitted by Glenn Spetta. Based on this review, I would suggest that a map depicting the location of the sampling point, and the depth from which the sample was collected be provided to assist in your review. In addition, evidence of contact with the Health Department toward updating the water supply report, and the ability for potable water to be supplied to the project site as determined by the appropriate regulatory agency would be useful. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this information, and please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. 00T23 Very truly yours, GLENN SPETTA ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 1050 SMITHTOWN AVENUE P.O. BOX 94 BOHEMIA, NY 11716 (516) 567 5859 · ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND ANALYSES · COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT · ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS · AQUATIC AND BENTHIC SURVEYS September 26, 1997 Bennett Orlowski Jr., Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, NewYork 11971 Subject: Beachcomber Motel II FEIS SCTM# 1000-83-2-1,2& p/o 17 Reference: 1) Letter from Town of Southold Planning Board Chairman, Bennett Odowski, Jr. to Glenn Spetta Associates dated March 10, 1997 Dear Mr. Odowski: In accordance with discussions with Bob Kasner from the Planning Department and your referenced letter request for us to prepare an update to the water supply study to demonstrate the ability of the Applicant to provide potable water to the proposed subject development I submit to you the following information: · A summary letter from P.W. Grosser Consulting, Engineer & Hydmgeologist, P.C. dated September 17, 1997 (enclosure 1) confirming that the water sample taken on July 28, 1997 meets with Suffolk County, New York State and Federal Drinking Water Standards for the 106 parameters analyzed. · Laboratory test results (enclosure 2) for the water sample. The two enclosures can be used as an appendix to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to form part of the basis for Findings on this project. The Applicant respectfully requests the opportunity to review and comment on the Final ElS that the Town has prepared pdor to the circulation of the document to involved agencies. Please contact me on 738-5926 with any questions regarding the water sample results and to discuss the Applicant's receipt of a review copy of the FEIS prior to its circulation. Sincerely, Glenn D. Spetta GDS cc: N. Aliano P. Grosser (without enclosures) S. Hyman B. Kasner H. Raynor [msw:c:gsasocs:beachii:97-O02] PLANNING BOARD NIEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 27, 1997 Glen Speta Associates Enviormental Consultants 1050 Smithtown Avenue Bohemia, NY 11716 RE: Proposed Site Plan for Beachcomber Motel II SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2, & 17 Dear Mr. Speta, The Planning Board has received the enclosed report from its enviormental consultant. The Board accepts its consultants recommendations and sends it to you for compliance. As indicated in the report, an estimate of the costs to review your input will be requested of our consultant and forwarded to you as soon as we receive the requested data. If you have any questions, please contact this office. k,~.R6b~ef~ ~. Kas~ner Site Plan reviewer cc: Charles Voorhis, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis PLANNING BOARD M~EMBF.~S BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 3, 1997 Charles Voorhis Nelson, Pope & Voorhis 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, NY 11747-2189 RE: Beachcomber Motel SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Voorhis, The Planning Board has received the enclosed letter dated September 26, 1997 from Glen Spetta. In reviewing the data I cannot determine if the water sample was taken from the test well on the south end of the property as requested. The Board would appreciate your review of this requested sample and your comments on the final ElS. If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this report with this office please call at 765-1938. Site Plan Reviewer P.W. GROSSER CONSULTING ENGINEER & HYDROGEOLOGIST, P.C. September 17, 1997 Mr. Glenn Spetta 1050 Smithtown Avenue Bohemia, New York 11716 Re: Beachcomber Motel Dear Mr. Spetta: Samples were taken on July 28, 1997 from the test well at the Beachcomber Motel on Duck Pond Lane in Cutchogue. The water from this water from this well will reasonably represent the expected water quality from the proposed water supply wells on the site. The well water was sampled for volatile organic chemicals which are commonly found on Long Island, constituents of petroleum products, pesticides found on the east end of Long Island (Aldicarb Carbofuran, Dacthal, etc.) and inorganic parameters required for a certificate of occupancy. The laboratory results for these analyses are attached for your use. The results indicate that the water meets Suffolk County, New York State and federal standards for the 106 parameters analyzed for. Two volatile organic compounds were detected; 1,2 Dichloropropane and 123-Trichloropropane, both of which are normally related to pesticide use. Aldicarb sulfone and Aldicarb sulfoxide two pesticides commonly used on potato fields were also detected at low levels. The appearance of these compounds is consistent with previous sampling. Metribuzin was also detected at a low level. The proposed water supply design includes space and piping for an optional granular activated carbon filter to be placed at the well site to remove these compounds. This should still be planned on based upon the results of these tests. P.W. GROSSER CONSULTIN The chloride concentration of 37 mg/1 is excellent for this location and indicates that saltwater intrusion should not be an issue. The nitrate concentration of 8.1 mg/l is below the standard of 10 rog/1 and can be expected to improve since the property up gradient is no longer farmed. If nitrate concentrations exceed the standard the well can be deepened or the water treated with a reverse osmosis unit or ion exchange. Please call if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. Very truly yours, P.W. GROSSER CONSULTING ENGINEER & HYDROGEOLOGIST, P.C. Paul W. Grosser, Ph.D.,P.E. President LABORATORIES, INC. P. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. · N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 · {516) 422-5777- FAX (515) 422-5770 LAB N0.C973154 08/06/97 ATTN: John V. Hallman Limited P.0. Box 423 Shelter Island Heishts, NY 11965 SOURCE OF SAMPLE: Beachcomber Hotel, Duck Pond Lane* COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATB COL'D:07/28/97 RECEIVED:07/28/97 SAFaVLE: Water sample, pump monitoring ANALYTICAL PARAHB'TERS Dic~lordifluomethane ug/L <0.5 Chloromethane ug/L <0.5 Vinyl Chloride uE/L <0.5 Bromomethane uE/L <0.5 Chloroethane ug/L <0.5 Trich!orof]uomethane ug/L <0.5 ~,1 Dichioroethene ug/L <0,5 M~thyl~ne Chloride uE/L <0.5 r-£,~-Dichloroethene us/L <0.5 !,! D!ehloroethane ug/L <0.5 2,2-Dichioropropane ug/L <0.5 e-!~-O!ch!oroethene ug/L <0.5 ~romochtorumethane ug/L <0.5 111Trichloroethane uE/L <0.5 l,l-Dichloropropene ug/L <0.5 Carbon Tetrachloride ug/L <0.5 1,2 Dichloroethane ug/L <0.5 Trichloroethene uE/L <0.5 1,2 Dichloropropane us/L 0,8 Dibromomethane us/L <0.5 112 Trichloreethane ug/L <0.5 Tetrachloroethene ug/L <0.5 1,3-Dichloropropane uE/L <0,5 Chlorobenzene uE/L <0.5 lll2Tetrachloroethan ug/L <0.5 ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS 1122Tetrachloroethan ug/L <0.5 123-Trichloropropane us/L 2.0 ~romobenzene ug/L <0.5 2-Chlorotoluene ug/L <0.5 ~-Chlorotoluene ug/L <0.5 m Dichlorobenzene ug/L <0.5 p Dichlorobenznne ug/L <0.5 o Dichlorobenzen~ ug/L <0.5 124-Trichlorobenzene ug/L <0.5 Hexachlorobutadi~n? ug/L <0.5 l~3-Trichlorobenzene, us/L <0.5 t-l,3Dichlor~propea~ o~/L <0.5 c-l,39ichloropropene u8/L <0.5 rn= 19837 ccl REHARKS: * CutchoEue. All values are within NY State and Federal standards uotabte water. NYSDOH ID# 10320 - 1=.. 1_../ 11: i 1AM ~- ..,JH Ju~l W HALLHAN LTD ,~16 749 3t~22 ~$'r LABORATORIES, INC, ENWRONMENTAL TESTIHG 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. · N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 LAB NO.C?7315& Al'TN: John ~. Hallman Limited P.O. Box Shelter Island Heishts0 08/06/97 NY 11965 SOURCE OF SMtPLE: Beachcomber Note1, Duck Pond Lane· COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:07/28/97 RECEIVED:07/28~97 ~AMPLE: Water sample, pump monltorin8 ANILHI CAL PARANETERS Benzene ug/L <0,5 Toluene u~/L <0.5 Sthyl Benzene ug/L <0.5 m + p X.ylene ug/L <0,5 o Xylene u$/L <0.5 Styrene ua/L <0,5 !v~?r-?~!benzene us/L <0.5 ~=?~o~ylbenzene us/L <0.5 !3~-Tr~ethylbenzene ua/L <0.5 t~rt-~ut~lbenzene u~/L <0.~ !~&-Tri...~eth~lb~nzene ug/L <0.5 eec~ui~ibanzene us/L <0.5 p-Isopropyltoluene ua/L <0,5 n-~utylbenzene ua/L <0.5 ANALYTICAL PARAItETERS Nanganeee as Hn mg/L <0.02 Nitrate as N mg/L 8.1 Chloride as Cl mg/L 37 HBA$ as LAS mg/L <0.! pH (lab) units 6.0 Ammonia as N ma/L <0.1 Spec. Cond. untho/~m 330 Co~o~r ~ C. mg/L <0.02 Zinc as Zn mg/b <0.02 Lead as Pb mS/L <0.001 Irou as Fe ,ms/L <0.05 T.Coliform, I00 aL Absent rn= 19838 REItARK$: Cutchoaue. All values are ~ithin NY State and Federal standards potable ~ater. foF NYSUOH ID~ 10320 DIRECTOR LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TES~IVG SHEFFIELD AVE. · N. BABYLO~L ~i.Y 11703 LAB N0.C973154 John W, Hallman Limited P.O. Box 423 Shelter Island HeiEhts, 08/04/97 NY 11965 ATTN: SOURCE OF SAHPLE: Beachcomber Motel, Duck Pond Lane~ COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:07728/97 ~AHPLE. ~/ater sample, pump monitorln8 ANALYTICAL PARAHETERS Aldicarb sulfone ug/L l,l Aldicarb ~ulfoxide ug/L 1,3 0xamyl us/L <I Methomyl us/L <0.5 3-Hydroxy Carbo£uran us/L <1 Aldicarb u$/L <0.5 Carbofuran u~/L <0.9 Carbaryl us/L <1 ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS rn= 19841 REHARKS: EPA Method 531.1 ~ CutchoEue. Total Aldicarb is within NY State rater. NYSDOH ID# 10320 3A E EST LABORAT IhES, INC. ~NVIRONMENTAL TES~NG 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. · N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 · (516) 422-=*1/! · FAX (516) 422-=//0 LAB N0. C973154 08/13/97 John W. Hallman Limited P.O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights, NY 11965 SOURCE OF SABPLE: Beachcomber Notel, Duck Pond Lane~ COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATH COL'D:07/28/97 RECEIVRD:07/28/97 SAHPLE: Water sample, pump monitorins ANALYTICAL P~RS Alachlor ug/L <0.2 Aldrin us/L <0.05 Atrazine uB/L <0.1 Butachlor us/L <0.4 Chlordane us/L <0.2 Dieldrin us/L <0.05 Endrin ug/L <0.01 Heptaohlor us/L <0.04 Heptaohlor Epoxide uB/L <0.02 Hexaohlorobenzene u~/L <0.1 Lindane uB/L <0.02 Nethoxychlor uB/L <0.1 Hetolachlor uB/L <0.75 Netribuzin uB/L 0.21 Propaohlor ug/L <0.5 Simazine u~/L <0.07 Toxaphene us/L <1 Aroclor 1016 u~/L <0.025 Aroolor 1221 ug/L <0.025 Aroolor 1232 us/L <0.025 Aroclor 1242 uB/L <0.025 Aroclor 1248 u2/L <0.025 Aroolor 1254 us/L <0.025 Aroclor 1260 ug/L <0.025 o,p-DDT us/L <0.05 ANALTFICAL PARAHETERS p,p-DDT ug/L <0.1 o,p-DDE u~/L <0.05 p,p-DDE u$/L <0.05 , o,p-DDD us/L <0.05 p,p-DDD ug/L <0.05 Mirex ug/L <0.05 Dacthal ug/L <1 oo: rn= 19839 REd. KS: EPA Hethods 507&508 (0rganohalide Pesticides&PCBs) ~ CutohoBue. All values are eithin NY State and Federal standards potable rater. NYSDOH ID# 10320 for DIRECTOR ' EST LABORATORIES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING LAB N0.C973154 377SHEFFIELD AVE. e N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703e(516) 422-5777eFAX(516)422-5770 08/27/97 John W. Hallman Limited P.O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heisht$, NY 11965 ATTI~: SOURCE OF SAHPLR: Beachcomber Motel, Duck Pond Lane* COLLECTED BY: JH/EcoTest DATE COL'D:07/28/97 R£CEIVED:07/28/97 S~'~LE: Water sample, pump monltorinl ANALYTICAL PARAHETERS ANALYTICAL PARAHETERS Endothall ug/L <5 Diquat us/L <0.4 cci REFORMS: Diquat and Endothall analyses were performed by Hontsomery Labs., Pasadena, Ca., NY LAB ID#11320. Suf. Co.SOC(partial);Rndothall by EPA 548, Diquat * Cutchosue. All values are potable water. by EPA 549. within NY State and Federal standards for DIRECTOR //~ fi~/~ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 9, 1997 Marie Goglia Showcase Real Estate 5110 Express Drive South Holbrook, NY 11741 RE: Beachcomber Motel Duck Pond Road, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-83-2-17, 2 & 1 Dear Ms. Goglia, The Planning Board reviewed your letter of August 29, 1997, regarding using the Beachcomber Motel as a not-for-profit private school. A private school is not a permitted use in the Resort Residential Zone. The purpose of the Resort Residential (RR) District is to provide opportunity for resort development in waterfront areas. Private schools are permitted by Special Exception by the Board of Appeals in other Residential Districts, except the Hamlet Density (HD) District, and are permitted in the Residential Office (RO), Hamlet Business, (HB), Limited Business (LB), and General Business (I',) districts. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact this office. r , / Site Plan Reviewer REAL ESTATE 5110 Express Dr. So., Holbrook, New York 11741 · 516-585-2400 · August 29, 1997 Fax: 516-585-2409 Town Hall Main Street Southold, New York Attention: Mr. Bennett Orlowski Dear Mr. Orlowski: I have a client that is looking to purchase the Beachcomber Motel on Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue. We need to know if this property can be or is zoned to build a school, a private non- profit school of Science with 10-20 classrooms holding 200- 250 students. They want to use the existing motel rooms as Dormatories and the Restaurant as a Cafeteria for the students. They would only need to add a School House somewhere on the remaining property, which is approximately 12 acres and possibly more Dormatory space. If you could please give me something in writing stating that this project is possible. I know my client would appreciate it very much and we would then proceed with the sales negotiation. I spoke with Bob Kossner from your office this morning. He was extremely helpful and expressed a positive attitude in this venture. I also spoke to Ed Forrest at the Building Department and he was very helpful and expressed the definate possibilities of the project and offered his help in putting it together. He felt something like this school would be very welcomed in your town. Please fax me a response with town Rules and Regulations at your earliest convenience. Thanking you in advance. MG/pm PLANNING BOARD MEMB~ RICHARD G. WARD GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOVv-N OF SOUTHOLD March 14, 1997 Glen Spetta Glen Spetta Associates Enviormental Consultants 1050 Smithtown Avenue Bohemia, NY 11716 RE: Proposed Site Plan for Beachcomber Motel II SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2, & 17 Dear Mr. Spetta, The Planning Board has received the enclosed report from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. It is sent to you for your attention. Chairman DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES Town of Southold Attn: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner 53095 Main Road P,O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK R~OI~ERT J. GAFF"NEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE March 7, 1997 MARY E. HIBBERD. M.D., M.P.H. Subject: Beachcomber Motel Proposed Expansion S.C.T.M.: 1000-83-2-(1,2 & 17) Water Supply Dear Ms. Scopaz: In response to your letter, dated February 4, 1997, concerning the FEIS for the referenced project, I would like to offer the following comments concerning the water supply. 1. The site is west of the parcels downgradient from the Southold Landfill which has been designated by SCDHS for no further development until public water is available. The proposed flow of 14,425 gallons per day would require a well with a pumping capacity of approximately 100 gpm. A well with this pumping capacity would require a L.I. well permit issued by NYSDEC. Our construction standards require a well with the top of the screen set a minimum of 40 feet below the water table. At this depth salt water intrusion may be present or the potential for salt water upconing exist when placing a single well with a 100 gpm pumping capacity at this site. Therefore, a more appropriate water supply strategy would be to install and spread out multiple wells, each at lower capacity to yield the necessary 100 gpm and still reduce the upconing of salt water. The water demand from this proposed project would require a minimum sized water storage tank of 1,000 gallons or equivalent. This does not include any anticipated fire flow which may also require booster pumps. Fire flow requirements, including sprinkler system needs, would be determined by the Town Fire Marshall in conjunction with the project engineer or architect. The water quality of any new well may potentially be impacted from agricultural chemicals such as aldicarb, dacthal, alachlor, 1,2-dichloropropane and nitrate-nitrogen. To properly assess water quality impact would require the construction of test well(s). These would be used for pump testing as well as water quality analysis. 5. Our Bureau would require covenants to be placed on the facility to ensure that it remains a motel, which is currently classified as a non-community, public water supply, If the units would be offered for sale, it would change the designation to a community public water supply and require more stringent construction and monitoring standards, pursuant to Pad 5 of the New York State Sanitary Code. 6. The water supply and storage system would have to be designed by a licensed professional engineer and approved by our department, as part of the application for expansion. The water quality would be required to meet all New York State and Federal standards. If you have any questions please contact my office at (516) 853-3195. Robert J. Farmer, P.E. Public Health Engineer Bureau of Drinking Water PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICIEARD G. WARD GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 March 10, 1997 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Glen Spetta Glen Spetta Associates P.O. Box 94 Bohemia, NY 11716 Re: Beachcomber Motel II Final ElS SCTM~ 1000-83-2-1, 2 & p/o17 Dear Mr. Spetta: We have nearly completed preparation of the Final ElS for the Beachcomber Motel project. At this time, questions from the Board, communication with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) and comments from the public has raised the need to update one aspect of the project. Please prepare an update to the water supply study to demonstrate the ability of the applicant to provide potable water to the expanded development on the site. Information concerning water ~uality, new location and pumping rates should be addressed. Inasmuch as the SCDHS will want floor plans to do a bedroom count, this Board would appreciate receiving a copy of the floor plans that you submit to the Health Department. This information will be referred to in the response to comments and will be attached as an appendix to the report. Supply of potable water to the site is a requirement of the SCDHS. SCDHS and the Town require this information as part of the Final EtS to form part of the basis for Findings on this project. Subsequent to completion of the SEQRA process, the applicant may proceed with final permitting of the site plan, sanitary and water supply approvals with the Town and SCDHS. Page 2 Beachcomber Motel II Final ElS March 10, 1997 Upon receipt of this information, we will complete the Final ElS for the Beachcomber Motel ii. The cost of printing will be the responsibility of the applicant in order to circulate the document. Following a minimum 10 day period for circulation of the Final ElS, the Planning Board and involved agencies will adopt Findings and issue independent decisions on the project. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, ~' Bennett Orlowski, Jr. [ / Chairman ~/ RICHARD G. WARD ~" ~ '~ ~' Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOV~N OF SOUTI-IOLD February 4, 1997 Joseph Baier, Director Suffolk County Health Services Division of Enviormental Quality 225 Rabro Drive East Hauppauge, NY 11188-4290 RE: Beachcomber Motel, Cutchogue, NY Dear Mr. Baler, Pursuant to our conservation last week, enclosed is a copy of the site plan for the Beachcomber Motel. Aiso included are relevant pages from the Draft Enviormental Impact Statement pertaining to the ground water at this location. The Planning Board's enviornmental consultant, Charles Voorhis, will be calling you or Paul Ponturo within the next few days to compare notes. The Planning Board has asked Chic to prepare an FEIS; but with the recent news, wanted him to confer with you and Paul before accepting the FEIS document he prepared. I have sent Chic all correspondence that was distributed at last week's meeting, (Commissioner Hibberd's notice, your memo and Ray Cowen's letter). If you have any questions about the site plan, please speak with Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer at 765-1938. Sincerely, Valerie S¢opaz' / Town Planner Enc. See clipped pages from the DEIS The definition of "Unique" farmland is: "Land other than pr/me farmland that is used for thc production of specific high-value food crops. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high quality and or high y/elds of a specific crop when treated and managed accord/rig to medern farm/rig meth?t~.s. Examples of such crops are grapes, fruit, and vegetables (Soil Consc:rvation Service, USDA, of Suffolk County, 1978)." Soft samples on the Applicant's site and in the v/cin/ty of the site have been assembled from well log data (NYSDEC). The location of these wells is shown in Figure 34 and the log data is detailed in Figure 3-5. c. Topography Elevations in the Town of Southold range from sea level to 160 feet above mean sea level (MSL), though the major/Bt of the Town is at an elevation less than 50 feet above MSL. The greatest topographical variety is found along the north shore, which is characterized by h/Ils and bluffs. Elevations on the site generally range from about 60 feet above mean sea level (MSL) on the southern portion of the property to 0 feet CMSL) on the northern portion of the property. The Beachcomber Motel II property is distinctly dixfded north and south by a wooded r~dge with steep slopes. To the south of this ridge slopes are gentle and the area is predominantly used as farmland. The topography north of the ridge is steep on both sides of the existing cleared portion of property where the Beachcomber Motel complex/~ located. On the east side of the clearing in the northeast corner of the property elevations range from 50 to 20 feet over approx/mately 137 feet or a 22% grade. On the we~rn side of the clearing elevations at the steepest point range from 50 to 20 feet over appro~dmately 50 feet or a 60% grade. Looking from the LI Sound into the subject property a bluff beans to form and rise in height very rapidly on the west side of Duck Pond Road. On the east side of the Beachcomber Motel there is a gradual increase in bluffheight to the eastern boundary of the AppLicant's propertywhere bluff heighl~ then si~ificantly increase. There is a low lying area on the property where natural drainage occurs. This "drainage swale" is highlighted in Figure 3-6 and ultimately runs into a small seasonal Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 9 FIGURE 3 - 4 Location of Wells in f~he Vicinity of 'the Applicant's property Duck Pond P~ -$1816~ S-722~3 9089 OREGON N~iTITUCK ,,"fATTITUCK /// 41RPORT COUNTRY 0Id ' 3-10 Z DRAYF ExTflRONMENT~ IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) FOR BEACHCOMBER MOTEL H CUTCHOGU'E, SUFFOLK COUNTY, N'EW YORK TOWNSHIP OF SOUTHOLD TYPE I ACTION Located: North and adjacent to Oregon Avenue East and adjacent to Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, New York Lead A~enc3, Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Contact: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner (765-1938) Applicant Mr. Nicholas Aliano Ashley Lane Shoreham, New York 11786 Contact: Nicholas Aliano Prepared by Glenn Spetta Associates · Environmental Consultants 1050 Smithtown Avenue Bohemia, New York 11716 Contact: Glenn Sperm (567-5859) Site En~ineerine Barrett, Bonac~ Hyman & VanWeele P.C. Consulting Engineers/Surveyors/Planners 175A Commerce Drive Hauppauge, New York 11788 Contact: Steven J. Hyman, P.E.(435-1111) Hydro~eoioe. Engineering P. W. Grosser Consulting Engineer & Hydrogeolog/~t, P.e. P~O. Box 39 Sayvflle, New York 11782-0039 Contact: Paul W. Gt:osser, Ph.D., P.E. (589-6353) Cultural Resources Assessment Archaeological Services Inc. P.O. Box 1522 Rocky Point, New York 11778 Contact: Robert J. Kalin (744-8047) Local Liason Mr. I--Iemry Raynor P.O. Box Drawer A Jamesport, New York 11947 Contact No.: (298-8420) Date of Acceptance: DeadLine for Comments: REV. 0-1, 11/95 I I I I I I( qNk?g.I pond. The appli~will take appropriate measures to he natural drainage quakities of the swale and small seasonal pond as outlined in Section VA. 1 & 2 M/t/gating Measures. 2. Water Resources a. Groundwater There are three aquifers beneath the site; the upper Glacial, Magothy and Lloyd aquifers, which are underlain by crystalline bedrock, forming the base of the aquifer system. All but the upper most aquifer, the upper Glacial, contain salt water in this area of the North Fork. The Lloyd aquifer is salty under most of the North Fork and is expected to be salty in the v/c/nity of the site. It is therefore not used for water supply in this area. The locations of the bedrock and Lloyd aquifer do not impact on an analysis of the proposed development since these strata are hydraulically isolated fa-om the surface by the Raritan Clay unit. The Magothy aquifer is the prima~y source of water supply in areas of Long Island to the west but since it is salty in this area it is not used for water supply. The Magothy aquifer m thB area is apprcr, r/mately 300 feet thick ranging from 625 feet to 325 feet below sea level (Smolensky, et. al.). The hydraulic conductiv/ty of the Magothy aquifer m tkis area is estimated to be in excess of 400 gallons per day per square foot (gpd/sq. ft.) in the horizontal direction and 10 gpd/sq, ft./n the vertical direct/on. The large disparity between the vertical and horizontal hydraulic conductivities indicates that the water preferentially flows in the horizontal direction under equal hydraulic gradients. The disparities in hydraulic conductivities give this aquifer semi-confined characteristics. The water table aquifer in the area is the upper Glacial aquifer. Water level data generated by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) indicates that the approx/mate groundwater level at the site varies from three to five feet above sea level at the southern end to sea level at the shore of Long Island Sound (Figure 3-7). Based Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 13 I I ~o ~OzZ I I I I qNVTs/ ONo 7 qN~oS Ill T '0 .< T 0 0 ~5 IV. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS of THE PROPOSED ACTION upon the Ghyben-Herzberg principle which estimates the freshwater/salt water interface location to be 40 times the groundwater elevat/on below sea level, the interface is located 120 feet below sea level. The exact location of the interface has not been verified but it is known that a well on site which is screened 60 feet below sea level pumps fresh water. Another well, located near the northern end of the site, which was inadvertently allowed to pump conlinuously became salty, indicating that the saltwater interface is not at great depth. The well which had a saltwater problem on the site was located on the southeast corner of the existing motel This well is located approximately 270 feet from I_I. Sound, while the nearest proposed water supply well is approrimately 900 feet. Typically when wells "go salty" in this manner, ff they are rested for a period of time they can be again used for water supply as the salt water front recedes. This particular well was relocated and eventually brought back to use. '2n June 1990, Well No. 1) was replaced with Well 1R near the old well to a depth of 50 feet. High chloride content in the older wen (No. 1) may have been due to saltwater intrusion resulting from weeks of excessive well pumpage mused by leaks in the piping ~system for the pool" [H2M report, 1991). This highly permeable material of the upper Glacial aquifer has a hydraulic conductivity of 1,200 gpd/sq, ft. (McCIymonds and Franke) and a vertical hydraulic conductivity of typically one tenth of the horizontal. The groundwater flow direction in the vicinity of the site is to the north towards Long Island Sound where it ultimately discharges. The area/s chq~ified by the Long l~land Comprehensive Waste Treamaent Management Plan (208 Study) as being Hydrogeologic Zone IV (Figure 3-8). This zone is desen'bed as follows: 'Wire area has unique groundwater conditions, and special management alternatives apply to it. Intensive agricultural activities have resulted in nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in wells located in agr/cultural areas that are above six milligrams per liter, with many observations exceeding ten milligrams per liter. Although groundwater underlying agricultural areas shows definite signs of nitrogen-related contamination, the residential areas still have good quality water, and statistical examination of over 300 analyses from domestic wells located on the North Fork indicates that almost all have nitrate-nitrogen concentrations of less than three milligrams per liter. High chloride concentrations (over 250 milligrams per liter) have been found in a few areas on the North Fork. .2 Based on assessments of the groundwater development potential in each of these areas, there appears to be suffic/ent groundwater to support projected land uses, if pumpage is properly developed and managed....However, because of the limited depth of fresh water on the forks, wastewater management controls must protect those areas that still have acceptable groundwater quality if the areas are to Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3 - 15 remain self sufficient in water supply." The availability of the water resources for use in the area of the site are restricted by the quantity of water wh/ch is recharged to the aquifer and available for safe yield on a regional basis and by the location of the saltwater interface. The safe y/eld of the aquifer restricts the total volume of water wh/ch can be removed from the aquifer while the saltwater interface restricts the location, depth and capacity of water supply wells. The perm~Lqsive sustained yield of the area has been analyzed, developed and rev/owed in a number of studies (I-'Iol:,xnacher, McLendon & Murrell, ER.M Northeast and Dvirka and Bartflucci) and estimated for this area to be 0.35 million gallons per day per square mile of recharge area. The Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (Dv/rka and Banilucci) developed well design guidelines to prevent upconing in areas subject to saltwater intrusion. Thes6 guidelines are presented below in Table 3-2. TABLE 3-2 WEI J. DESIGN GUIDELINES TO PREVE:XFI' UPCONING Continuous Minimum Depth of Minimum Avg. Pumping Interface Below M/n/mum Aquifer Water Table Rate (gpm) Well Screen* (fl) Thiclmess*'(fl) Elev.*'*(ft) 5 10 55 1.5 10 15 60 1.5 20 20 65 L5 30 25 75 Z0 50 30 80 ZO 100 40 100 2.5 200 55 115 3.0 300 70 130 3.5 500 90 170 4.5 10130 125 205 5 2000 175 255 6.5 * Depth of interface below bottom of screen with the following assumed lengths: 5-20 gpm (3-5 ft); 30-50 gpm (10ft); 100-300 gpm (20 ft); and, 500-1,00 gpm (40 ft). With top of well screen 40 feet below water table; screen lengths as above; and depth of interface below bottom of well screen as indicated in column 2. *** Average water table elevations (adjusted for sea level r/se) based on Ghyben-Hemberg relationship (40:1 ratio). Values rounded to nearest 0.5 feet. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 3- 17 The SCDHS (1992) invest/gated the water resources of the North Fork and included in their invest/gat/on a geolog/c cross-sect/on and water qual/ty profile along Depot Lane (see Figures 3-9, 3-10, and 3-11). As with most parts of the North Fork there is concern with regard to the water quality, particularly with regard to nitrates and pesticides. Past data showed nitrate concentrations at the site and in its close vicinity to be less than 10 mg/1 as Nitrogen (lq) and in most instances less than 6.0 rog/1 as N. This is less than the drinking water standard and would not require t~eatment prior to use. In the past levels of aldicarb have fluctuated, but samples (1991) have shown min/.mal levels (2.0 ug/1 or less) at the site. Higher levels of aldicarb have been found under the farm fields upstream of the site and proper contingencies must be taken to treat for aldicarb if the need arises. Dichloropropane, a pesticide residual, has been detected in wells at the site and in other wells in the close vic/nity. The design of the water supply system will have appropriate connections and allocated space for the installat/on of a granular activated carbon filter for the removal of aldicarb and/or dichloropropane should the need ar/se. The EPA and NYS dr/nidng water quality standards for both dichloropropane and aldicarb are 7.0 ug/L and 5.0 ug/L respectively. b. SURFACE WATER 1, Location and description of surface waters The nearest sigxtificant body of water to the proposed Beachcomber II motel site is the Long Island Sound. The northern border of the Applicant's property is on the Sound. The Long Island Sound is an estuary of nat/onal sign/ficance. An estuary is generally defined as a semi-enclosed coastal body of water having a free connection with the open sea and withn which sea water is measurably diluted with freshwater. They are highly productive ecosystems (a complete ecological system operating in a given geograph/cal unit, including Rev. 0-1, 13./95 3- 18 with parldng areas, and the motel units. Runoff from the paved areas and units will not significantly impact softs since stormwater will be collected and recharged. Beneficial impacts are two fold; it will remain as undeveloped open space and sediment runoff due to cultivation will cease. This refers to the current runoff of unprotected soft from the farm into the drainage swale. 2. GROUNDWATER and SURFACE WATER QUALITY Although effects to both groundwater quafity and quantity have the potential to result from the construction of the Beachcomber Motel II, these poss~bilit/es have been identified, and. will be m/tigated as needed to ensure that groundwater integrity is maintained. Potential impacts to groundwater may result from changes in: (a) water usage, (b) groundwater quality, (c) recharge re,me and (d) surface water quality. (a) Water Usage The proposed action will increase the water use during the tourist season as shown in the following table: Table 4-1 Water Usage (Tourist Season) of the Proposed Beachcomber Motel II Expansion Facftiw Water Use Motel Pool Motel Complex Total gallons per day (~pd) 46 Units x 150 gpd/urdt 6,900 20 people x 10 g'pd/person 200 Irrigation 300 Total 7,400 It is estimated that the water use during the remainder of the year will average 500 gpd for an average over the entire year of 9,800 gpd. The entfi'e water use both, existing and proposed, for the Beachcomber facil/ty is then 14,925 gpd during the tour/st season and 5,975 averaged over the entire year. This is approximately 9_5 percent of the permissive sustained yield of 24,068 gpd. During the tour/st season the water usage is only 62 percent of the permissive sustained yield. There is not expected to be an impact on groundwater quality as a result of the pnmpage from water supply wells. It is estimated Rev. 0-1. 11/95 4 - 3 that 80 percent of the water used during the tourist season will be returned to the groundwater system through on-site septic systems and 90 percent during the rest of the year. The consumptive water use of the project then will average 1,194 gpd or less than 5 percent of the permissive sustained yield for the area. (b) Groundwater quality The expected water supply system design will consist of two weSls of app~u.;mately 45 gpm. The second well is required by the SCDHS design standards and serves as a redundant source of water supply. Based on this, only one is needed to supply the development and one well would only be used at a time under normal operations. From Table 3-2 on page 3-17 the mlnir%m aquifer thickness for a 45 gpm well is approximately 80 feet At the Beachcomber xite the upper Glacial aquifer is estimated to be approximately 325 feet thick. The upper Glacial aquifer does contain a clay layer at a depth of approximately 110 feet below sea-level in the vicinity of the site creating a subaquffer with a thickness of appro~dmately 3.10 feet. This is in excess of the 80 foot m/n/mum aquifer thickness recommended in Table 3-2. Thc average water table elevation at the location where the wells are to be placed is approximately three feet above sea level as compared to the m/n/mum average water table elevation in Table 3-2 of 2.0 feet. The proposed water supply system provides for a factor of safety of 1.5 over the standards recommended in Table 3-2. The average nitrogen loading is based upon the assumption that the property to the north which is included in the density calculation is not going to be farmed or that fertilizer use will be such that it does not provide an additional nitrogen load to the groundwater system. Based upon an average recharge to the aquifer system of 1 million gallons per day (LI Comprehensive Waste Treatment ~ent Plan, Vot. 1% July 1978) over a 44 acre recharge area, the quantity of water to be recharged on an average day is 68,722 gpd. The estimated nitrogen of the water recharged as rainwater is 0.5 mgfl--, while the nitrogen concentration in the wastewater is expected to be approximately 30 mg/L. The resulting nitrogen concentration in the recharged water (both rainfall and septic systems) Rev. 0-1, 11/95 4 - 4 is then 5.6 mg/L for the entire site and does not include consideration of farm nitrogen. New York State drinking water standards require less than 10 mg/L of total n/trogen in potable drinking water. Since the septic systems are downstream of the wells it is expected that the water supply wells w/Il have rdtrogen levels below 10 mg/L. A complete design report will be prepared by the firm of Barrett, Bonacci, Hyman & VanWeele CBBHV), a consulting engineering firm qualified to perform sanitary engineering services. The final plans and specifications will be prepared by BBFIV upon approval of the DI~IS. The sizing will be based on proper design parameters regulated by the County, State, and federal agencies, incorporating appropriate safety factors. The design will meet standards of al/review agencies (the Suffolk County Depm t-,ent of Health Services and the Suffolk County Bureau of Waste Management). Carrent fa,m/ag procedures for potatoes grown on the farmed port/on of the Applicant's property require the following chemical applications: "ferr/lizer (8 parts Nitrogen, 16 parts Phosphorus, 8 parts Potassium) applied once per season at approx/mately 2,000 pounds per acre. Herbiddes Dual and Sencor applied for weed control at ratios of approximately 1 quart per acre (Dual) and 9~ pound of Sencor per acre. Fungicide M45 is applied. The pesticide Kryocide is applied at approximately 12-13 pounds per acre. Monitor is applied at about 1/2 to 1 pint per acre. Irrigation is required approx-/mately 3-4 times during the season to achieve a one inch covering of water on the crop. This requires approx/mately 3 to 4 days of continuous watering and averages out to about 15000 gallons per week over the entire year for a total of 780,000 gallons. (Reference B-I, Telephone conversation Mr. R. McBride). If it is decided that farming will not continue on the Applicant's property, beneficial impacts to the groundwater will be real/zed by the discontinued use of fertilizer, pesticides, fungicide and herbicides in the mounts specified and a less intense use of water. This will also mean that no chance of accidental spillage or improper application of these pesticides exists. The abatement of these agriculturally related compounds means a potential beneficial impact to groundwater quality. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 4- 5 Another potential impact is from the Ieacking of nitrogen from over fertilized lawns. However, lawn products (fertilizers, pesticides) will be minim/zed to the greatest extent by landscaping with grasses, such as red fescue, and plants wh/ch require lower chemical levels to thrive. (e) Reehar~ere~ime The drainage concept for the motel buildings consists of directing stormwater runoff from the roofs to underground drainage systems with on-site storage and recharge in leaching pools/recharge basins. Increased area of impervious surfaces from the internal circular pattern driveway with parldng spaces, and motel units will cause the amount of surface runoff at the Beachcomber Motel II site to increase. However, there will be no significant effects to groundwater due to stormwater runoff being directed to a drainage reserve area to be located near the enu'ance of the motel on Duck Pond Road. This area currently acts as a natural drainage basin for the site. It will be enhanced by enlargement. Water will drain and filter through the soft prior to entering the water table. When capacity of the drainage reserve basin is exceeded the excess water will flow into a "bubble" overflow structure at Duck Pond Road. The high water level of the proposed drainage reserve area is at elevation 11.00, which coincides with the FEMA 100 year flood elevation as discussed in Section l~I.A.2.b.4. By necessity, the overflow structure must be situated at an elevation lower than 11.00, so that excess sto~,,,water can flow by grav/ty from the reserve area to its overflow destination. Assuming that sufficient rip rap is placed adjacent to the overflow sUmcture to protect against erosion, there will be no measurable environmental/mpact. Impermeable areas on site will be kept to a m/n/mum to reduce stormwater runoffby enhancing infiltration to the groundwater system. (d) Surface Water The Long Island Sound will not he significantly impacted by the proposed motel expansion. The source of nitrogen in recharge estimates is page 193 of the Long Island Comprehens/ve Waste Treatment Management Plan, Volume II: Summary Documentation, Long Island Regional Plann/ng Board, July 1978. The source of pounds per Rev. 0-1, 11/95 4- - 6 day for farm fields is fi.om conversations with Mr. R. McBride regarding his current fertilizing practices. Calculations for nitrogen loading were based upon the year round average flow of 2,633 gpd for the proposed expansion and 3,342 gpd for the existing Beachcomber. The calculations are as follows: 2,633 gpd x 3.7853 liters/ga/= 9,9671/day say 10,000 I/day 30 rog/1 x 10,0001/day = 300,000 rog/day or 300 g/day or .3 kg/day .3 kg/day x Z2 lbs/kg = .66 lbs/day for the proposed Beachcomber 1~ 3,342 gpd x 3.7853 liters/ga/ = 12,650 l/day 30 mg/l x 12,6501/day = 379,500 rog/day or 379.5 g/day or .3795 kg/day .3795 kg/day x 2.2 lbs/kg = .84 lbs/day for existing Beachcomber I .66 lbs/day + .84 lbs/day = 1.5 tbs/day for Beachcomber I and Fi' This calculation accounts for summer loading; reduced water usage and occupancy during the winter months. If summer water usage values were taken for the entire year a yield of 3.7 lbs/day of nitrogen loading would occur. However, since the project is not designed for year long use or is year long use expected the nitrogen loading is the reduced value of 1.5 lbs/day. The nitrogen loading from the farm acreage is the result of the application of 2,000 lbs per acre once per season. This fertilizer is 8% nitrogen resulting in 160 lbs of nitrogen per acre being applied to 32 acres in a year. This results in a total farm application rate of 14 pounds per day. Of th/s appror/mately 55% is taken up by the crop and the remainder leaches into the groundwater yielding a loading of 6.3 lbs/day. 3. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY a. VEGETATION One potential impact to vegetation on the Applicant's property may be associated with the discontinuance of farmlng on 32 acres. If this farmed portion of the property remains fallow, it is expected that the area will begin the process of succession. Vegetation Rev. 0-1, 11/95 4 - 7 MITIGATING MEASURES TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS of TNE PROPOSED ACTION ground cover, shrubs and trees. Semi-clustering the motel units will minlmi~e intrusion of the motel expansion into areas that are already vegetated thereby reducing the movement of softs on site. Spec/al care will be exercised to prevent any sediment transfer during construction into the Sound. Hay bales will be staked end to end across down hill gradients to prevent sediment transfer. Additionally, excavated soft will be stockpiled in areas that will not allow movement of these soils. There will be little impact to the topography as a result of clearing. Most of the construction activity will consist of minor grading or leveling of the already moderately sloping property. The proposed drainage reserve area has been designed to collect run-off water and prevent erosion. With the existing topography and mitigation measures specified no 'significant m-off problems are expected. However, in areas where slopes have the potential for erosion, such as the "draln~ge swale" and the cut through the woods for the water supply line the following design and erosion control methods will be utilized: Clearing and grading will occur only as necessary. The smallest eractical area of land will be exposed at any one t/me during construction. In that manner coustruchon will be completed rapidly and no large areas are left bare and exposed for long periods. In the sloped areas (where the water main line will run, and the building that contains motel units 37-46) hay-bales will be staked around the periphery of the cleared area napping sediment which may run off. Additionally mulching and netting will be placed on the slopes to enhance revegetation and prevent erosion. Cleared areas left unconsnmcted for an extended period of time will be seeded and mulched in order to establish a temporary ground cover and mlnlrni~e potential erosion and topsoil loss. c. Permanent final vegetation and structures will be irmtalled as soon am practical surrounding the drainage reserve area and areas where soft is disturbed to reduce the potential threat of erosion and/or runoff. d. When construction starm, topsoil from cleared areas will be stored on-site. A.s soon as possfole it will be respread and seeded to establish ground cover in exposed areas. On grades over 8%, a mulch will be applied with seed to hold soft in place. 2. GROUNDWATER The increased quantity of runoff generated on-site by impervious surfaces will be mitigated by utilization of a stormwater collection system and one on-site drainage Rev. 0-1, 11/95 5 - 2 reserve area to be sized in accordance with the Town of Southold's criter/a. Ti'tis system is one that most nearly simulates the natural system, that is one that has features to detain storm runoff and to provide the maximum infiltration for natural purification. To reduce nitrogen loading from fernTieers, low-ma/ntenance grass and restoring land to its aatural state by planting native shrubs and trees will be recommended. Th/s is most practical in buffer areas located on the perimeters of the Beachcomber Motel II expansion site and drainage reserve area. The mitigating measures employed to reduce nitrogen loading at the site are the reduction in actual demity as compared to that allowed under zoning and SCDHS standards at the site. The development has been reduced f~uua the 86 units previously contemplated to 46 units in the proposed plan. In addition, Iowwater use and nitrogen use landscaping will be prov/ded. If aecessa~, farming can be curtailed on the 32 acre farmland area. Tim will have the greatest impact on nitrogen loading by reducing current levels by 88%. The site will not be further developed Coeyond the proposed action) unless public water is available and/or a sewage treatment plant is constructed to offset impacts on water use or nitrogen loading. The water supply system will be designed and operated to minimize the impact of the wells on the location of the saltwater/freshwater interface. The wells will be adequately separated (60 to 100 feet) so that t~ere is little interference between them and that the pumpage can be dismbuted to reduce stresses on the interface. It is recommended that the use of the wells be alternated to mlnimi~e impacts on the interface. 3. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY Impacts to vegetation wftl be mitigated by expeditiously planting natural vegetation in cleared areas after the motel units are built and by restricting clearing to only necessary areas. Construction will be scheduled to avoid sensitive wildlife cycles when possible. Rev. 0-1, 1:1/95 5 - 3 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS K~NNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOW~N OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING BOARD FROM: RE: DATE: Planning Staff: Draft version of FEIS for Beachcomber Motel February 3, 1997 Questions and concerns that have arisen during review of draft FEIS document are noted here. Editorial commentr~ or] WP(:'? or chc, icc of wording are noted at the end of this memo and in the draft text. Questions and concerns: How will this draft document be integrated with the DEIS? The discussion of reducing the number of units from 46 to 42 should be earlier in the text, rather than referenced to a later section. Input should be solicited from the Soil Conservation Service, USDA, before the section on agricultural use of the land (pages 8 & 9) is rewritten. The Trustees' suggestion that the applicant consider a selective retreat must be presented in the context in which it was made, Past Trustee and NYSDEC actions regarding fortification of this stretch of shoreline should be included by way of background. (Page 10) A distinction must be made between pulling portions of the motel back and re-building elsewhere. (Page 11) The text should explain the present and proposed setbacks from the coastal erosion hazard line, as well as explain where this line exists and its purpose. The location of the 15 percent slopes relative to the proposed building area should be clarified. Text gives impression they are in the same place. The meaning of first three paragraphs on page 12 is unclear, These paragraphs need to be rewritten with a closer eye to internal logic and correct grammar. We have no written statement from the applicant agreeing to moving the restaurant. Further the text is not clear as to what is being proposed. Earlier in the text, the Town is portrayed as having limited jurisdiction and, authority to require pull-back from the shoreline. In subsequent paragraphs (pages 11 & 12), a recommendation is made to require limited pull-back. Stronger justification or explanation is needed. Also, the text recommends the placement of a covenant which sets time limits for the relocation and placement of specific motel units, yet does not identify what terms would be reasonable. The bottom of page 12 discusses the potential for year-round use, but does not state whether the analysis in the DEIS found the project to be sufficiently mitigated at that level of use. The response to Comment #8 (page 13) has to go beyond simply parroting the owners position. Text should explain the parameters within which environmental review must operate and the weight to which the Planning Board can (or cannot) grant to certain issues. The response to Comment #9 (page 13) should specify the permitted uses allowed within the RR and AC zoning districts. Greater care should be used in describing unsuitable uses. For instance, while a marina may not be a feasible use, a facility or club specializing in small sailboats might be a use which could be placed here. Please provide legal precedent to support the assertion made in the response to Comment # 10 (page 13). In response to Comment # 11 (page 14) please clarify the statement referring to the applicant's consistent pursuit of the expansion for nearly 20 years. A review of the file could give rise to a different interpretation. Also, in the absence of market data or documentation by the applicant, the Planning Board should not speculate as to why the applicant is moving ahead or not with the application. The response to Comment #12 should be updated and rewritten after consulting with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, specifically Paul Ponturo or Joseph Baler. Paragraph two on page 15 Is not clear. Are State or County standards being referred to here? Please indicate the standards for a motel, and whether those standards apply to seasonal or year-round use. The last sentence in the response to Comment #13 (page 15) is a run-on sentence. Its meaning is not clear. The discussion of the pond area could be rewritten to clarify what portion of the former pond area is proposed to be used as a drainage area. Also, explain the purpose and extent of the regrading relative to the previous pond area. Further, clarify whether we wish to encourage recolonization by a non-native, invasive species of vegetation. If there are distinct benefits to be gained by requiring the developer to revegetate using selected native species, the benefits must be set forth here. The response to Comment # 15 as seen on page 17 does not address the heart of the objection raised by the residents in the area, which is that the current level of traffic poses problems which they feel will worsen if the proposed project is built. The perception of traffic problems, as opposed to the traffic engineer's analysis, is what the text must address. The text also could explain why an increase of 99 cars is not considered significant. Further, the mitigative measures suggested could be stated more precisely. For instance, the recommendation to level the grade near the southeast corner of an intersection should indicate which Intersection is being referred to, and the distance from the intersection where the grade should be leveled, not to mention the location of the proposed leveling relative to the intersection and the number of feet such leveling should traverse. The responses to Comment # 17 and # 18 (page 18) don't mention the lack of sidewalks in the vicinity and the fact that the curvature of the road between crown and shoulder is such that walking is difficult. The text should examine whether sidewalks or other roadway improvements or a footpath would mitigate this concern. Some assessment needs to be made as to whether this situation is a hazard that justifies asking the developer to respond to it. Response to Comment # 19 is not acceptable. The issue goes beyond the parameters of the Town Police Department. It lies within the jurisdictions of the Town Highway Superintendent, the Town Board and the Town's Parks, Beaches and Recreation Committee. Content of the land use section might be better explained earlier in the text. It could stand some rewriting to improve internal logic and clarity of meaning. Comments - Beachcomber FEIS Page Comment Bill Cremers' comments 3 4 5 7 11 12 14 15 18 22 23 25 Typo's and questions "did we get revised FEIS" Town Board should be Planning Board Town Board should be Planning Board Word change Should show space on site plan for some or all of the existing motel to be moved to. How much income "quantify" analysis of year round use. FEIS says no plans for this. Re-vegetate area as a condition of or put on present plan Projected trip generation for 42 units - this will be less and FEIS shows no impact with 46 46 should be 42 Is the end of Duck Pond Rd. a 'town beach~ ? Town Board should be Planning Board Add landscaping - check plan, if not on request it Bob Kassner's comments: 4 7 8 10 11 12 Town Board should be Planning Board Per Ben Orlowski's provide an agricultural "plan" for the AC property should be part of the plan agree on condition of managing this plan as a final condition C&R on southern portion or future plan for this area Don't agree on moving just the units undermined by a storm, the entire building should be demolished and rebuilt at a safe distance from the coastal hazard erosion line Current plan should show area for entire existing motel to be moved to. The one plan that showed a part of the motel moving to a new area was sent to Chic. When we have all our comments we will bring this to his attention. Agree on greater set back for proposed motel. Should have C&R's on seasonal use or FEIS should show nitrates and analysis for year round use. Check DEIS to see if this has been done 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C&R against condos? Need to have C&R's on southern parcel or management plan, per Ben Re-vegetate with native species good idea, should be on plan. Should have conservation/agricultural plan or C&R's on southern parcel Should have stop sign on plan and note about turning back Check to see if any present posting? If current zoning, parcel I would be fl4.5 units. Should the entire 42 units come under current zoning? Need new plan showing max 46 units Need C&R's on plan for south portion agree with yield being spelled out in C&R's or note on plan If I were a neighbor I wouldn't want any decrease in value What does sictnificantly mean? Submit to ARC. It's been so long, what is the status of special exception? I will check binder Town Board should be Planning Board Show on site plan as signs Plan should show additional landscaping PLANNING BOARD MEM~ RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southolcl, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 September 30, 1996 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel Cutchogue, NY 11935 SCTM# 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor, The Planning Beard has received a cost estimate of $2,500 from their Environmental Consultant for the preparation of the final EIS. The above mentioned sum must be paid in full before we can authorize our consultant to proceed with the review The check should '~e made out to the Town of Southold. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact t.his office. Chairman GLENN SPETTA ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 1050 SMITHTOWN AVENUE P.O BOX 94 BOHEMIA, NY 11716 (516) 567-5859 · ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND ANALYSES · COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT · ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS · AQUATIC AND BENTHIC SURVEYS September 7, 1996 Richard Ward, Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, NewYork 11971 Beachcomber Motel II DEIS SCTM# 1000-83-2-1,2& p/o 17 Reference: 1) Letter from Town of Southold Planning Board Chairman, Richard Ward to Glenn Spetta Associates dated May 21, 1996 Dear Mr. Ward: In accordance with your referenced letter request for us to respond to public comments for the Beachcomber Motel II DEIS we respectfully submit 5 copies, and one diskette, of our responses to be used in the Board's preparation of the FEIS. In preparing our responses, we have used the format that you requested where: · Comments have been identified as to whether they were made at the public hearing or as part of the written record. · Comments have been identified to indicate the source. · Comments have been summarized without detracting from the nature, scope or intent of the comments. · Responses to the comments are represented to the Planning Board to be concise, accurate, objective and consistent with the DEIS prepared for the proposed Beachcomber Motel expansion. Appropriate sections of the DEIS are referenced where applicable to support responses made by the Applicant. In accordance with one of the Planning Board's comments the Applicant's Engineer for the project, Barrett, Bonacci, Hyman and VanWeele, is evaluating engineering plan details for relocating existing motel units in the event of severe erosion. When completed the revised plans will be sent under separate cover. The Applicant would like to be kept informed on the preparation of the FEIS and if possible have the opportunity to review the document prior to its release. Please contact me on 738-5926 with any questions or comments in this matter. Sincerely, Glenn D. Spetta GDS cc: N. Aliano i H. Raynor S. Hyman SEP 12 [m sw:c:gsasocs:beachii:96-OO7] Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants Beachco,,m_ber Motel II DE~ Applicant s Response to C(Tmments for FEIS Preparation As requested in the letter from Planning Board Chairman, Richard Ward, to Glenn Spetta Associates dated May 21, 1996 the following responses to comments received on the Beachcomber Motel II DEIS are submitted to the Planning Board for their preparation of the FEIS for the proposed Motel expansion. Barbara Ripel, 295 Vista Place, Cutcho.que, New York Has made the following comments: A. April 8 Plannin,q Board Meetin,q: I. Comment from Ms. Ripel: Duck Pond Point is the home of the birds. 1. Applicant's response: The DEIS (pages 3-33 and 3-38) gives an historical account of the property's use as farm land. It had been cleared of trees to plant crops during the 1800's. The pond on the northern portion of the property had dried up or had been partially filled between 1904 and 1956 by blowing sand or moving dunes. 2. Comment from Ms. Ripeh Someone stupidly filled in the Duck Pond and put the motel there and know she is faced with increased destroying of the environment. 2. Applicant's response: The environment is not being destroyed by the addition of motel units to the existing Beachcomber motel. The proposed motel units will be built in accordance with all State, County and Local regulations designed to protect the environment. The DEIS details (Section I.E., Section II. all) specifics of the project and the steps that the Applicant has taken to ensure protection of the environment. 3. Comment from Ms. Ripeh Concerned about traffic. There is a very dangerous comer on Duck Pond Road. Increased traffic will cause: we have had several dogs killed. She hates to think about children being killed on that comer. 3. Applicant's response: Section III.B.1 (pages 3-41 through 3-42) entitled "Transportation" details existing traffic conditions. Expected traffic conditions as a result of the proposed action were analyzed in the DEIS (Section IV. B.I. (page 4-10) and mitigation measures proposed (page 5-4). The Applicant agrees that a sight distance restriction occurs in the vicinity of Duck Pond Road and the intersection with Vista Place where Duck Pond Road bends and slopes northward to the Town beach. The Applicant recognizes that there will be a minimal increase in traffic (average Saturday vehicular trip ends estimated at 100% occupancy will be 50). The Applicant has suggested the placement of a stop sign at this intersection (page 5-4 of DEIS) and cleadng of brush at this comer to improve ddver vision. If traffic is currently driving too quickly on this road the Applicant suggests that it be reported to the Town of Southold Police for enforcement of the speed limit. 4. Comment from Ms. Ripel: Increased destruction of the environment 4. Applicant's response: see Applicant's response #2 Rev. 1-1, 9/7/96 page ! [c:msoffice:winword:gsassocs:beachli:96-005] Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants Beachcomber Motel 11 DIt~I Applicant's Response to Comments for FEIS Preparation 5. Comment from Ms. Ripel: Increased pressure on homes value-wise 5. Applicant's response: The Beachcomber Motel will be designed to be an attractive business establishment that serves as a seasonal motel. The motel will be of a high quality and not significantly change the character of the existing neighborhood. The values of homes in the aroa will not be altared by the addition of new motel units. 6. Comment from Ms. Ripe/: People from the motel tend to roam around her neighborhood. 6. Applicant's response: How does Ms. Ripel know that the people are from the Motel? The Applicant does not believe that motel guests roam around her neighborhood. The Applicant suggests that perhaps Ms. Ripel may be thinking of other tourists that are coming into the Town of Southold that may want to look at homes to admire the views or others that may be sight seeing within the Town. The Applicant believes that this activity occurs at all times of the year since thero have been curious tourists that approach his motel in the off season looking for information about staying there. Many tourists (day trippers) and residents eager to utilize the beach and/or catch a glimpse of the water, take Duck Pond Road to access the Long Island Sound. 7. Comment from Ms. Ripe/: Will the town promise Police support, and fire protection and all those things. 7. Applicant's response: The Applicant investigated the capability of Police protection in the DEIS. The Southold Police Department responded with a letter stating that they would be able to provide Police protection to accommodate the expansion (Appendix D-56). The Cutchogue Fire Department expressed some concerns concerning their capability to respond to riros. In that regard the Applicant modified the site plan to accommodate a request by the Fire Department to install a 400 gpm fire well on the property (see pages 3-47, 4-11, and 5-4 of the DEIS. 8. Comment from Ms. Ripel: Litter increase during the summer because people wander around her neighborhood. 8. Applicant's response: This may be true but is not caused by guests from the Motel. If there is a problem with litter it should be reported to the Town of Southold Police department when it happens to find the people who aro responsible. 9. Comment from Ms. Ripel: She thinks that the proposed project is very damaging to the environment where she lives because its a family :community and if 46 more motel units are built it brings a lot of danger to her. 9. Applicant's response: The expansion of the motel will not be damaging to the environment as has been detailed in the DEIS. There will be no expected dangers to the residents as a result of the proposed Motel expansion. Guests of the motel have traditionally been middle class families, and have not been pemeived to be dangerous by the Applicant. 10. Comment from Ms. Ripel: The Applicant has a right to develop his property but not at the expense of her neighborhood. Rev. 1-1, 9/7/96 page 2 [c:msofflce:wlnword:gsassocs:beachli:96-005] Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants Beachcomber Motel II DE~ Applicant's Response to ~.~'~'mments for FEIS Preparation 10. Applicant's response: The Applicant agrees that he has a right to develop his property and does not believe that the project as proposed will do anything to jeopardize Ms. Ripel's neighborhood. April 29, 1996 Plannin,q Board Meetinq 11. Comment from Ms. Ripel: She is totally opposed to the proposed expansion. 11. Applicant's response: Ms. Ripel has a right to be opposed to the project and express her opinions. The Applicant also has a right to develop the property in accordance with zoning requirements. The Applicant originally requested building 86 additional units. However, after preliminary discussions with the Town of Southold and Suffolk County Department of Health Services the Applicant has significantly down scaled the project to 46 units. This revised layout has addressed regulatory agency concerns. f2. Comment from Ms. Ripe/: Its detrimental to "our" neighborhood 12. Applicant's response: Ms. Ripel does not give specifics of how the proposed expansion will be detrimental however, the Applicant feels that the DEtS prepared as part of the SEQRA process demonstrates that the project will not be detrimental to Ms. Ripel's neighborhood. 13. Comment from Ms. Ripeh It's detrimental to the environment 13. Applicant's response: the proposed motel expansion will not be detrimental to the environment. See Applicant response #2. 14. Comments from Ms. Ripel: It doesn't consider the needs of the people in the area. 14. Applicant's response: the proposed motel expansion considers the needs of the residents of the Town of Southold including the people that live in the area. Much of the DEIS details the measures taken to ensure that the project is constructed in such a manner that does not harm the environment or the surrounding community. The proposed project is consistent with the Town of Southold Land Use and Zoning requirements and is detailed in Section iV.B.2 (page 4-10) of the DEIS. 15. Comments from Ms. Ripeh She sees no reason for the expansion 15. Applicant's response: Ms. Ripel is entitled to her opinion. However, the Applicant as a prudent business man does have a reason for the expansion. 16. Comments from Ms. Ripel: Them is not a lot of use and when people come there is no policing. 16. Applicant's response: The Applicant disagrees with Ms. Ripel. The Motel was opened by the Applicant in 1970 and there has been good usage since that time, otherwise it would not still be in business. The guests are well mannered and do not roam nor disturb the neighbors. Rev. 1-1, 9/7/96 page 3 [c:msoffice:winword:gsassocs:beachii:gG-005] Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants Beachcomber Motel II DB~~ Applicant's Response to Comments for FEIS Preparation If Ms. Ripel feels that policing is necessary she must report incidents of Town violations to the Town of Southold Police Department when they happen. 17. Comments from Ms. Ripel: People from the motel area walk through our neighborhood, leave garbage and are inconsiderate. People from the motel let their dogs and their children roam all over our yards. We need to be protected. 17. Applicant's response: This is. Ms. Ripel's opinion and it is not based on fact. The Applicant has not found that any motel guests are inconsiderate nor do they leave garbage nor do they let their children or pets roam in the neighborhood. To the Applicant's knowledge this has not happened. If this was or has been a problem in the past the Applicant was not informed about it. If it happens again and she believes that it is a motel guest please report it to the Applicant or to the Police. If it is a guest the Applicant will be happy to remind them of their obligations to be considerate of the neighbors and to keep the Town of Southold clean. The Applicant has developed a rapport with many of the repeat guests that frequent the motel. These families enjoy the area and do uphold the values of the community. C. May 3, 1996 Letter to Southold Town Plannin,q Board 18. Letter from Ms. Ripe/to the Town Planning Board: Consider benefits of expansion - Applicant has deceived Board about jobs being created and peripheral sales. 18. Applicant's response: There has been no deceit to the Board about jobs being created and peripheral sales. The DEIS adequately discusses in section 9 the Growth Inducing Aspects of this project. 19. Letter from Ms. Ripel to the Town Planning Board: Motel is presently not well utilized. 19. Applicant's response: The motel has been selectively utilized duri~ig~ peak holiday season activities such as Memorial Day, July 4th and Labor Day. 20. Letter from Ms. Ripel to the Town Planning Board: Customers of the hotel intrude on the privacy and safety of the residential communities of Birch Hills and Vista Bluff. Motel visitors roam the neighborhood, leaving litter, pet waste, and wander through private property. 20. Applicant's response: see Applicant's responses #6, #8, #17 21. Letter from Ms. Ripe/to the Town Planning Board: Motel visitors speed through the narrow road and dangerous corner leading down to the motel. Pets have been killed and children have barely avoided being run down the motel would make this worse. 21. Applicant's response: see Applicant's responses #3 22. Letter from Ms. Ripe/to the Town Planning Board: resources. Rev. 1-1, 9/7/96 Ic:msoffice.~lnword:gsassocs:beachll:96-005] The motel will strain local page 4 Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants Beachcomber Motel II Applicant's Response to Comments for FEIS Preparation 22. Applicant's response: The motel will not strain local resoumes. The DEIS reviews all potential impacts of the project (Section IV - Significant Environmental Impacts) and the Applicant has demonstrated that all impacts can be minimized or mitigated. (See pages 1-4 through 1-7, pages 4-1 through 4-14, and pages 5-1 through 5-4 of the DEIS). 23. Letter from Ms. Ripel to the Town Planning Board: Fire protection would have to be increased. More Police protection would have to be provided. 23. Applicant's response: See Applicant's response #7. 24. Letter from Ms. Ripel to the Town Planning Board: Local residents will have to pay more taxes. 24. Applicant's response: The Applicant is a local resident and pays large amounts of taxes on the subject properties (over $47,000 each year of which approximately $27,000 goes to the local school district). He would prefer to minimize his taxes as well. The proposed units will raise Mr. Aliano's taxes. However, there should be no increases in services that will require taxes of local residents to be raised. There are no significant increases in demands on schools, the County or Town services that would be passed onto local residents as a result of the proposed action. In fact tax revenue to the Town of Southold will be increased through increased payments of the Applicant. 25. Letter from Ms. Ripel to the Town Planning Board: The water supply will be affected - there has been a new discovery of water pollution leading north from Oregon Road affecting the Sound front properties. 25. Applicant's response: The DEIS discusses in many different places the effect of the proposed project upon water supply in the area. Page 2-9 discusses the-Sanitary system design, water supply is discussed on pages 2-9 through 2-11. Section III.A.2 Water Resoumes discusses the existing conditions of groundwater (pages 3-13 through 3-18). Section IV.A.2a-d (pages 4-3 through 4-6 discusses impacts to groundwater. Mitigation measures were discussed in Section V.A.2 (page 5-2). The Applicant has thoroughly investigated the effects of the proposed expansion upon groundwater in the vicinity of the site. The wells, sanitary system and drainage all must conform to NYS and Suffolk County standards and will not receive approvals if they can not conform to those requirements. The buffer zone for the wells has been established so as to not impact any other wells in the area. 26. Letter from Ms. Ripe/to the Town Planning Board: Who will pay to protect local residents from pollution caused by an increased number of visitors from other areas? 26. Applicant's response: The design of the proposed expansion is such that there will not be pollution caused by an increased number of visitors from other areas. The project has been significantly down-sized from 86 to 46 motel units so as to meet Suffolk County Department of Health Standards for protecting groundwater. Rev. 1-1, 9/7/96 page [c:msoffice:winword:gsassocs:beachii:g6.005] Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants Beachcomber Motel II Applicant's Response to C~-rnments for FEIS Preparation 27. Letter from Ms. Ripel to the Town Planning Board: Previous rulings about moving the existing motel units have not been complied with in over 10 years. 27. Applicant's response: The Applicant disagrees with Ms. Ripel's interpretation of the events that brought about the change of zone and the details associated with it. Some of the statements made appear to have been taken out of context from the public hearing in 1978 and in Mr. Aliano's opinion have been misinterpreted over time. Mr. Aliano was at those hearings and recalls the details to be slightly different. In order to assist with some of the history of this project Mr. Aliano has supplied correspondence between Suffolk County Department of Planning, Town of Southold and Mr. Aliano/Patricia Krupski. On February 2, 1978 the Town of Southold responded (Attachment 2) to a letter received from Mr. Gerald Newman of the Suffolk County Planning Department (Attachment 1). The letter requested four (4) additional topics of information be supplied to the County with regard to the proposed change of zone requested. On February 10, 1978 Mudel Brush replied to Mr. Newman (Attachment 3) to notify him that the Planning Board had passed the resolution to change the zone. On February 15, 1978 the Town of Southold's Planning Board Secretary, Ms. Brush, sent Attachment I from Mr. Newman to Mr. Aliano and requested Mr. Aliano (Attachment 4) to prepare responses to items 3 and 4 and return his responses to her so that she could submit all of the required information back to the County. Mr. Aliano supplied his responses to Ms. Brush (Attachment 5) who in turn sent this information to Suffolk County Department of Planning (Attachment 6). Mr. Aliano's written justification for the change of zone is quoted as it appears in Attachment 4. fi/Ye have outgrown our present facilities we rum away hundreds of people every summer- We are highly rated by Mobil Travel Guide, we accommodate people who are sent to us by the Greenport Chamber of Commerce - also Local peoples Fdends and Relatives, Church Groups and retirement Groups in addition to our regular following of family vacationers. This need for expansion is compounded by the erosion of our beech front. Motel units are thereby in eminent danger of being wiped out. We are a summer resort open May 1st to Oct. 1st and immediate plans are to Landscape, seed and build a golf course in the center of the planned new construction which units would compliment tennis courts, playgrounds etc. Time is of the essence if I am to at least grade and landscape for May Ist opening and to sensibly' plan for new units for necessary expansion to handle current business in addition to the immediate erosion cdsis - Action is required now time is running out." Rev. I-1, 9/7196 page 6 [c:msofflce:winword:gsassocs:beachll:96-(X~'] Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants Beachcomber Motel II DII~I Applicant's Response to Comments for FEIS Preparation The Applicant's intent for the change of zone is quite clear in this written submission to both the Town of Southoid Planning Board and to the Suffolk County Department of Planning. It was to expand his existing business with additional units, a golf course, tennis courts and playgrounds. On March 13 of 1978 the Town Planning Board recommended an approval of the petition of Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Kirupski, Case #238 for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to 'M-I' General Multiple Residence Distdct on property located at Cutchogue, NY, "in view of the fact that it is apparent that the petitioner must move the motel and facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion. The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance with the development plan of the Town of Southold for this location." The Town Planning Board based this approval based upon Mr. Aliano's verbal and written requests in that regard. At the Public Hearing held by the Town Board on April 11, 1978 Mr. Aliano reiterated what he had told the Planning Board "My intention is to put tennis courts and a golf course and situate the expansion along the perimeter of the cliff, it will be westerly.' Mr. Aliano had requested the change of zone to accommodate the expansion of the Motel units and increased recreational activities further back on his property. During the course of the public hearing Mr. Aliano was asked by Justice Martin Suter if it was his intention to move the building back? Mr. Aliano replied: 'No, I can't move the building back. Originally, when I filed the application, my intention was to expand because the business had increased that much. But since this erosion it won't really be an expansion, it's just a question of re-building.' Mr. Aliano also mentioned that: '1 originally wanted to expand what I had. But since I made application I am in danger of losing what I have, so it would wind up a 1-1 but I am not going to guarantee that all of a sudden that the sand is going to come back again. I plan to expand as needed.' Mr. Brian asked Mr. Aliano if the proposed action was expansion or replacing the buildings. Mr. Aliano replied: 'It is both, either, or. Time will tell as far as the expansion. I do not expect to expand right away, but I want to know that it can be done.' On May 23, 1978 The Town Board approved Mr. Aliano's petition which requested a change, modification and amendment of the Building Zone Ordinance from "A' Residential and Agricultural District to "M-I' General Multiple Residence District. The Town Board held a Public Hearing and received the petition from the Planning Board and resolved that the relief demanded in Mr. Aliano's petition be granted: 'subject, however, to the following conditions: That no buildings shall be permitted to be constructed in the area embraced within 200 feet measured perpendicular to the western boundary line of the premised described in the application.' Rev. 1-1, 9/7/96 page [c:msoffice.~vlnword:gsassocs:beachll:96-005] Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants Beachcomber Motel II DE Applicant's Response to Comments for FEIS Proparation The Applicant for the current project is not requesting the full expansion that was originally approved. This included an expansion of the existing motel units, golf course and tennis courts. The Applicant has down scaled the project considerably and now requests only to expand the existing Motel units as allowed by Suffolk County Health Department requirements. The existing Beachcomber Motel has been in business since 1970 in the same location. The Applicant has been threatened by erosion but has not had to move his business in this approximately 26 year time period. In 1992 it was suggested by the Southold Town Trustees that the applicant consider a "selective retreat' in order to properly fortify the shoreline. A storm of similar magnitude has the potential to create the loss of nine or more units along with the restaurant fronting the Long Island Sound. Although these units have the potential for loss at some futura date, the motel units are presently in good condition and contribute to the economic base of the Beachcomber's operation via rental income. Therefore to selectively remove these units is not a viable economic alternative at this point in time. Mr. Aliano agrees that at some point in time he may have to move these units but to do so prior to constructing the proposed expansion units would place him with a severe economic hardship that he cannot agree to. However, he will show on proposed site plans how he intends to move back the existing motel units and rebuild them should this become necessary. 28. Letter from Ms. Ripel to the Town Planning Board: The life styles and needs of the majority of the local residents would be adversely affected by the expansion of the motel. 28. Applicant's response: The Applicant disagrees with the opinion of Ms. Ripel. The Applicant questions how the lifestyles of local residents would be adversely affected by the expansion of the motel. The DEIS (Sections I.B.C, IV, V, and IX) discusses both the benefits and potential impacts that the Town will receive as a result of the Motel expansion. The Applicant represents to the Town that the benefits of the proposed action are_ consistent with the Town of Southold Master Plan and outweigh the other alternatives presented (Section VII of the DEIS). 29. Letter from Ms. Ripel to the Town Planning Board: adversely affected by the expansion of the motel. Investments in homes will be . 29. Applicant's response: The Applicant does not feel that home values will decrease as a result of the expansion of the motel. The growth proposed is very modest and will not significantly change the existing setting or use of the Applicant's property or the usage of property in this area. The motel expansion proposed will be moderately upscale yet geared for families. The rural character of the Town will be maintained and families from out of town will be able to visit Southold Township and experience the many splendid recreational opportunities that it has to offer. The benefits of increased tourism are discussed in section IX of the DEIS. 30. Letter from Ms. Ripel to the Town Planning Board: Rezoning of the property at a later date might lead to other types of development in the area which would totally destroy its rural residential character. Rev. 1-1, 9/7/96 page 8 [c:msoffice:wlnword:gsassocs:beachli:96-0(O] Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants Beachcomber Motel II DI~I Applicant's Response to Comments for FEIS Preparation 30. Applicant's response: Any future development that might occur would require approvals from State, County and Local Town government agencies prior to occurring. This would be a matter for them to approve or disapprove and would have to follow the SEQR process which allows for public comments. Additionally, there has been a motel on the property since at least 1970. The property has been used as a resort for tourists since at least 1970 which qualifies it as a pre-existing use before the zoning code was changed. 31. Letter from Ms. Ripel to the Town Planning Board: The Planning Board or previous approval bureau did great damage to the area by allowing the natural habitat of the birds to be damaged. 31. Applicant's response: See Applicant's response # 1 and 2. II. Mr. and Mrs. Man.qramele letter to Planninq Board dated May 8, 1996 Opposed to plan for the Beachcomber II because: 1. Mr. and Mrs. Mangramele letter to Planning Board: It would no longer be possible for them to use the road leading to the Beachcomber to walk their 2 small children to the beach. Mr. Mangramele: Apdl 29, 1996 Planning Board Meeting: Is there any other kind of alterations in addition to the proposed Stop Signs, that are going to be made to the roads? There are no shoulders on the roads going down there (to the beach/motel entrance). 32. Applicant's response: The Applicant disagrees that Mr. and Mrs. Mangramele would not be able to use the road leading to the Beachcomber to walk their 2 small children to the beach. With the added traffic improvements mentioned (see Applicant's response #3) there should be no significant impact to the existing traffic in the area. 2. Mr. and Mrs. Mangramele letter to Planning Board: Cannot understand why Mr. Aliano would want to expand the motel when it does very little business during the summer. Mr. Mangramele at the April 8 Planning Board Meeting: What is the need for the expansion? -On Memorial Day, one of the busiest weekends of the summer there's not more than six cars in the parking lot. 33. Applicant's response: The motel has recently piEked up in business and wants to improve their customer base. There is a demonstrated need for additional motel units within the Town and the Applicant feels that this will be the right location. 3. Mr. and Mrs. Mangramele letter to Planning Board: They will consider selling their home if Mr. Aliano has the expansion approved. 34. Applicant's response: The Applicant has no control over what each family does in the neighborhood and has always tried to be a good neighbor to all in the community. The Rev. 1-1.9/7/96 page 9 [c:msoffice.wvinword:gsassocs:beachii:96~05] Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants Beachcomber Motel II DB~ Applicant's Response to Comments for FEIS Preparation expansion is planned to be one that blends in with the existing terrain and will not be an eye sore to the community. The proposed motel units will be attractive and within an area that the community can be proud of. Additionally, the existing motel has been there since at least 1970 and conforms to zoning/land use requirements. 4. Mr. and Mrs. Mangramele letter to Planning Board: They bought their home in this area for privacy, quiet serenity and not to look out their window or yard at an expanded hotel. 35. Applicant's response: The motel expansion will still allow Mr. and Mrs. Mangramele privacy and quiet serenity. All of the wooded vegetation that currently exists will remain on the Applicant's property and will serve as a buffer during the times of motel occupancy. Views will not be significantly impacted since the majority of proposed units will be located in the hollow area of the cleared portion of the Applicant's property. 5. Tom Mangramele - Apdl 8, 1996 Planning Board Meeting: VVhat will happen in the future at the motel? It doesn't look like the mctel business is making it there. Can it be turned into a "rehab" center? Tom Mangramele - Apdl 29, 1996 Planning Board Meeting VVhat can happen in the future to where this site is going to be? Can it become something else, maybe a half- way house or a rehabilitation center? 36. Applicant's response: See Applicant's response # 30 and 54. 6. Tom Mangramele - Ap#l 8, 1996 Planning Board Meeting The Motel needs a paint job, the curtains are ripped. 37. Applicant's response: Typically maintenance is performed during the winter and spring to get the Motel ready for the summer, these are the types of items that are_ repaired and/or maintained prior to opening. III. Petition to the Planninq Board received May 9, 1996 from: Umberto C. Fasoline, 2260 Duck Pond Road Fred Rodriquez, 2100 Duck Pond Road Susan Bedell 2420 Duck Pond Road Kathy Mangramele 3180 Duck Pond Road Tom Mangramele 3180 Duck Pond Road Geraldine Zuhwla 2780 Duck Pond Road Mike Zuhwla 2780 Duck Pond Road Patrice Suema 2600 Duck Pond Road Richard Suema 2600 Duck Pond Road Don Richert 100 Vista Place Pat Richert 100 Vista Place Ken Richert 100 Vista Place Gall Richert 100 Vista Place Barbara Ripel 295 Vista Place Rev. 1-1, 9/7196 [c:msofftce:winword:gsassecs:beachii:96-005] page Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants Beachcomber Motel II Applicant's Response to Comments for FEIS Preparation Christos Yannios Nancy Waneg Maureen Mojvie Shy Gedt Patricia Singer Walter Singer Mr. Shraeder Patricia Lark M. Buan 600 vista Place 6 Glen Court 425 Glen Court 700 Glen Court 535 Birch Lane 405 Birch Lane 405 Birch Lane 305 Birch Lane 550 Birch Lane Glen Court The above petitioners are strongly opposed to Beachcomber Motel II for following reasons: I. Petitioner's comment to Board: This is a residential setting and therefore no place for an expanded motel. 38. Applicant's response: The current zoning (Resort Residential) allows for motel units to be constructed by Special Exception of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Code permits a density of one unit per each 6,000 square feet of land area where there is no public water or sewer. A density on one unit per each 4,000 square feet of land is permitted where there is public water or sewer. Prior zoning would have allowed for a higher density of motel units. 2. Petitioner's comment to Board: The narrow steep road leading down to the motel cannot accommodate the increased traffic. There are many young children in the area whose lives may be in danger. 39. Applicant's response: See Applicant's responses # 3. 3. Petitioner's comment to Board: The people in the neighborhood wilt not be able to walk/bicycle down to the beach due to the increased traffic. 40. Applicant's response: See Applicant's response # 3. 4. Petitioners comment to Board: Concerned about the future use of the motel property in that it may be sold and converted into condominiums, time shares, or possibly a rehabilitation center. 41. Applicant's response: See Applicant's response # 30,. 5. Petitioner's comment to Board: The Motel does very little business 42. Applicant's response: The Motel was fully occupied all of July 4th weekend this year. 6. Petitioner's comment to Board: The motel had the option of being moved back as per a 1978 ruling to avoid erosion. Rev. 1-1, 9/7/96 page [c:msoffice.'w~d:gsassocs:beachil:96-005] Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants Beachcomber Motel II Applicant's Response to Comments for FEI$ Preparation 43. Applicant's response: see Applicant's response # 27. IV. Fran Slesah, - comments to Plannin,q Board at April 8, 1996 Public hearinq doesn't live in area but "walks the beach": 1. Ms. Slesah's comments to Planning Board Apdl 8: She is concerned about beach erosion. 44. Applicant's response: The Applicant is also very concerned about beach erosion. There are very strict rules for new construction of buildings within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. In Section II1.A.2.4 "Potential flooding, siltation and erosion' (pages 3-28 through 3-32) of the DEIS existing conditions pertaining to beach erosion are detailed. The Applicant will not build any new structures within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area nor will any proposed actions be conducted to increase beach erosion. 2. Ms. Slesah's comments to Planning Board Apdl 8: She has seen cars pull trailers on the beach with jet skies at the end of Duck Pond Road. She is not sure if these people are guests at the Motel 45. Applicant's response: The Applicant informs all Motel guests to follow local regulations. To his knowledge none of the Motel guests have pulled trailers with jet skis on the beach at the end of Duck Pond Road. 3. Ms. Slesah's comments to Planning Board Ap#l 8: When the motel is closed she has seen hunters on the Beachcomber property with beagles killing rabbits. 46. Applicant's response: The Applicant does not allow hunting on the property and has posted signs warning that there is no hunting or trespassing allowed. 4. Ms. Slesah's comments to Planning Board Apdl 8: Non-residents park on edge of Beachcomber property when motel is closed in the dead end area. 47. Applicant's response: The Applicant has no control of who parks on the edge of the Beachcomber property when the motel is closed. This is an code enforcement issue for the Town of Southold and does not pertain to the Motel expansion. Issues such as this should be reported to the Town of Southold Police. 5. Ms. Slesah's comments to Planning Board Apdl 8: Barrier of the beach at the end of Duck Pond Road has been knocked down by non-residents. 48. Applicant's response: See Applicant's response for # 45. 6. Ms. Slesah's comments to Planning Board Apdl 8: Dirt and garbage on the beach - Who picks up the beach? Rev. 1-1, 9/7/96 page ]2 [c:msoffice.'wir~ord:gsass~cs:beachil:96-(x35] Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants Beachcomber Motel II DIESel Applicant's Response to Comments for FEIS Preparation 49. Applicant's response: The Applicant picks up garbage when it comes onto his property. However, the Applicant does not pick up garbage from the Town beach. When the Town beach is filled with dirt and garbage it should be reported to the Town of Southold. 7. Ms. Slesah's comments to Planning Board April 8: She is concerned about Motorcycles on beach and "jet ski people". 50. Applicant's response: See Applicant's response #45. 8. Ms. Slesah's comments to Planning Board April 8: Motorcycles and jet skis are on the beach all year round, with the motel or without the motel. 51. Applicant's response: Thank you for bringing this matter to the Town of Southold's attention. Gerald Waltz representin.cl the North Fork Environmental Council -April 8, 1996 Plannin.q Board meetin,q - Written comments read into the meetinq minutes. 1. North Fork Environmentai"Council: DEIS evaluates 3 separately owned parcels of land rather than one merged tract of land, how will this impact future development of these parcels? 52. Applicant's response: The Applicant plans to merge all parcels. However, it does not make sense to merge the parcels without some type of approval from the Town. If the Applicant were to merge the parcels and the Town did not approve the project this would not be to the Applicant's benefit. However, if the Applicant receives some assurances from the Town that the proposed project is one that can be approved and constructed he will be willing to merge the parcels. · 2. North Fork Environmental Council: What are the implications beyond this project if the separate parcels are later sold off? 53. Applicant's response: The parcels will be merged to complete the proposed project. 3. North Fork Environmental Council: Parcel #3 includes almost 30 acres presently zoned Agricultural Conservation. Without Covenants and Restrictions, does leaving this land dormant increase the likelihood of it being re;zoned for development at some future date? 54. Applicant's response: Any change of zone would have to be approved by the Town of Southold. The Applicant does not have intentions to rezone the parcel at this time. 4. North Fork Environmental Council: The existing 36 motel units are presently located on Parcel 1 consisting of 2.1 acres. The normal allowable density for this parcel, however, would be 14.5 units. If the three parcels are not merged, is the Beachcomber Rev. 1-1, 9/7/96 page t3 [c:rnsoffice.'winword:gsassocs:beachli:9~ Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants ,~ Beachcomber Motel II DI~ Applicant's Response to Comments for FEIS Preparation complex, in effect, getting an extra 20 units? In other words, should public water later become available and/or further down the road yet another expansion is planned for parcel 2 or parcel 3, would parcel one's 36 units be factored into the whole picture? 55. Applicant's response: The development potential of the combined properties would double if public water is brought into the site. This would increase the allowable sanitary flow from 14,425 gpd to 25,950 gpd. Further development could take the form of additional motel units in the RR zoned portion of the property and/or single family residences in the AC zoned area. It should also be noted that construction of a sewage treatment plant would eliminate the density constraints placed on this property by the SCDHS. Site density would then be limited by requirements such as Town zoning, parking, site conditions, etc. Approval to construct a sewage treatment plant would be required by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works. 5. North Fork Environmental Council: What safeguards are there ensuring that Beachcomber will remain seasonal? What is the Town's definition of seasonal? 56. Applicant's response: The Applicant intends to keep the business as a seasonal business (May 1st to October 1st). The Town's zoning code does not include seasonal in their definitions. However the definition for Hotel or Motel, Resort is: · A building or group of buildings, whether detached or in connected units, containing individual guest units consisting of a room arranged or designed to be available for use as sleeping quarters for transients on a daily rental basis or for vacationers or other persons on a weekly rental basis, provided that one (1) such unit may connect directly with not more than one (1) other such unit. Each unit shall have a door opening on the exterior of the building or on a common hallway leading to the exterior. A 'resort motel' may include such accessory uses as a beach cabana, pdvate dock, dining room, restaurant or swimming pool, conference and meeting facilities or an accessory convenience shop, office or personal service facility, provided that such facility or shop is located within the building without any external sign or display and off-street parking facilities. The term 'resort motel' shall not be construed to include 'transient motel' or 'mobile home pad(.' 6. North Fork Environmental Council: In 1978 the Planning Board supported a change of zone on Parcel 2 so that Mr. Aliano could "move the motel and facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion. As per Chapter 37 of Town Law, shouldn't Southold see to it that this move of the existing motel be included in the Beachcomber project and thus accounted for in the DEIS? 57. Applicant's response: see Applicant's response # 27. VI. Kip Bidell - Duck Pond Road - April 8, and April 29 1996 Planninq Board Meetinqs 1. Comments of Kip Bidell to the Planning Board April 8, 1996: Surprised with how much traffic is on Duck Pond Road. There really are not a lot of cars usually at the Beachcomber Motel, but certainly it does increase the traffic in the summer time when there are people there and also people that use the beach, there are fishermen that use the beach. Dead end - traffic there - not a lot of people in the motel, fishermen use the Rev. 1-1.9/7/96 page 14 [c:msoffice:winword:gsassocs:beachil:96-005] Glenn Spetta Associates Environmental Consultants Beachcomber Motel II DII~I Applicant's Response to Comments for FEIS Preparation beach. There is already too much traffic on the read, a cat was killed in front of his house. Traffic concerns. 2. Comments of Kip Bidell at April 29, 1996 Planning Board Meeting: I feel that this project is going to create far too much traffic on a dead end residential road and I think that there should be a private read that runs up to this motel and by-pass Duck Pond Road altogether. 57. Applicant's response: See Applicant's response #'s 3 3. Comments of Kip Bidell at Apdl 29, 1996 Planning Board Meeting: Does the Applicant own property all the way to Oregon Road? 58. Applicant's response: Yes, lot # 1000-0823-2-17 fronts Oregon Road. VII. Rich Spellman - Duck Pond Road I. Comments from Rich Spellman Apdl 8, 1996 and Apdl 29 Planning Board Meetings: Business perspective, business concerns - How does the Applicant justify creating 46 units to a business that on face value does not seem to have more than 10% of the units at any given time filled? There are about 40 units there now and the Applicant intends to add another 46, so he's doubling the size of the units. Is there a hidden agenda? Not more than 25% of those units are rented during the summer time. VVhy does the Applicant need 46 more units? 59. Applicant's response: The Applicant knows how successful the Beachcomber Motel has been in the past and would like to continue with this success. The Applicant wants to realize the full development potential of the property and eventually pass this on to his family. He has been trying to expand the motel since 1978 so this is not a new idea and there is no hidden agenda. 2. Comments from Rich Spellman Apdl 6, 1996 Planning Board Meeting: If the Applicant is required to move motel units back, why didn't they consider that before the move? He is concerned about erosion of units. 60. Applicant's response: The Applicant is also concerned about the erosion of units. However, at this point in time they are still viable economic units and will not be removed. However, the site plan will be revised to show where they will be relocated. Please see Applicant's response # 27. 3. Comments from Rich Spellman Apdl 8, 1996 Planning Board Meeting: The place looks like a flea bag motel, place has deteriorated over the past seven years. 61. Applicant's response: That Applicant disagrees with Mr. Spellman and has maintained the Beachcomber Motel in an excellent condition. He employs several people to perform upkeep and maintenance on the facility. VVhen the expansion occurs more people will be employed to assist with landscaping and maintenance of the facility. Rev. 1-1, 9/7/96 page t5 [c:msoffice:wlnw~d:gsassocs:beach~:96-O05] Glenn Spetta Associates Beachcomber Motel II Environmental Consultants Applicant's Response to Comments for FEIS Preparation 4. Comments from Mr. Spellman in .May 7, 1996 Letter to the Planning Board: Concerned about possible negative impact on the limited water supply. How is the location of the wells determined? Is the location based upon expected usage? If so, what happens if the usage were to change to say a Time Share or a Condominium? How are property owners in the area protected? Change from a Motel unit type of setup to a Time Share or Condominium type of setup. 62. Applicant's response: The location of the wells is selected to meet with Suffolk County Department of Health requirements. Volumes of water used are factored into where the wells will be located and are evaluated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in addition to the SCDHS. See Applicant's responses # 25 and 55. 5. Comments from Mr. Spellman in .May 7, 1996 Letter to the Planning Board: Is the owner willing to stipulate that he has no intentions of changing this property from a seasonal to a year round usage? 63. Applicant's response: The owner has based all of the calculations for usage and impacts to groundwater on a seasonal basis. Any change in usage from seasonal to year round would require additional studies and approval by appropriate regulatory agencies. 6. Comments from Mr. Spellman in .May 7, 1996 Letterto the Planning Board: He feels that Mr. Aliano should be required to follow up on his last expansion and fulfill his commitments to the board. Request that Mr. Aliano be directed to fulfill his current commitments before any new plans be considered. 64. Applicant's response: See Applicant's response # 27 -. VIII. Town of Southold Plannin,q Board Comments A. April 29, 1996 Planning Board Meeting/Public Hearing I. Comments of Planning Board - Aprfl 29, 1996 Public Headng: The Applicant when he got a zone change, requested the zone change to move the existing motel back because the shoreline conditions kept undermining the motel and the whole rationale for giving the zone change was to move the existing motel back so it would be out of the tidal and wave action along the shoreline. This alternative must be addressed in the SEQRA review. .. 65. Applicant's response: See Applicant's response # 27 2. Comments of Planning Board - Apdl 29, 1996 Public Headng: The Board cannot understand how this project can be done as three separate holdings. They cannot approve it until its under one ownership or one common ownership. 66. Applicant's response: See Applicant's responses # 52 and 53. Rev. 1-1, 9/7/96 page [c:msoffice.'winword:gsassocs:beachll:96-005] Glenn Spetta Associates Beachcomber Motel II Environmental Consultants Applicant's Response to Comments for FEIS Preparation 3. Comments of Planning Board in May 29, 1996 Letter to Glenn Spetta Associates: The Board cannot agree to issue a negative declaration in return for agreement to merge properties. 67. Applicant's response: The Applicant is willing to merge the properties and will agree to this in Covenants and Restrictions pending the approval of the proposed project. 4. Comments of Planning Board in May 29, 1996 Letter to Glenn Spetta Associates: The Board will require an area be designated on the plan for the future location of the existing motel as it is presently located in the flood plain, and as you indicate in your letter, there is potential for future loss due to beach erosion. The record of the original zone change, copy attached, clearly shows it was Mr. Aliano's and the Town Board's intention to relocate the motel away from the beach due to the severe beach erosion taking place. 68. Applicant's response: The Applicant is willing to designate on the plan the future area of where the existing Motel units would be located should current circumstances with regard to beach erosion change that necessitate the closure of units of the existing Beachcomber Motel. The Applicant is willing to place this in Covenants and Restrictions with regard to the proposed project. Rev. 1-1, 9/7/96 page 17 [c:msofflce:wlrtword:gsassocs:beachH:96-00~ ATTACHMENT 1' Suffol!: County Dep~rtment of Plannin? fh Lee D~nniaon E:mcutive Office Dt,t!4inS Veterans ~em~ria! !~i-hway '~iauppauca, ~!~ York Town of Southold Planning Board Petit!char Nicholas Aliano& Patricia Krups · o..i.. %trion: ~: 'un. Pile "A" Residential & Agricultural t "M-i" General Multiple Residence 238 District. C~nt le..~n: Please be advised that pursuant to Sections 13!3 to 1332 of the Suffolk County ~arter, the above captione~ application will ~ot be reviewed because of noncompliance with requ!za.~.~nts for notice an4 maps as stipulate~ in Infor~a~ional Bulletin ~o. C of the Suffolh County Plannin? Commission. followinc information[.~ll only be accepte4 ,]pon subs~ssion through ~he of.- rices of the m=nicipal referrin~ afency~ Please provide the following: (1) Recommendations of the Town Planning Bd. including any and all conditions established; ~Z) Preliminary site plan indicating intended use of the premises; (3) Map of adjoining premises of Beachcomber Motel indicat{~g: acreage; numOer ot motel guest units; seat- ing capacity of restaurant; number of parking spaces and available recre- ational ~acilities; and (4) explanatory intormation as to "...plan tor future growth as required...". Thank you. Very truly yours~ Lee ~. Xopp~lman Director of Plannin? by-- 'J : - ""-,.: GeralZ G, ~'!e[,r~an ' ~hie f Pla~ner C,G"I: Jk ATTACHMENT 2 Februaz-! 2, 1978 -- I,Ir. Gerald Newman Suffolk County Planning Department Veterans Memorial Highway Hauopauge, New York 11787 Dear Mr. Newman: , Pursuant to Sections 1323'to 1532 of the Suffolk County Charter, the Planning Board of the'Town of Southold hereby refers the " following proposed' zoning action to the Suffolk County Planning Amendment of zoning map e of .Zone) -- . ...... Location of .affeCted'land - Duck. Pond Road'," Cutcho~ue: ' : .! ..... Comments - the Planning Board re~6~ends apDrovat of--the-.petition 'in'view'of ~-he-.--fact..that .it_is apparent that the petitioner must move the motel and facilities back 'from the' Sound.as a result .of "substantial-toss--or-.beach. through..eTosion. The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance~'with'-~che--development plan of the Town of Southold for this.location. Mr. Aliano has requested as early a decisi~ as possible because of the approaching resort season.. ,- , Yo~st~ly, l~uriel Brush, Secretar~ Southold~ Town Planning Board ATTACHMENT 3 February 10," 1978 :.~r. Gerald Newsman Suffolk County Planning Deoartment Veterans Memorial HighwayI Hau.opau'ge; L~ew York-.l1787. ~' Dear Mr. New, man: .. "Pursuant to conversation this morning with Mr. Altano, the following is the resolution passed by the Southold To%~n Planning Board as regards his change of zone. petition. " RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board apDroval of the petition of Nicholas Alian'o and Patricia Krupski, Case #258, for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District' to "M-l" General ~,~ltiple Residence District on property, located at: Cutchogue, New York, .in view of the fact that ,it is apparent that the petitioner must move the motel and faci'lities back from the .... Sound as a result of substantial, loss of beach .through erosion.· The type of recreational use asked for is' completely in accordance with the development plan of the Tow~ of' Southold for this location. · .. ~,.~ ..~ ....~ ~.~. ~."~. ~ ~,~ · , · . ' Yours truly Muriel Brush, Secretary Southold To,~ Planning Board ATTACHMENT 4 Februa~t 15, 1978 Mr. Nicholas Aliano Box 263, Ashley Lane Shoreham, New York 11786 Dear ~.~. Aliano: I am enclosing correspondence which I received from the Suffolk County Department of Planning." I telephoned Mr. Ne~eman about this~and he indicated that there was not necessarily'a problem but that they would like the additional information. Items I and 2 will be taken care of from this office. '"' You should' ~rePa~e items 3 and ~ and Submit ito this office, i will in turn submit same to' the County. ' . '~. : '"~'.,: ..."i~i'"~.j..:"~ ·" '~ '" "' .......... Yours ~ .... :": "~' ~ ' Muriel'Brush,'Secretary Southold Town Planning Board Tel, 734-G370 744-~448 ATTAC. HMEN"[ Resort Iv~otel Er J~estauront P. O. BOX 917, DEPOT LANE CUTCHOGUE, N. Y. 11955 Re: File ~238 Questions by Nr. Newman lo 2. 3. our beach front. ~otel units danger of belng wiped out. (CONT. NEXT PAGE) are thereby in eminent Has been forwarded to Mr. Newman A preliminary site plan not prepared (a) current M-1 Zoning is 6 Acres (b) Current number of Motel Gues Units is 36 (c) Seating Capacity of restaurant is 50 (d) Number of parking spaces is ?0 (e) Current recreational Facilities are: a 26' x 58' outdoor pool with diving board (9~' deep) a childrens wading pool 16' wide x 3' deep a chlldrens swings & sand box area a basketball court 22' x 2~' 5 dressing rooms and utility room 22' x 70' We have outgrown our present facilities we turn away hundreds of people every summer - We are highly rated by Mobil Travel Guide, we accomodate people who are sent to us by the Greenport Chamber of Commerce - also Local peoples Friends and Relatives, .Church Groups and retirement Groups in addition to our regular following of family vacationers. This need for expansion'is compounded by the erosion of Tel. 734o$~70 744o1448 Resort Motel & Restaurant P, O. BOX 917. DEPOT LANE CUTGHOGUE. N. Yo 11935 Cont. from ?age We are a summer resort open May 1st to Oct. 1st a~d immediate plans are to Landscape, seed and build a golf course in the center of the planned new construction which units would compliment tennis courts, playgrounds etc. Time is of the essense if I am to at least grade and landscape for May 1st opening and to sensibly plan for new units for necessary expansion to handle current business in addition to the immediate erosion crisis - Action is required NO~W time is running out. Respectively, ATTACHMENT February 25, 1978 ~. Gerald G. Newman, Chief Planner Suffolk County Dept. of Planning Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 Dear Mr. Newman: ~ In reference to your file #238 in the matter of the petition o~.~l'cholas Aliano and Pata~cia .W~uDski, I supply - '-.~" the following information as per your request. ~. . 1. Th~'..n~commendations of the To%~n PlanninE Board been submitted previously. There were no conditions established. Ansrthing permitted in the Code of the Town of Southold for that zoning section is recommended to beallowed by the Board. 2.-'-The Town bf"Southold does not require a. Site plan until such time ~'$,..~c~e changeof zone is granted,"~and the petitio~er-~ ready to'proceed with the project. The site plan is also governed by the Code. '~.' ~. and 4. These items have beensupplied by Mr. Aliano and are attached hereto. '',' Yours t~uly, MurielBrush; Secretary Southold Town Planning Board HENRY E. RAYNOR PO BOX 1459 320 LOVE LANE MATTITUCK, N.Y. 11952 516-298-8420 516-298 2127 (FAX) AUG. 16, 1996 TO: SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 RE: BEACHCOMBER MOTEL SITE PLAN DEAR MR. WARD: WE ARE PREPARING ANSWERS TO THE PLANNING BOARD'S REQUEST FOR RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPLICATION. THE COMMENTS AND ANSWERS WiLL BE FORTHCOMING WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS. WE SO ADVISE THE PLANNING BOARD, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SEQRA PROCEDURE. YOURS TRULY, AGENT FOR BEACHCOMBER MOTEL AUG I RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 3, 1996 Charles Voorhis & Associates. Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 North Country Road, Suite 2 Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Beachcomber II Motel Cutchogue, NY SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Voorhis, The Planning Board received the attached correspondence from Steven C. Resler. I had previously mentioned the retaining wall at the Beachcomber Motel as not having a original permit from the DEC and also that it could not have been grandfathered. Steve indicated that the DEC routinely issues "repair" permits and declares it a type II action, thus not requiring a coordinated review. As part of our enviormental review, this issue of a retaining wall placed without a DEC permit should be addressed. Steve felt the enclosed correspondence would shed further light on this subject. '~oeert ~. Kassner Site Plan Reviewer Encl. ALeXANDeR F. TREA~WELl SECRETARY Of STATE STATE Of NEW YOrK DEPARTMENT Of STATE AlbaNY. NY 12231-OOO1 May 24, 1996 Mr. Robert Kassner Planning Department Town of Southold Town Hall Main Street Southold, New York 11971 Dear As promised, a copy of the materials that we discussed this afternoon is enclosed. The policy analysis is germain to similar activities in or adjacent to designated Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas and their associated natural protective feature areas on Long Island. If you have any questions or need any additional information or assistance regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to call me at (518) 474-6000. SCR/bms encl: CC: S. Resler prefiled testimony Steve R.idler, Local Programs Sincerely, Steven C. Resler Supervisor of Consistency Review Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitali?ation Pref'ded Testimony for Steven Resler State your full name. Steven C. Resler State your business address. 162 Washington Avenue Albany, NY 12231-0001 Who is your current employer? New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitali?aflon What is your present job fl0e? Consistency Review Supervisor, Consistency Review and Analysis Bureau How long have you held this position? Since July 1, 1994. From January 21, 1988 until July 1, 1994, I was a Coastal Resources Specialist assigned to the Local and Regional Programs Bureau of the Division. Exptainyour current duties. I am a member of the staff of the Depactment of State's Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitali?ation. Under the Direction of the Secretary of State, staff in the Division axe responsible for the administration of the State's Coastal Management Program (CMP). From January, 1988 until being appointed to my present position, my primary duties included the implementation of the State CMP through the development and implementation of local waterfront revitaliTation programs and regional coastal management programs in the Long Island/Long Island Sound region. These duties included: developing guidance on comprehensive development and resource protection policies and providing technical assistance on comprehensive land, water and resource management plans and~l~rograms in the coastal axes; advising local, State and federal agencies of the consistency of their actions with adopted and approved local, State and federal regulatory and management programs and policies; and providing a broad range of advice and technical assistance when necessar~ to the Division's Bureaus of Consistency Review and Local and Regional Programs, other government agencies, and the public. I also worked with and provide program advice or assistance to DOS staff, other state and federal agencies, municipal/ties and the general public in the Hudson River and Great Lakes/St. Lawrence regions. In my present position, I am responsible for the Statewide supervision of the review of federal and State activities ia the coastal area for consistency with the State's CMP. When necessary, I represent the Department of State, the Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitali?ation, and on occasion the Secretaxy of State regarding matters relating to the Coastal Management Program. Other duties have been assigned when necessary, such as providing background material, technical assistance, policy guidance, and assistance as staff to the Natural Resources Management and Water Quality Committee of the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Resources. I am actively involved in most Coastal Management Program activities. Your resume indicates you have a background in specialties relevant to coastal issues. Can you expand on those specialties? As a Coasm. l Resources Specialist, I specialize in the development of comprehensive coastal management programs, providing guidance in the interpretation of policies and purposes of coastal management programs, and identifying and developing techniques that implement those programs, including the drafting of state and local legislation in conjunction with DOS legal staff, and the identification of physical projects or other management techniques to address the full range of issues in coastal areas. I have a broad range of general knowledge regarding coastal resources and issues affecting the coastal area, and specialized knowledge of physical coastal processes, biological resources in the coastal area, governmental regulatory authorities and jurisdictions in the coastal area at all levels of government and between agencies within levels of government, and an understanding of case law decisions relating to management of the coast. In my present position, I specialize in and supervise the implementation of the CM~P through the review of federal and Share activities for consistency with the coastal policies of the CIVlP. Your resume also indicates you have a specjaliTed understanding of, comment on, and provide gu/dance on the Coned Policies - Can you tell us how the policies were developed? The New York State Coastal Management Program was developed pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 and was approved by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce on September 30, 1982. The ~ is described in a document entitled "State of New York C~astal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement". The document was the culmination of years of local, state and federal government efforts, as well as those of groups representing civic, environmental, developmental and other interests (letter dated August 13, 1982 from Basil A. Patterson, Secretary of State to William Matuszeski, Ass'~ant Admlni~trator, Office of Coastal Zone Management, U.S. Department of Commerce). 2 ~The principal function of the CMP is to provide a framework for government decision making in the coastal area. The program contains forty-four policies with which federal and state agencies must adhere and which serve as a reference for local government actions in the coastal area (CMl' 1-3). The coastal policy statements and their attendant explanations and guidelines provide the objectives and standards for the program. The CZMA requires that state program policies be enforceable under existing state law. In 1981, the State Legislature enacted the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act (Article 42 of the Executive Law, the "Waterfront Act") to implement the CZMA at the state level (~a~utive Law Article 42, added by Chapters 840 and 841~ Laws of 1981). The Act functions to coordinate policy and planning for the wise use and protection of the State's coastal resources (Executive Law 910). In that statute, the State Legislature recognized that the state's coastal areas were increasingly subject to the pressures of population growth and economic development, including the demands of industry, commerce, residential development, recreation and energy production. These competing demands have resulted in the loss of living marine resources and wildlife, diminution of open space areas, shoreline erosion, permanent adverse changes to ecological systems and a loss of ~conomic opportunities (Executive Law 910). Article 42 seeks to insure "the proper balance between natural resources and the need to accommodate the needs of population growth and development" (Executive Law 910). The Act and its implementing regulations contain many of the State's coastal policies. New York's policies are enforceable through the Waterfront Act (Executive Law Article 42) and other existing state laws pertaining to environmental protection, development and energy facilities (see authorities listed in CMP section II, following each policy explanation; CMP, Vol-me [B. The Coastal Area policies applicable to State agencies are codified in Section 912 of Article 42 of the Executive Law and its implementing regulations contained in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5. The CMP POlicies are gx-ouped into ten calegories that address: 1) Development; 2) Fish and Wildlife; 3) Floodln~ and ~zosion; %) Public Access; 5) Recreation; 6) Historic Resources; 7) Visual Q.a!ity; 8) Agricultural Lauds; 9) Energy and Ice Management; and 10) Water and Air Resources. They ~vem developed after an oxhaustive analysis of the full range iof federal and sta~ tugulat0ry and deciaion-making standards contained in statutes, nli~, regulations, and case law that affect the coastal area. The State's Coastal Management Program coutaias 44 explicit policy statements and explanations in the State's federally approved Coastal Management Program document. These policies are explicit statements of existing state po[icy in the coastal area of the state. So, would it be con-ect, to state that some of the policies and their explanations are reiterated in EnvironmenUal Conservation Law Articles 25 and 34 and existing regulations in 6 NYCRR Parts 505 and 6617 Yes. The'flooding and erosion policies conta~,~ed ia 19 NYCRR Part 600.5(g) and policies 1t tire,ugh 17 of the Coastal Management Program document axe codified 10. Il. primarily in katiele 34 of the ECL and its implementing regulations in 6 NYCRR Part 505, and through Article 42 of the Executive Law: Policies 7 and 44 in the CMP document and portions of the fish and wildlife pol/cies in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5('0) are derived in part from Articles 15, 24 and 25 of the ECL and their implementing regulations, and from Section 912 of the Executive Law. What was the purpose for the development of the policies? As del'reed in the CZMA,$~&,~State Coastal Management Program includes policies to guide public and private decisions in the coastal area (CZMA section 304.(12)). It is a requirement of the C22VlA that a CMP include enforceable policies to guide these decisions (the term "enforceable policy" means State policies which are legally binding through constitutional provisions, laws, regulations, land use plans, ordinances, or judicial or administrative decisions, by which a State ~xerts control over private and public land and water uses and natural resources in the coastal zone). The policies were developed to provide clear and explicit statements of federal and state policy in the coastal ama that am to be used in government decision-mak/ng. How does the review process under the State Coastal Policies work? The review process is called the "consistency review process". Th~ ~cy review* process for State actions is outlined in 19 NYCRR Parts 600.3 and 600.4~ Article 42 of the Executive Law requires state agency actions within the coastal area to be undertaken in a manner that is consistent with the State's coastal area policies. Land development and related activities in New York's coastal area which involve state agency direct action or funding, or requiring state permits for actions involving an ElS under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) must be consistent with the coastal area policies in Art/cie 42. No State agency involved in an action, as the term is defined in 6 NYCRR Part 617.2, shall carry out, fund, or approve the action until the agency has complied with the provisions of Article 42 of the Executive Law and implementing regulations contained in 19 NYCRR Part 600. Article 42 and its implementing regulations in Part 600 require certain state agency actions to be consistent with the coastal policies. 19 NYCRR Part 600.4 describes how certain State agency actions are to be reviewed in the coastal area. A~ soon a~ an agency determines that its action is being contemplated in the coastal area, th~ ,agency is required to complete a Coastal Assessment Form (CAF). The CAF is rdiiaired to be completed prior to the agency's determination of sigffificance putmmnt to SEQR. This is to assist the agency in making its determination of consistency, and in making a determination of significance pursuant to SEQR. Information requested on the CAF generally pertains to whether a proposed action may have a significant effect on the use of coastal shorelands or underwater lands, 4 12. 13. 14. recreational opportunities, coastal flooding or erosion, public access or visual quality, commercial or recreational fishing, historic or archeological features, existing water- dependent uses or special management areas. Reference should be made to the CMP when completing the form. ff any question on the CAF is answered "yes", a brief and concise description of the nature and extent of the action must be provided. The completion of a CAF is required to evaluate the consistency of state agency actions Lq the coastal area. The CAF also supplements other information used by that agency in making a determination of the environmental significance of the action; For state agency actions, are State Coastal Policies automatically a part of the project review when a positive declaration is issued and an ElS is prepared pursuant to SEQRA?. Yes. Whe~ a positive declaration is made and an EIS is pxepared pursuant to SEQRA, the ~a_to agency is requLred to comply with the applicable consistency requirements of the SEQRA regulations. Procedurally, during the initial review of an action under SEQRA, state agencies axe required to determine whether the action is located in the coastal area (6 NYCRR 617.5(d)). If it is and the action is a Type I or unlisted action, the agency is directed to the Department of State's regulations (19 NYCRR 600), which require an evaluation of possible impacts on coastal policies. This provision applies to all state agencies, whether acting as lead or involved agency (6 NYCRR 617.5(d)). If a positive declaration has been made and an EIS will be required, the draft EIS must contain an identification of the applicable state coastal policies and a discussion of the effects of the proposed action on and consistency with such policies (6 NYCRR 617.14(f)(10)(i). The SEQRA regulations provide that no state agency shall make a final decision on the action until it has made a written finding that it is consistent with the coastal policies set forth in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5 (6 NYCRR 617.9(e)). Is it part of your job duties to advise government entities on issues of coastal development? Yes. Part of my duties include assisting the Secreta~ of State in carrying out the duty of advising state agencies on matters pertaining to coastal policy and the CMP, and making recommendations on federal and state legislation relating to coastal resources issues. Do you also provide adviee and comment on Local Waterfront Revitali?ation Programs CLWRPs) as components of the CMP? Yes. 5 16. 17. Is it part of your job-related duties to evaluate whether proposed projects in coastal areas comply with the State Coastal Policies? Yes. I also supervise the Division's Consistency Review Review staff and their review and evaluation of federal agency actions within or affecting the New York coastal area for consistency with the CM~. I also advise other state agencies in their consistency review of actions to assure that they are acting consistently with the State's approved coastal management program or with an LWRP. While non-binding, these opinions generally carry substantial weight and agencies generally defer to the Department of State's expertise when a proposed project requires federal and state action, both of which are subject to consistency review. This relationship was discussed by the DEC administrative Law Judge in In re Xanadu. Properties Associates (DEC AI.J Interim Decision, September 10, 1990) p.5: "The Applicant is correct that the DOS and DEC reviews are separate and that under state law, implemented by 6 NYCRR 617.9(e), the DEC must certify to the project's consistency with the policies set forth in the Executive Law, Article 42. ltowever, consistency with those policies is an area clearly within the primary expertise of the DOS... This Department, while not necessarily hound by [DOS's] determination, ordinarily will defer to the DOS in matters of coastal policy consistency-especially in a case as this where due to federal jurisdiction the DOS is itself an involved agency which must explicitly evaluate the Project instead of merely advising sister state agencies." AJ_J's decision afl'u-mod by DEC Comminsioner Interim Decision, October 15, 1990). As part of your duties, do you also make determinations about proposed projects in coastal areas with regard to the public trust doctrine? In the normal course of my duties, I review and supervise the review of many projects and agency actions for their effects on public txust lands, waters and other resources and public trust rights and interests in these resources. The results of these reviews are incorporated in the review of projects and actions for consistency with the coastal policies and the CM~. As used in, and relevant to, your position and duties, what is your understanding of the public trust doctrine? I will summarize my und~,rstanding of the doctrine as briefly as possible, and limit it to its relation to the Atlantic Ocean shoreline on the south shore of Long Island. There is much more to the doctrine than that which I will describe. My description will only cover a very basic description of where the doctrine is applicable, and a summary of some basic public trust rights. 6 The Public Trust Doctrine is embodied in statutory and common law in New York. The Doctrine provides that lands under water and foreshore lands (lands subject to the ebb and flow of the tides) are held by the State as sovereign in trust for the people who have certain fights in these lands. When the foreshore is covered by the tides, the public may use the water covering the foreshore and underwater lands for boating, bathing, fishing, recreation and other lawful purposes. When the tide is out, the public may pass and repass over the foreshore as a means of access to reach the water for these purposes, and may lounge and recline on foreshore lands. The Doctrine applies to the ocean, bays, coves, tidal flats, etc. which are navigable in fact or navigable in law. The title of the State to the seacoast, the shores of tidal rivers, and the underwater lands of these areas is different from a fee simple which an individual holds to an estate in lands. It is not a proprietary, but a sovereign right. A trust is engrafted upon this title for the benefit of the public. The State is powerless to divest itself of this trust. The title which the State holds, and the power of disposition, is'an incident and part of its sovereignty that can not be surrendered, alienated or delegated, except for some public purpose or use for the benefit of the public. PubLic fights in publicly owned foreshore and underwater lands are paramount to private rights. While the owners of adjacent uplands (littoral owners in tidally influenced areas) have a fight of access over public trust lands to reach the water and to reach their land from the water, this right can only be exercised in recognition of the greater public fights to the trust lands. Therefore, there should be no unnecessary obstruction and encroachment by a littoral owner to the detriment of the public's right of access over, and use of the foreshore and the waters above the trust lands. It is an important function and duty of the State to protect public trust lands against unreasonable and unnecessary obstruction and encroachment to the detriment of the public's rights. With the exception of projects undertaken in furtherance of the commerce of the State, littoral owners axe not entitled to any use of public trust lands that are inconsistent with the fight to obtain access for navigation or that unreasonably interfere with public fights under the. Public Trust Doctrine. The original purpose of the doctrine was to assure public access to navigable water for navigation, commerce, and fishing. The doctrine has changed over the years, so that today public trust uses include fishing, bathing, hunting, commercial and recreational navigation, swimming, strolling, or just being on the shoreline. One court's decision in New York stated: "When the tide is in [the~public] may use the water covering the foreshore for boating, bathing, fishing and othefflawful purposes; and when the tide is out, they may pass and repass over the foreshore as a means of access to reach the water for the same purposes and to lounge and recline thereon" (Tucci v. Salzhauer, 40 A.D.2d 712, 713, 336 N.Y.S.2d 721 (1972). 7 In another New York case, these fights spec/.fically included pushing a baby stroller along the foreshore. In a case in Suffolk County involving potential impairments to natural resources within a tidal fiver, a court found: "The entire ecological system supporting the waterways is an integral part of them and must necessarily be included within the trust" (People of the Town of Smithtown v. Poveromo, 71 Misc.2d 524, 532, 336 N.Y.S.2d 764 (1972) aff'u-med in part and reversed in part on other grounds 79 Misc.2d 42, 359 N.Y.S.2d 848 (1973). Given this very brief summary of some aspects of the doctrine, I can summarize by stating that with regard to the doctrine in the area that is the subject of this hearing, the doctrine clearly applies to the foreshore and underwater lands of the Atlantic Ocean below the mean high water line. There are important public trust fights and interests in and to these lands and the waters over them, and the public has the fight of access to and use of these lands and waters without interference from adjacent upland owners. These public trust fights and interests are part of the Public Trust Doctrine, and are incorporated in the ~ and the coastal policies, Are you familiar with the Atlantic Ocean shoreLine in the Town of Southampton. Yes. i9, How many times have you visited the area? Apprordmately 50 times. 20, When and for what purposes? Between 1969 and 1991, and again this year prior to this hearing. Most of those visits were for personal reasons, such as visiting friends or during family vacations. I also visited the area approximately three dozen times for work related reasons while employed by the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Department of State. 21, What are the current conditions in the area with regard to: Beach elevation Based upon my observalaons of the area and other information, including aerial photographs and maps, I concur with the description provided by the earlier testimony. F. xosion 8 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Based upon my knowledge and observations of the area, and my review of maps and aerial photographs of the area, I concur with the description provided by Mr. Anders. Are you familiar with the specific site? Yes. How many times have you visited it? Twice in the past 2 I/2 years. When, and for what purposes? In August, 1991 during a helicopter overflight to inspect, observe and photograph the shoreline to document changes over time for the DOS; and again this yea/prior to this hearing. What are the current conditions at the site with regard to: Beach elevation: I concur with the description provided by earlier testimony. Erosion: I concur with the description provided by Mr. Anders. Are you familiar with the project as it has been proposed? Yes. Have you reviewed the proposed plans? Yes. Based on your background of reviewing projects pursuant to the State Coastal Policies, in your opinion is the project as proposed consistent with the Policies? No. What State Coastal Polic~s is the proposed project inconsistent with? The action would be inconsistent with the declaration of policy in Executive Law Section 912.1, 912.5, and 912.9; the coastal policies relating to flooding and erosion in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5(g)(1), 600.5(g)(3), 600.5(g)(4), and 600.5(g)(5); and policies 12, 13, 9 30. 14, and 17 of the Coastal Management Program document. Why is the project inconsistent with policies # 12, 13, 14 and 177 TI~ propomd action is the issuance of a permit for an erosion protection structure withia a primary dune. 19 NYCRR Part 600.5(g)(4) and Policy 12 of the ~ document: The State coastal policy in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5(g)(4) states: "Activities or development in the coastal area will be undertaken so as to mirtimize, damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion by protecting natural pg~ective features, including beaches, du~es, barrier islands and bluffs. Primary dunes will be protected from all encroachments that could impair their natural protective capacity". This policy is restated in Policy 12 of the State's approved CMP. The explanation of policy for Policy 12 in the CMP document states: "Baac. hes~ dunes, barrier islands, bluffs, and other natural protective feamm~ help safeguant coastal lands and property from damag~ as well as reduce danger to human life, resulting from flooding and erosion. Excavation of coastal features, improperly designed su'uctures, inadequate site planning, or other similar actions which fail to recognize their fragile nature and high protective values, lead to the weakening or destruction of these landforms. Activities or development in, or in proximity to, natural protective features must ensure that all such adverse actions are minimized. Primary dunes will be protected from all encroachments that could impair the/r natural protective capacity". The proposed action is the issuance of a state permit to construct an erosion control structure within a state designated coastal erosion hazard area (see 6 NYCRR Part 505.2(0) for definition of erosion hazard area). The designated erosion hazard area is a natural protective feature area. A natural protective feature area is a land and/or water area containing natural protective features, the alteration of which might reduce or destroy the protection afforded other lands against erosion or high water, or lower the reserves of sand or other natural materials available to replenish storm losses through natural processes. All natural protective feature areas are designated as such on coastal erosion baTard area maps (see 6 NYCRR Part 505.2(z) for definition of natural protective feature area). The aaturit-protective feature area contains important natural protective features including a near, bore area, a portion of an ~ well,nd, a beach, and a primary dune (see 6 NYCRR Pan 505.2(7) for definition of natural protective feature). The functions and benefits of these natural protective features are described in 6 NYCRR 10 Pan 505.3 and m the explanation of policy in Policy 12 of the State's approved ClvII~. The explanation of policy for Policy 12 of the CMP provides the decision-making standards that are to be applied to the proposed action. The principal decision-making standard for Policy 12 states that primary dunes will be orotected from ail encroachments that could imp/dr theh- natural protective capacity. The policy statement and its explanation clearly state that the dune, a aamral protective feature, is to be protected for its,.t~ffi~s as a protective feature, and that the dune i~ to be ~ from all ~roaclanents that could impairshe dune's natural protective capacity. The explanation of policy also states that excavation of coastal features...or other actions which fail to recognize their fragile nature and hieh protective values, lead to the weakenine or destruction of these landforms. As Mr. Anders has testified, the construction of the proposed erosion control structure would most likely affect the natural coastal processes that the dune and the beach are dependent upon in order to exist and in order to function properly as natural protective features, resulting in an impairment of the natural protective capacity of the dune. These decision-making standards are repeated in 6 NYCRR Pan 505.6(b) and (c) and 505.8(d) of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area re~lafions. I should note that 6 NYCRR Part 505.8(d)(1) specifically prohibits the excavation of primary dunes, which would be necessary in order to construct the proposed structure, and Part 505.8(d)(8) does not allow erosion protection structures within primary dunes. The decision to approve the proposed permit would not be eon~i~ with the policy to~ minimi?-e damage to natural resources and propewj' from flooding and erosion bv pmtectin~ natural Vrcrax~ve features, includin~ beaches, dunes banier islands and bluffs, nor would it be consistent with the policy to protect the primary_ dune from all encroachments that could impair its natural protective capacity (emphasis added). 19 NYCRR Part 600.5(g)(3) and Policy 13 of the CMP doo~ment The State coastal policy in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5(g)(3) states: "The construction or reconstruction of erosion protection structures shall he undertaken only if they have a reasonable probability of controlling erosion for at least 30 years as demonstrated in design and construction standards and/or assured maintenance or replacement programs". The policy is repeated in~',Policy 13 of the CMP document. This policy applies to the structural integrity of erosion protection structures. It only applies after it has been determined that non-structural erosion control measures are not sufficient, and structural erosion protection measures are necessary. 11 The policy statement is clear. The policy standard only allows the construction of an erosion protection structure if it has a reasonable probability of controlling erosion for at least 30 years. As Mr. Anders has indica'ted, the proposed structure would most likely not be capable of withstanding the forces of a major Atlantic Ocean storm. Executive Law Section 912.5, 19 NYCRR Part 600.5(1) and Policy 17 of the CM~P document The legislative declaration of policy in Section 912.5 of the Executive Law states that it is the public policy of the State of New York to: "...minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion, including proper location of new land development, protection of beaches, dunes, barrier islands, bluffs and other critical coastal and inland waterway features and use of non~ ~ructuml measures, whenever nossible" (emptmsis added). Clearly, it is the legislative intent of the State of New York to use non-structural measures to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion, and to protect certain natural protective features that offer protection from flooding and erosion, such as beaches and dunes. This legislative dectaxation of policy is restated in the State coastal policy in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5(g)(1), which states: "Whenever possible, use non-structural measures to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion. Such measures shall include: (i) (a) (iv) the setback of buildings and a~eatres; the planting of vegetation and the installation of sand fencing and drainage systems; the reshaping of bluffs; and the flood-proofing of buildings or their elevation above the base flood level. Policy 17 in the CM~ document states: "Non-structural measures to minimize damage to natural resources alld property from flooding and erosion shall be used whenever possible". The explanation of policy for Policy 17 iden~es non-structural measures that are to be used to n~imlze damage to natural resources and property. These meaaures include:~ the use of setbaeka; ~the strengthening of coastal landforms by the planting of appropriate vegetation on dunes; the installation of sand fencing on dunes; the avoidance of risk or dama~,e by,the siting of buildings outside of the ha?ard area; ,and the flood-proo£mg of 12 buildings or their elevation above the base flood level. The explanation of policy also state~ that the policy shall apply to the planning, siting and design of proposed activities and development, includin~ measures to _orotect existin~ development (emphasis added}. The explanation further states: "To ascertain consistency with this policy, it must be determined if any one, or a combination of, non-structural measures would afford the degree of protection appropriate both to the chaxacter and punpose of the activity or development, and to the hazard. If non-structural measures are determined to offer sufficient protection, then consistency with the policy would require the use of such measures, whenever possible (emphasis added). The policy statement and its attendant explanation of policy make it clear that non- structural measures to minimize damage to natural resources and property are preferred over structural measures, and when non-structural measures offer a sufficient degree of protection, non-structural measures are required over structural measures. The legislative declaration of policy in Section 912.5 of the Executive Law also makes it clear that non- structural measures are to be used whenever possible. The non-structural measures identified in the policy statement and its explanation of policy could be used at this site. Ther~ore, non-structural measures are required to be used. I should also note that the decision-making standards contained in 6 NYCRR Part 505.6(a) requires the Commissioner to find that the issuance of an ECL Article 34 permit for the proposed structure "(a)...is reasonable and necessary, considering reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity and the extent to which the proposed activity requires a shoreline location". The proposed structure has not been demonstrated to be reasonable and necessary. As Mr. Anders has indicated; as ECL Article 34 and its implementing regulations indicate; as Executive Law Article 42, its implementing regulations, and the coastal management program policies indicate, the nearshore area, the beach, and the ex/sting primary dune all offer a very high degree of protection to the area and the residence landward of the dune. The residence is not in immediate danger from flooding and erosion hazards. Based on the foregoing, the decision to approve a permit for an erosion control structure as proposed would not be consistent with the policy and policy standard requiring the use of non-structural measures over structural measures whenever possible. 19 NYCRR Part 600.5(g)(5) and Policy 14 of the CMla document The State coastal policy in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5(g)(5) states: "Activities and development, including the construction or reconstruction of erosion protection su'uctures, shall be undertaken so that there will be no measurable increase in 13 erosion or flooding at the site of such activities or development or at other locations". Policy 14 in the CIVEP document restates this policy. The explanation of policy for Policy 14 states: "Erosion and flooding are processes which occur naturally. However, by his actions, man can increase the severity and adverse effects of those processes, causing damage to, or loss of property, and endangering of human lives. Those actions include: the use of erosion protection structures...". As ~vh'. )mders has testified, the construction of the proposed structure would most Likely result in increased erosion and flooding at this location and on adjacent areas. The result of construction of the structure, and the effects of the structure during a major storm, could be devastating at the site and at adjacent areas. Therefore, the decision to approve a permit for the proposed structure would be inconsistent with the policy to undertake activities so that there will be no measurable increase in erosion or flooding at the site or other locations. 31. Would it be possible to modify the permit to make it consistent with the Policies? This question is not applicable in determining the consistency of an action. A permit has not been issued for the project. In this instance, a determination of consistency must be made before a decision to issue, deny or modify a permit is made. 32. How? 33. This question is not applicable for the reason given in question 31. Suppose the "no-action" alternative were used at the site -- would that alternative be consistent with those State Coastal Policies that the proposed project is inconsistent with? Yes. 34. Why? Because the "no-action" alternative would not result in a state agency taking an action that would be inconsistent with the coastal policies. The agency's decision to take the "no-action" alternative, ie., to deny the permit or prohibit the proposed p}6]ect because appwval of the pwject as proposed would be inconsistent with the coastal policies, is consistent with the policy to protect natural protective features including beaches, dunes, and barrier islands. This alternative is also consistent with the Depa,mient's own regulations in 6 NYCRR Part 505, which prohibit the proposed project. In addition, state agencies are not required to approve or undertake 14 35. 36. 37. actions that their own regulations would prohibit in the f'trst place. If nourishing or increasing the dune itself was used as an alternative at the site, would that alternative be consistent with those State Coastal Policies that the proposed project is inconsistent with? Yes. If there is a demonstrated need to nourish, increase the size, or repair the dune in order for it to function properly as a natural protective feature, then that alternative would be consistent with the policies. Why? The le~slative declaration of policy contained in Sections 912.5 and 912.6 of the Executive Law, the flooding and erosion policies in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5(g)(1) and 600.5(g)(4), and Policy 17 of the CM~ document state the preference for protecting and restoring natural protective features such as dunes using nonstructural measures. Policy 17 states: "Non-structural measures to minimize damage to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion shall be used whenever possible." Nourishing the beach and dune, m-establishing vegetation, and other non-structural measures that do not adversely interfere with the processes of natural features can be used at this site. The policy statement requires the use of non-structural measures, including dune nourishment, reconstruction, or revegetation, whenever possible. The explanation of policy for policy 17 in the CM~ document states: "To ascertain consistency with tiffs policy, it must be determined if any one, or a combination of, non-structural measures would afford the degree of protection appropriate both to the character and purpose of the activity or development, and to the hazard. If non-structural measures are determined to offer SUfficient protection, then consistency with the policy would requke the use of such measures, whenever possible" (emphasis added). The decision to allow nourishment of the dune, if nourishment is necessary in order to strengthen its ability to function as a natural protective feature, would be a decision to allow a non-structural measure that is consistent with the policies, and would advance the policy to use dune nourishment as a non-structural measure whenever possible. If the proposed wall we~e~moved landward of the north side of the dune and built at an elevation of , would that alternative be consistent with those State Coastal Policies that the proposed project is inconsistent with? If that alternative is recommended by the Department, no. 15 38. 39. Why? I have to clarify one thing before providing the answer. If the wall had been proposed outside of the area regulated pursuant to Article 34, then a state permit to construct the wall would not be necessary, and a consistency determination would not be required. The applicant could have constructed a wall outside of DEC's regulatory jurisdiction without requiring a state permit. It might have been necessary for the applicant to obtain 'a local building permit to construct the wall. That application to the local government might or might not have required an EIS as part of the local review process, but since no state agency would be involved in the proposed action, a state agency consistency determination would not be necessary. However, in this case, an EIS has been prepared based on a proposal to conduct an activity regulated by a state agency, requiring a state agency permit, and requiring a state agency decision to approve, deny, recommend modifications to the proposal, or identify acceptable alternatives that would be consistent with the coastal policies. As Mr. Aaders indicated in his testimony, placing a wall in this area would still result in the erosion problems that the wall would have created il: it were built in the dune. The problems of scouring and erosion seaward of the wall would simply be delayed until a future date, and could very Likely create a problem that would otherwise not exist if the wall were not constructed. If a recommendation to move the structure is made by the Department, that recommended alternative would not be consistent with the objectives of the State's coastal policies. You've testified that in the course of your duties, you review and comment on projects and actions for their effects on the public trust doctrine or public trust lands and waters. In your opinion, if the project is built as proposed, would it comply with the public trust doctrine? I can make some observations regarding the proposal's possible long-term effects on public access to and use of the publicly owned foreshore and the water's edge. I can also identify coastal policies in the CMP that should be discussed in determining the consistency of the proposal with the State's coastal policies. As Ma'. Aaders indicated in his testimony, tim ~lstruction of a vertical structure on tha beach, in the dune, or immediately behind the dune could, during a single major storm~ or over a period of time, result in the loss of the beach and dune. If the beach and dune ia lost, the location of mean low water could move northward until it meets the proposed su'ucture, ff the lo~fi~.a of the mean low water line becomes coincident with the prop~oed strncture, the ~l~i]/ty of the public to walk along the foreshore and use the foreahore would be eIimlnated. Section 912.1 of the Executive Law states that it is the public policy of the state: 16 "To achieve a balance between economic development and preservation that will permit the beneficial use of coastaL..resources while preventing the los~ of Living marine resources and wildlife, diminution of open space areas or public access to the waterfront, shoreline erosion, knpalrmem of scenic beauty, or permanent adverse changes to ecological systems" (emphasis added). The legislative declaration of policy in Section 912.4 of the Executive Law states that it is the public policy of the State: "To encourage and facilitate public access for recreational purposes". Policy 19 of the CMP document states: "Protect, maintain, and increase the level and types of access to public water-related recreation resources and facilities". The explanation of policy for Policy 19 states that the following guidelines will be used in determining the consistency of a proposed action with the policy: "1. The existing access from adjacent or proximate public lands or facilities to public water-related recreation resources and facilities shall not be reduced, nor shall the possibility of increasing access in the furore from adjacent or proximate public lands or facilities to public water-related recreation resources and facilities be eliminated, unless in the latter case, estimates of future use of these resources and facilities are too low to justify maintaining or providing increased access". The explanation of terms in the policy explanation states that "access" is the "ability and right of the public to reach and use public coastal lands and waters". The explanation also states that "an elimination of the possibility of increasing public access in the future" includes, but is not limited to: "(3) Construction of private facilities which physically prevent the provision of convenient public access to public water-related recreation resources or facilities from public lands and facilities". if the construction of the proposed structure results in the loss of the intertidal area between the structure and mean low water, convenient public access to and water-related use of the underwater l~nds in the intertidal area would be eliminated, as would the possibility of increasing access in the future. The proposal would reduce existing access to and from publicly owned lands, and would not be consistent with the policy to protect ~nd maintain the level and type of access to public water-related recreation resources (the intertidal area) that currently exists at the site. 17 40. Policy 20 of the CMP document states: "Access to the publicly owned foreshore and to lands knmediately adjacent to the foreshore or the water's edge that are publicly owned shall be provided and it shall be provided in a manner compatible with adjoining uses". The explanation of policy states: "In coastal areas where there are little or no recreation facilities providing specific water- related recreational activities, access to the publicly owned lands of the coast at large should be provided for numerous activities and pursuits which require only minimal facilities for their enjoyment. Such access would provide for walking along a beach...Similar activities requiring access would include bicycling, birdwatehing, photography, nature study, beachcombing, fishing and hunting". The guidelines that are to be used in determining the consistency of a proposed action with the policy state: "1. Existing access from adjacent or proximate public lands...to existing public coastal lands and/or waters shall not be reduced, nor shall the possibility of increasing access in the future from adjacent or nearby public lands...to public coasta/lands and/or waters be eliminated, unless such actions are demonstrated to be of overriding regional or Statewide public benefit or, in the latter case, estimates of future use of these lands and waters are too low to justify maintaining or providing increased access". Part of the explanation of the term "an elimination of the possibility of increasing access in the future" is the same as the one provided above for Policy 19, which includes: "construction of private facilities which physically prevent the provision of convenient public access to public coastal lands and/or waters from public lands and facilities". As indicated earlier, if tl~ shoreline were to retreat up to the proposed sa'ucture, conveni~t public socks to the public lands and waters in front of the upland area would be eliminated because of the physical presence of the structure at the water's edge during~ high and low tid~. Tiffs would tm inconsistent with the public access policy. In my opinion, based on the foregoing, over the long term the proposal would not comply with the public trust doctrine. In your opinion, if, in"the alternative, the dune were nourished, increased and maintained, would it comply with the public trust doctrine? Yes. Public access to and use of the publicly owned foreshore would be maintained and protected. 18 41. 42. 43. In your opinion, if a cut-off wall was constructed north of the landward side of the dune at the subject site, would it comply with the public trust doctrine? It would not effect the doctrine immediately. Over the long term, it could reduce and eventually eliminate public access to and use of public trust lands and waters. In my opinion, that would not comply with the public trust doctrine. In your opinion, if the "no-action" alternative were used at the site, would it comply with the public trust doctrine? The "no-action" alternative would not impair public trust rights and interests in public trust lands and waters. That alternative would have no effect on the doctrine. What recommendations or alternatives do you have for this site which would be consistent with the State Coastal Policies and the public trust doctrine? My recommended alternatives are based on observations of the site, knowledge of the area, experiences with similar situations, and consistency with the State coastal policies. Th~r~ doea not appear to be a documented n~gd to construct an erosion protection structure al tl~ sit~. A functioning b~__cla and dune exist at the site. The dune is not impaired beyond its ability to function as a natural protective feature. If the ability of the dune to exist as a natural protective feature, and the processes that allow it to exist and function as a natural protective feature are unimpaired, I would recommend only that the planting of vegetation and the installation of sand fencing be used to augment natural processes between the dune and the beach. If the dune is functionally impaired and the coastal processes that allow it to function, such as the interchange of sand from the nearshore area to the beach, from the beach to the dune, and from the dune to the beach when necessary, then I would recommend renourishment of the dune and nourishment of the beach as well as revegatafion of the dune. These alternatives will provide protection for the residence under normal circumstances. I can not guarantee, nor do I believe any pemon can guarantee, that the residence would be protected during a major storm, with or without an erosion control structure. The residence is afforded a degree of protection by its location landward of vex-./effective natural protective features and a natural protective feature area designated by the Deparanent of Environmental Conservation. However, neither the existence of fully functioning natural protective features, nor erosion protection structures such as seawalls, revetments, bulkheads s~ similar structures can guarantee protect/on from a major Atlantic Ocean storm. The residence is protected by fully functioning natural protective features, but given its proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, it is st/Il at some level of risk from a major Atlantic Ocean storm. This risk would exist with or without an erosion protection structure between the residence and the ocean. In order to reduce the risk of damage to or loss of the residence from a major coastal storm, the best alternative at this 19 location would be a combination of non-structural alternatives. The lot has considerable depth on the north side. The most effective alternative, providing the residence with the highest level of protection possible without relocating it to another site, would be a combination of beach and dune nourishment and revegetation when necessary, the setback or relocation of the residence as far from the Adanfic Ocean as possible, and elevating the structure above the 100-year storm level. This alternative provides the State's preferred non-structural measures of minimizing damages to natural resources and property from flooding and erosion, and provides the highest level of protection possible for the residence. This alternative is consistent with and is identified in: Article 42 of the Executive Law and its implementing regulations in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5; the State's federally approved Coaatal Management Program; and Article 34 of the Environmental Conservation Law and its implementing regulations in 6 NYC1LR Part 505. 20 PLANNING BOARD l~EMBE~ RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATI4AM, JR. BENNETT OB. LOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 29, 1996 Louis A. Chiarella Regional Manager, Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection New York State Department of Enviormental Conservation Building 40 - SUNY Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 RE: Storm Damage Permit (#1-4738-00710/00001-0) Beachcomber Motel, Cutchogue, Ny SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Chiarella, The Planning Board has received your letter of June 23, 1995, in response to this Board's June 21, 1995, letter to Glenn Spetta Associates regarding the construction of a seawall at the above referenced property. In your letter you indicate that the sea wall is in full compliance with all regulations. The enclosed transcript of the Southold Town Board hearing of April 11, 1978, on Mr. Aliano's request for a zone change, (copy enclosed) clearly indicates that there was no sea wall as of the hearing date. Therefore, there is no preexisting grandfathered sea wall. This Board has pictures taken to show storm damage to the seaward side of the motel taken on January 8, 1993, that clearly shows the sidewalk on the beach, but no sea wall in existence on this date, yet you indicate in your letter that the "repair" was completed in May of 1993! The Board would appreciate receiving a copy of the original DEC permit for the sea wall. Incidently, a recent inspection by this Board on the "repaired" sea wall has shown it to have been damaged by a recent storm to the extent of it being undermined on the east side and cracked on the west side. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact this office. Chairman Charles Hamilton, Departmental of Environmental Conservation Charles Voorhis, Charles Voorhis and Associates Stephen Ressler, Department of State William Sharp, Department of State Southold Town Trustees Thomas Fisher, Senior Building Inspector Glen D. Spetta, Glen Spetta Associates New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40-SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Phone (516) 444-0295 Fax # (516) 444-0297 Michael D, Zagata Commissioner Mr. Richard Ward Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 June 23, 1995 Dear Mr. Ward: This responds to your June 13, 1995 letter to Glenn Spetta Associates which was copied to Charles Hamilton, regarding the construction of a seawall at the Beachcomber Motel. A field inspection conducted on June 21, 1995 and a search of Department records shows that a storm damage permit (//1-4738-00710/00001-0) was issued for the reconstruction of the damaged seawall/foundations on December 21, 1992. The wall was completed in May of 1993. Examination of the permit, existing site conditions and photos after the storm, shows that the reconstructed seawall and foundations are in full compliance. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to call me at the above number. Sincerely, Louis A. Chiarella Regional Manager, Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection CC: Charles Hamilton Pond Enterprises, 11 Ashley Ln., Shoreham, NY 11786 that I know of. Th-~annzng moa=u w=~ ~r .... MiR. ALZANO: I have already told the Planning Board what my intention was. I originally wanted to expand what I had. But since ! made application I am in danger of losing what I have, so it would wind up a 1-1 but I am not going to guarantee that all of a sudden that the sand is going to come back again, t plan to expand as needed. It is strictly a seasonal motel type of operation. I am only open in the summer. I don't get that winter business that breaks no the road. I am not going to deal with that problem, that is up on Oregon Road, no wheres near me. MR. BRL~N: Basically, what I was interested in was this expansion or whether it was primarly for the replacing of buildings .... M_R. ALIAN0: it is both, either, or. Time will expansion. I don't expect to expand right away, ~ha~ it can be done. ~.wR. BRIAN: Did you consider bu!kheading? // tell as far as the but ! want to know M~. ALIAN0: Yes, it would cost me $30,000. and there is no guarantee tha~ the bulkheading will stay, i don't have that strong a foo~ing it's a 22 year old building. So, if I out $30,000. into it and I can't get insurance on bulkheading, i called the flood control people about it, they will not insure bu!kheading. Rambo & the one from Greenport gave me prices of about $30,000. I would rather take ~hat $30,000. and put the building back and let thi.s building fall down. it is about ready to go now. MiR. BRIA~N: Is that what you have in mind, just letting the building fall do%~. I mean, you won't cart anything away? Mit. ALIAN0: Well, I don't have any choice in the matter. I own enough property in the surrounding area, i am certainly not going to have it dumped there. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHZA: Is there anyone else ~no would like to speak on the subject, in opposition to this application? BILL WILHELM: I would like to make a statement in opposition. Since I get the impression that the primary effort here is mo expand the facility. % have this personal opinion that i don't think it would be to the advantage of the community to have such a large enterprise down there. SUPERVISOR M&RTOCCHnk: is there anyone else who wishes mo speak in opposiaion ~o this application? (There was no response.) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSK/, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 29, 1996 Glenn Spetta Associates 1050 Smithtown Avenue Bohemia, NY 11716 RE: Beachcomber II Motel Cutchogue, NY SCTM# 1000-83-2-1,2 & 17 Dear Mr. Spetta, The Planning Board has received your letter of May 17, 1996. The Board cannot agree to issue a negative declaration in return for your agreement to merge the properties. Further, the Board will require an area be designated on the plan for the future location of the existing motel as it is presently located in the flood plain, and as you indicate in your letter, there is potential for future loss due to beach erosion. The record of the original zone change , copy attached, clearly shows it was Mr. Aliano's and the Town Boards intention to relocate the motel away from the beach due to the severe beach erosion taking place. The above comments should be addressed along with other issues brought up at the public hearing as part of your response for the FEIS. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. r y, ~/ Chairman Encls. cc: Charles J. Voorhis (3) PUBLIC HEARING ~ ~,,~ CHANCE OF ZONE APPL~_GA'rIDb! #238 - NICHOLAS A~LI~ ~_~ril 11, 1978 0 & .PATRICIA KRUPSKI NICIIOLAS ALIANO: I am Nick Aliano owner of the Beachcomber Motel which is the concern of this petition. ~at I would like. to do first of all is give you an idea of what the motel looked like. This is what the beach looked like prior to the last storm. (Mr. Aliano presented photographs.) And this is a pciture of what it looks like now. Originally, I had about 150 to 200 feet of beachfront.about 8 years ago. Since that time, especially this last winter, not only have I lost all of the beach, but I have lost some of the sidewalk and it is already eroding the building. I have had the local sand & gravel man dump about 10 truck loads of sand in to shore up against my buildinRs and sidawalk. I have a photo here to show that even that sand was washed away after the next storm. So there is no question, that I am in emminent danger of losing my whole business. I bought as'much property behind me and surrounding me that I could afford to move the location back. The local farmers in the area will attest that it nothing more than shrubs, sand, and scrub oak where I want to put the expansion or what have you, behind the motel. There is abont three-quarters of an acre of farmland that this involves. My intention is to put tennis courts and a golf course and situate the expansion along the perimeter of the cliff, it will be westerly. It is up to you gentlemen as to whether of not I stay in business. Without this expansion, I cannot stay in business. I think that my reputation of cleaning up the place, when I bought it 8 years ago it was a sore eye to the Community and I think anyone in town will tell you that what I have done here is a credit. So now, I am asking your consideration of this extension. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Is there a map? MR. ALIANO: The property west of me is owned by my family, that's across from Depot Lane. The property is east of me, my line is on the middle of a cliff, so that I couldn't do anything about that. The property south of me is owned by myself. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: This request that you are making for "M-I" zoning involves how much property? MR. ALIANO: It~'s about 9. acres. I have "M-i" zoning now, but of course that map shows before the beach ereoded and that's about 1% acre you can take out of there. Business has improved and I must have room for expansion anyway. Even if this had not happened, I have need for the tennis court and golf course. I have already put a swimming pool in. We are off the beaten-track too far away from everything, and you have to give people some- thing to do while they are at a motel on vacation. I think I bring a lot of business to the town. It's a family-run operation. Thereare ten people in my family and we run a motel and restaruant. This is a picture from the L.I. Traveler Mattituck Watchman. It shows the erosion and it also states that a matter or fact the Town Hall has a copy of the erosion situation. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: We have had a very bad winter along the Sound. MR. ALIANO: Yes, as I said, I put in 8-10 truckloads of sand and gravel mixture and that has ali. been washed away. I showed you PUBLIC IIEARING ',~,,- ( . April 11, 1978 CHANGE OF ZONE APPLzCAIION # 238 - NICIIOLAS'AL~I^NO & PATRICIA KRUPSKI the photographs of .before and after. It's all been washed away, and I can't Keep dol. ng this. JUSTICE b~RTIN SUTER: Was it your intention to move the building back? MR. ALIANO: No, I can't move tile building back. Originally, when I filed the application, my intention was to expand because the business had increased that much. But since this erosion it won't really be an expansion, it's just a question of re-building. JUSTICE SUTER: So what does that mean? You plan to re-build and phase this oht? MR. ALIANO: Yes that's correct to re-build and make it nice with the tennis court and gold course, the pool is already there. COUNCILMAN DRUM: On the bluff? MR. ALIANO: No, not on the bluff, it will have to be below or in the middle. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone have any is there something you are not clear about? to speak in behalf of the application? questions of Mr. Aliano, Does anyone else wisb LOUIS EDSON, Maple Lane, Southold: I have known Nick Alia-o for about 8 years when i~I was~ working back in MacDonmlds, we bad some business transactions.~ We have remained friends ever since. have seen some other project~ that he has done and done well. I saw this place wben he first took it over, it certainly wasn't anything very attractive. He has spent a lot of money and time down there and it shows. I think when people do this, it calls for some type of encouragement. The Town Board should encourage the growth of the Town. I reco~nend the approval of his application. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone of this application? (There was no response.) else wish to speak in behalf SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone wish to speak in opposition. JOHN & OLIVIA FEI.LINC~FR-I[1AR: I would like to ask you, where will tbe new buildings or additions be located? SUPERVISOR MARTOCCltIA: The Town Board is concerned with of zone, Tile Planning Board would be concerned with the etc. the change site plans, JOHN PELLINGER-IHAR: 1 have a map here. See, we are the neighbors to tile proposed 10 acre parcel. We would be concerned only if the motel is put up next to us. We wouId be concerned only if the motel would be extended next to t~s approximately east of us 2~ acres, 105 feet east of us and goes down f~60'. We are concerned about the February 2, 1978 Mr. Gerald Newman Suffolk County Planning Department Veterans Memorial Highway Hauopauge, llew York 11787 Dear Mr. N~wman:' . Pursuant to SectiOns 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the Planning Board of the Town of Southold hereby refers the following proposed zoning action to the Su£folk County Planning Amendment of ,zonin~if~ap '(~h~e Of ~one) Location of gf~e~ted la~d ~ Duck Pond ROa~ utch'o~ue wi~hin ee~ of Lon sland Sound Comments- the P~anning ~'~e~o~mends approval of..the-patition in'view'of~he..f~Ct.-that .it is apparent that the petitioner must move the motel end facilities back ~rom the'Sound.as a result.of "Substantial-toss--of, beach, through.?roston. The 'type of recreational use asked for is completely in acco~dan~ with"~he-.development plan of the Town o£ Southold for this ·location. ,Mr. Aliano has requested as early a decision as possible because of the approaching resort season.-: ~ Yours truly, Muriel Brush, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board February 10, 1978 ~'[r. Gerald Nevnnan Suffolk County Planning Deosrtment Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York .11787 Dear Mr. Newman: Pursuant to conversation this morning with Mr. Allano, the following is the resolution passed by the Southold Town Planning Board as regards his change of zone peti'hion. RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board approval of the petition of Nicholas Alianb and Patricia Krupski, Case #238, for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District''~ to "M-i" General Multiple Residence District on property located at Cutcho.gue, New York, .~in view of the fact that it is apparent that the petitioner must move the motel and facilities back from the ' '.. Sound ss a result of substantial,loss of beach through srosion.',.~', -. ~.' The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance with the development plan of the ToW~ of'Southold for this location. ~' :~: ~ '"'"" Yours truly Muriel Brush, Secretary Southold Town Planning Board `IOHN WI~KSAM. FRANK S. COYLE HENRY E. RAYNOR, ,Ir. FRED£RICK E. GORDON J A~%l£S WALL gout:hold, N.Y. 11971 T~LEPIIONi~I March 13, 1978 Southold Town Board Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Gen'~lemen: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board at a regular meeting held January 30, 1978. RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board approval of the petition of Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski, Case #238, for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District on property located at Cutchogue, New York, in view of the fact that it is apparent that the petitioner must move the motel and facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion. .The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance with the development plan of the Town of Southold for this location. Your s 'truly Tel. 734.63?0 744,J448 Resort Motel ~' Restaurant P. O. SOX g17, DEPOT LANE CUTCHOGUE, N. Y. 11935 Cont. from Page #1 We are a summer resort open May 1st to Oct. 1st ahd immediate plans are to Landscape, seed and build a golf course in the center of the planned new construction which units would compliment tennis courts, play,rounds etc. Time is of tbs essense if I sm to at least grade and landscape for May 1st opening and to sensibly plan for new units for necessary expansion to handle current business in addition to the immediate erosion crisis - Action is required NO__~W time is running out. Respectively, Henry Raynor P. O. Box 1459 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 May 28, 1996 southold Town Planning Board P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Proposed site plsn for Beachcomber Motel II SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17 Dear Sirs: As requested, please find enclosed copies of the return receipts for the mailing done to the adjacent property owners. Sincerely, Henry Raynor HR:mi Encs. I also wish to receive the following $~l{,Ces (for an exlm fes)l~l 1. i"] Addresese's Aedre~ 2. [] Restricted Dalive~ Consult postmaster for fee. · 0 3. ArlJde Addressed to: 4a A~cle Number tred [] Certified ~ [] Express Mall [] Insured -= [] RaumReceiptforl~lerchandise [] COD 5. Received By: (Print Name) 6. Sigl~ r e~l~ (A ddreese~ or Agen~t,~ (~ PS Form-'3~*l~l' De~em-"ber i99~~' ' [J .... 7. Dete ~e[h~e~y and fee is pald) Domestic Return Receipt SENDER: 3. Article Addressed to: 5.,Rflceive~lBy: (Print~,l,~me) i I 6.'Sig~e: (~ ~A~t) -- PS Fol~n ~811, Dec~mbe/1~94 I also wish to receive ~e following services (for an extra fee): 1. [] Addressee's Addre~ 2. r-I Restricted Delivery Consull poslmesfor for fee. 4a. Ar'dcJe Number 4b. Service Type I~eglstered [] Ce~fled [] Express Mall [] Insured I'l Retu~ Receipt for 7. De~, ot DeUv.~ 8. Addre~ee s r /f requested SENDER: Domestic Return Receipt I also wl~ fo receive the following ser,~ces (for an extra fee): 1. [] Addreesee's Address 2. [] Reshfoted Delivery ~ d~iv=.e~. Consult postmaster for fee. ,~ 3, Arkie ~ressed to: 4a. Nticle Nurnl~r Io [] PS Form 3811; December 1994 ~' Domestic Retum Receipt 5, J:~c~ecl By: (Print I~) 6. Signature: (A~~t) > X - Ps Fo~ 3811, D~mber 19~ also wish to receive fie following services (for an 1. [] A~,essee's Address 2. [] Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. 4a. A~cla N~Jmber 4b. San~Ce Type [] Registered [] Cerlifldd [] Expre~ Mai [] Insured 8. AddiCt's A~.~v~ (On~y if requ~i~ Domestic Return SENDER: i3. Ar'~e Addreesed to: ~' 5. Received By: (Print Name) 1. [] Addreseee's Addrees 2. [] Restrlctdd Delivery 4a..A~e Number E3'Regi~tered [] CellJfled [] Exprees Mail [] Insured [] Retum ,l~ce~forMemha~dise [] COO 7. Date of/Oel~es(~ ~- Domestic Retum Receipt SENDER: de~iva'ed, · a 3. ArUcle Addressed to: 5. Received By: (Print Name) 6. Signature: (Addr~Age~,j/ ~ PS Fo~ 3811, ~ember 19~ I ales wl~h fo receive lhe following sauces (for an extra fee): 1. [] Addreseee'8 Address 2. [] Restricted Delivery Consult poslmester for fee, 4a. Article Number [] Express Mail (- [] Insured r: [] I:~umP, ece~for~n:~'~ [] OOD 8. Addreese~'s Ad~res~ (Only tf requested and fee is pald) Domestic Return Receipt -- · Complete it~n~ 1 ~Vor 2 for add;ti~ ~, I also w~sh to receive the ~ '~R~ R~ MIl ~ m ~ ~l m ~ ~ ~ ~ult ~r ~r f~. 3. ~de ~r.~ ~: ~. ~ Nu~r ~ 5R . ~ By:(Pdnt~) Ps F~ 3811, ~,~ ~ ~mstic Retum Re~ipt I also wish to receive ~e following services (for an extra fee): 1. i--I Addressee's Address 2. [] Restricted Delivery Consult p(~lmaster for fee. 4a. Alllcie Number _~ ~.~en4ce Type B Reg~ter~J [] Certified [] ExpreM Mai [] Insured Domestic Retum Receipt SENDER: ~ ~ ~ ~o receive t~e · Complete item~ 3, ~, ~ ~. ~ ~s (~r ~ · w~ R~umR~ mt~~. 2. ~ R~ ~i~ ~iw~. ~ ~r ~ me. 3. ~e ~re~ ~: M~e N~r ~ ~ IO ~m~~ ,0 ~D PS Fo~811, ~ember 1~ Do~stic Retum R~elpt GLENN SPETTA ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS · E~.V~DONME~,ITAL C, CNSUL,~I~'~,j AND ~,N&~.Y~E$ o COASTAL ZONF_ MANAGEMENT May 17, 1996 Planning Eo3rd Town of $outhold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Scuth¢~c., New York 11.cT; Attention: Richard Ward, Chairman Beachcomber Motel II $CTM# 1000-83-2-1,2& plo 17 Dear Mr. Ward: At the last P',anrling Board Meeting on April 2S, ",~95 you e~pressed several concerns of the Board with regard to the referenced motel expansion. The ;irst pertained to ti',e Appllcant's moving the existir~g motel units further south from their current Iocatfon and the second involved the consolidation 'of the three lots involved in the proposed action into one ~' '~ership. The ~';l!owing responees are made with regard to the Planning Board's concerns. 1. ;~',oving the axi:~:-~ Beachcomber Motel IJni~s south from their existing location. Al3plicant's Response: There is potential for future loss of some of the units (nine or more) at the existing ~eachcomber Motel However, the existin~ units arm sti~! in sound condition and contribute ~o the economic base of the Beachcomber's operation via rental income. Therefore, tc selectively move ~hese units is not an viable economic alternative at this point in time. ~ving the units wilt cause economic hardship for the Applicant The Applicant will not operate any L,nits that sro considered unsafe. The Applicant is willing '.~ move impact.~ ~xi~ti~-~ rental ,Jnits whe~ they can no longer function as rents! units and at a point in time when the proposed Beachcomber Motel Il units are reaJizing a~- income that will assist with offsetting ',he cost o~ moving impacted existing motel units. The amount of ';~s to be move~ shall be depende~t upon the extent of actual or expected potential damage. To the Applicant's recollection the original zoning change in the late lg70's was consistent wlth Master Plan recommendatior~$ ~o~ promoting tounsm and did not require moving the exi;;:,~g motel units. 2. Consolidation of the Applicant's lots. Applicant'e Re~tponse: As discussed in the DEIS there are three parcels involved in the pro=~sed project: 1) Suffolk County Tax Map Number (SCTM #) I000-083-2-1, 2.1 acres owned by Pond Enterprises, Inc., with Mr Nicholas Aliano as President of the Corpor~.(ion. The existing Beachcomber Motel Js located on this Jot and consists of thirty-six mctel units, three apartments, an office, and a fifty seat restaurant with parking for approximately 24-30 cars. 2) SCTM # 1000-083-2-2, 12.3 acres owned by Patriots Krupski (Mr. Alianc5 daughter). A pool and cabana ,:,vith five units) that ar~ currently used ay motel guests are located in a grassy' .,rea just south of the existing motel. 3) SCTM # 1000-083-2-17, 33.8 acres owned ~y Mr, Nicholas A;iano contains approximately 32 acres wh,.,h are feased out for farming and %8 wooded acres, There is a small wooden structure in the farm field which houses an irrigation well, Mr. Aliano has initiated steps towards the consolidation of the Iota under Pond Enterl~rises, Inc. However, prior to consolidating the Iota he feels that it is n~csssary to race!va a negative declaration from the Town Planning Board with regard to the proposed action, The Applicant will comply with an official State Environmental Quality Review "Findings Statement", Certification of Findingz ~.o ,:,pprove/Fund/Undertake f~;e proposed ~.¢:i~ and reso/ution by the Town Board that accepts the Applbant's DP:IS and makes the consolidation of the lots a cond[fion for granting additional required permits. Mr. AlJ--.no also feels that if the proposed Motel expansion does not race}va the necessary permit~ three lots revert back to their present ownemhip, I have asked Mr. Raynor to enter these comments into the record at the May 20, 1996 Pianning Board Meeting on behalf of the Applicant~ We trust that these responses resolve the alcove two issues to the Planning ~oar~'s satisfaction~ Please co.act me on 7~&.69;~ with a~y questions Sincerely, Glenn D. GDS N. Aliano H. Raynor [msw:c:gsaeoc~:~achii:~-0031 PLANNING BOARD MEMBE~ RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS K~NNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD .May 21, 1996 Glenn Spetta Associates 1050 Smithtown Avenue Bohemia, NY 11716 RE: Beachcomber II Motel Cutchogue, NY SCTM# 1000-83-2-1,2 & 17 Dear Mr. Spetta, The public comment period on the draft DEIS ended May 10, 1996.The next step is to prepare a Final EIS, which the Planning Board will assume responsibility for writing. It would be helpful if you prepared a response to the public comments received to date. In preparing these comments, please consider the following: Comments should be identified as to whether they were made at the public hearing or if they were submitted as part of the written record. 2. Comments should be annotated to indicate the source. Comments should be summarized without detracting from the nature, scope or intent of the comments. 4. A response for each substantive comment must be provided. Responses should be accurate, consistent, and objective, and should be referenced to indicate source material for conclusions. (If it is necessary to revise any part of the DEIS, it would be helpful if this were clarified in the response). The State Environmental Quality Review Regulations indicate that the final EIS should be prepared within 45 days after the close of the public hearing; unless it is determined that additional time is necessary to prepare the statement adequately. Additional time may be needed depending on the timeliness of your response to the public comments. In accordance with SEQRA regulations part 617.13, effective January 1, 1996, the lead agency may charge a fee for .the preparation of the final EIS. You will be informed of this fee after our consultant has had an opportunity to review your submission. Please submit (5) copies of the responses together with a diskette. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Chairman Encls. cc: Charles J. Voorhis PLANNING BOARD MEMBER~ RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 21, 1996 Charles Voorhis & Associates. Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 North Country Road, Suite 2 Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Beachcomber II Motel Cutehogue, NY SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Voorhis, The public comment period on the Draft DEIS ended May 10, 1996. The minutes of the verbal comments are enclosed along with copies of the written comments for your information. Please address the following concerns in preparing the FEIS: , . The merger of the (3) three parcels that comprise this project. Delineation of an area reserved for the future placement or relocation of the existing motel back from the shoreline. This move was indicated as the reason for the original zone change. The current location is in the flood plain and subject to severe beach erosion. · Adequacy of existing roads to handle anticipated traffic. Future use of residential parcel to the south. DEIS indicates that this area will be left fallow to provide the project with an adequate water supply. The Board would like you to particularly review the comments of the North Folk Environmental Council as they encapsulate the Boards concerns. Please contact me if you have any questions, or require further information. Site Plan Reviewer Encl. May 7, [996 Southold Town P[anmng Board Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y'. 11971 Dear Mr. Ward, I am writing this letter on behalf of my wife and I, to express our concerns with the application by the Beachcomber Motel to expand it's facility's· [ verbally expressed our concerns at two public meetings held by the Board as a part of the review process· This letter is meant to formalize those Concerns. As a property owner of an adjoining lot to the Beachcomber property which is to be utilized as a part of the expansion, one of our major concerns is the possible negative impact on the limited water supply. It appears that the intended wetls will draw from the same aquifer as the adjacent properties. We would like to know how the logistical location of the wells is determined? ]rs it based on expected usage ? If so, what happens if that usage were to change, to say a Time Share or a Condominium type of set up in the t~ture? How are we protected against that? Is the owner willing to stipulate that he has no intentions of charting this property from a seasonal to year round usage in the future? We have heard Mr. Aliano state that it's no one else's business but his as to his reason's for expanding what appears to be an unprofitable business by over twice it's current capacity, but we strongly disagree with Iris opinion, we feel it is our business, as adjacent property owners, if his intentions are other than those he currently espouses to. As a poim of fact and record. Mr..~iano's record of following through on his expressed plans does aot ~ve me a great deal of corLfidence in his currently expressed plans. The point we allude to is his lack of follow up on his last expansion, a part of which was the relocation of the ex/sting unitgl We feel that if*[r.)diano is not required to fi~lfill his commitments to the board he will continue to flout his responsibility's, and do as he pleases, utilizing his version of what he has comrmtted to. Therefore we request that he be directed to fulfill his current comrmtments before any new plans be considered· Then at the time the new plans are to be considered, protection be built into those plans against a possible change from Motel type of setup to a Time Share or Condominium type of setup. If these points are not addressed by Mr.)diano, to the board's satisfaction, we urge you to reject his request for any further expansion· Sincerely, Mr. Richard Spellman , ,Mrs. Pa!rim Spellman // ., Southold Town Planning 1 April 8, 1996 Mr. Ward: Beachcomber Motel II- This proposed site plan is for the expansion of an existing motel through the addition of 46 more units in four new buildings. The project is located on Duck Pond Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & p/o 17. We have a problem, I believe, with the posting on this particular site and I'd like to enter a resolution that the Southold Town Planning Board keep the hearing held open until the next public meeting on April 29, 1996 pending further notification of property owners. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Also, be it further resolved that the public comment period will be held open until May 9, 1996. Mr. Cremers: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. There are some of you that did come tonight and what I'd like to do is give you a chance to go on record if you have any comments regarding the Beachcomber proposal. You're welcome to do that tonight and you're also welcome to do that on the 29th when we have the next meeting. Barbara Rickel: I'm Barbara Rickel, Vista Place. My concern is that, I flipped through that huge report and there seem to be serious environmental concerns. It was Duck Pond Point. tt is the home of the birds and someone, in my opinion, stupidly filled in the Duck Pond and put the motel there and now we're faced with increased destroying of the environment. I secondly want to make sure that everyone realizes that the environment is beyond the birds and the people. That is a very dangerous corner. Increased traffic will cause...we've had several dogs killed, I'd hate to think about children being killed on that corner. What about the increased pressure on our homes, valuewise, and also people from the motel tend to roam around our neighborhood. What is the Town willing to promise us in police support, fire protection, all those kinds of things. Litter increases during the summer because people wander around our neighborhood, and I think that although Mr. Aliano has the right to develop his Southold Town Planning April 8, 1996 property, we have a right to protect our investments and I think this is very damaging to our environment and where we live. It is a family community, and to open it up to 46 more units of a motel brings a lot of danger to all of us. Thank you. Fran Slezak: Hi, my name is Fran Slezak. I live on Alvah's Lane in Cutchogue. I walk the beach in that area. I was not notified of this because rm not in the immediate area, but I did see the sign and I felt compelled to come here tonight because I too am very concerned about the environment, t he beach erosion. In the summer time I have called the police department and the highway department 3 or 4 times, because cars have pulled trailers with jetskis onto the beach there. These were people who maybe were staying at the motel, or not staying at the motel, I don't know. But I was concerned that they were there. ] have seen when the motel was closed, hunters with beagles on the grounds, shooting rabbits with homes in the neighboring area. That concerned me greatly. There is no place for the people who live in the area, when we go down there in the summer time to walk along the beach, the non-residents cars are parked all the way along that road, all the way up to Duck Pond. 1 think it's invasion of a community. I think that you really have to consider the people who live there. The dirt that's left on the side...there's a road that comes from Duck Pond down to the water and it's the edge of the Beachcomber...the filth that's left there. I have seen the feet of deer left there in the fall when the motel is closed. I'm not blaming the motel, but I'm saying a lot of people come there, they're aware that it's a dead end area, they leave things there, and it's just disgusting. I can't tell you how many times the barrier there has been pushed down by people because the barrier was there they couldn't drive their car on the beach to get to jetski so they moved it over and they carried the jetski there. I couldn't believe it with my eyes. These are non- residents. So, rm very concerned about what's going to happen when you increase it to 46 units. I'm already upset with seeing the changes that have happened. The dirt, the garbage, the food left on the beach. If you walk on the beach a mile down in either direction, the people have left. Who is going to go and pick that stuff up? I have picked it up. rve called the Town to say, hey there's stuff here. Very often the water just naturally comes up very high on the sand. The natural erosion is not...I mean if you put more people, more boats...l've seen motorcycles riding on the beach. Who's going to monitor this. When I called the police department one time because somebody had come with a jetski and...when the jetski people come, they come with one jetski and there are five carloads of people, and they all take their turn and ride the jetski. I've seen the jetski with nobody on it going in circles because they fell off. I thought it was supposed to Southold Town Planning 13oal~ April 8, 1996 close off automatically? tt didn't. Well, that frightened me because there were people and children in the water. And it's a limited beach area because of all the natural rocks and all the natural stones that are there that when these other people are there who are with the motel or not with the motel, I'm just saying that a lot of people come to the motel that are familiar with the area, then they come back. And the local people can't even get down there because all their cars are parked along the road, not in the motel, in those places. So, how are we going to monitor this. How are we going to...when I called the police one time they said, well, we'll try to get down there but we have a lot of other areas. Their hands are tied. They've got a lot of places to go. I think it's a major concern and I think we really have to look at it because it's a community there and I think the Town people are concerned about it. And I just happened to see the sign because I walk the beach every day. Thank you. Mr. Ward: We have a lot of street ends and we have similar problems really all over the Town during the spring, summer and fall. The issue that will be before us though on the 29th will be directly related to the Beachcomber proposed expansion. What we will do is take these comments and make sure that the Town Board and police department at least are aware of these concerns. Ms. Slezak: There's not even a sign there that says only for Town residents. Is that because the motel is there? Almost every other dead end street in Southold has a sign that says parking for Town residents, This does not even have that. It does not even have a sign there. Mr. Ward: Which maybe means there is no parking, but I don't know the situation. Ms. Slezak: No, it says no parking hours between 10 and 10, but I'm saying every other place you go down it says Town of Southold sticker. And I think there is a direct correlation between what's happening there with the expansion. I think there's going to be more people, more cars traveling down there. I'm very concerned about it. Thank you. Gerald Waits: My name is Gerald Waits. I'm here on behalf of the North Fork Environmental Council. We do have some concerns concerning this project and I'm here to read a statement. The DEIS for the Beachcomber expansion evaluates the project as existing on three separately owned parcels of land rather than on one merged tract of land. The North Fork Environmental Council is concerned about how this approach may or may not impact future development of these parcels beyond the proposed Beachcomber II project. Since part of the SEQRA review calls for an anticipation of a project's possible impact on future development, we feel that a number of questions should be addressed. 1. What are the implications beyond this project if the separate parcels are later sold Southold Town Plannir 4 April 8, 1996 off? 2. Parcel #3 includes almost 30 acres presently zoned Agricultural-Conservation. According to the DEIS, this land would no longer be farmed but instead would be left fallow in order to provide the project with an adequate water supply. Without Covenants and Restrictions, does leaving this land dormant increase the likelihood of it being re-zoned for development at some future date? 3. The existing 36 motel units are presently located on Parcel i consisting of 2.1 acres. The normal allowable density for this parcel, however, would be 14.5 units. the three parcels are not merged, is the Beachcomber complex, in effect, getting an extra 20 units? In other words, should public water later become available and/or further down the road yet another expansion is planned for parcel 2 or parcel 3, would parcel one's 36 units be factored into the whole picture? 4. The Beachcomber DEIS mitigates a number of SEQRA issues (traffic, burden on community services, etc.) by highlighting the "seasonal" nature of the Beachcomber complex. What safeguards are there ensuring that Beachcomber will remain seasonal? For that matter (given the recent confusion over the definition of a "parking space") how exacting is the Town's definition of "seasonal"? Lastly, the NFEC would like to cite Chapter 37 of Town Law which gives the Southold Town the responsibility to "regulate in coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and erosion, land use and development activities so as to minimize or prevent damage and destruction to property." In keeping with this law, in 1978 the Planning Board supported a change of zone on Parcel 2 so that Mr. Aliano could "move the motel and facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion." However, although presumably the change of zone was granted for this purpose, this move has never taken place. As recently as April 23, 1992 the Trustees have also advised that the existing motel should be moved at least fifty feet back. As per Chapter 37 of Town Law, shouldn't Southold see to it that this move of the existing motel be included in the Beachcomber project and thus accounted for in the DEIS? Thank you. Ms. Scopaz: Could we have a copy of your comments? Mr. Waits: Yes. Mr. Ward: Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board this evening? Tom Mangimele: I'm Tom Mangimele, I live on Duck Pond Rd. My piece of property is on the bluff that overlooks the Beachcomber. On the busiest week-end in the summer, Memorial Day, there's not more than six cars in that parking lot. What's the Southold Town Planning Boa~ 5 April 8, 1996 need for the expansion? What's the need? My concern is what's going to happen further on down the road? It doesn't look like the motel business is making it there. The place needs a paint job, the curtains are ripped, you can see it from the street. What's going to happen in the future? Can it be turned into a rehab center? That's my concern. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Anyone else? Yes sir. Kip Bedell: I live on Duck Pond Rd. We've lived there three years now and we moved into what is essentially a dead end street, there's no outlet. And we felt that it would be a pretty quiet road down there and we were very surprised actually with how much traffic is really there. -As Tom mentioned, there really are not a lot of cars usually at the Beachcomber Motel, but certainly it does increase the traffic in the summer time when there are people there and also people that use the beach, there are fishermen that use the beach. I can't even imagine the increase of 46 units, which means at least one car, meaning at least once a day they're going to be going somewhere and coming back. And more than likely they're going to be going multiple times leaving the motel to do something and come back again. And every time, they have to come up and down Duck Pond Rd. We did have a cat killed right in front of our house and I just can't imagine on this dead end road that increase in the traffic that much. I think it would be very bad. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board this evening? Rich Spellman: I live on Duck Pond Rd. I have an adjacent piece of property right in back of Tom, in between Kip and Tom. My concerns are from a business perspective. It's the same question that Tom has asked. What do they justify creating 46 units to a business that on face value does not seem to have more than 10% of those units at any given time, filled now. And if they were going to be required to move those units back, and you can see what the erosion has done, they put the cement wall up there, why didn't they do that before considering this other move? I only received my notice Saturday so I really didn't have a chance, I will go and look at the library, I understand there's a binder with all the information. But I thought there was something like 130 on the sound, maybe I'm wrong, t didn't know there were just 30. I heard 30 quoted but I thought there were more than that because there are about three buildings there. The total units that are at the existing Beachcomber Motel? Southold Town Planning Boa 6 April 8, 1996 Ms. Scopaz: There's 36 units and three apartments existing on the site and they are proposing to add an additional 46. Mr. Spellman: Alright, then I'm incorrect. So, there's about 40 some odd units there now and they're going to add another 46, so they're essentially doubling the size of the units. I can't help but ask myself is there a hidden agenda here? There are 46 units that are not filled, t would be willing to bet you if you look at their books, not more than 25% of those units during the summer time are filled at any given night. Why do they need 46 more units? And especially when the place itself is deteriorated. I've been there nine years now and it has deteriorated significantly over the time I've been there, the maintenance. So those are just the questions I ask. Thank you. _Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board? If not, this hearing will be continued on the 29th and you're certainly welcome to come back. I'm sure the applicant, at that particular time will have some responses to some of these questions and the Board also has some concerns that we'd like to have addressed. So, we thank you for coming. MINUTES April 29, 1996 Present were: Absent: Richard G. Ward, Chairman Bennett Orlowski, Jr. G. Ritchie Latham Kenneth Edwards William Cremers Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Melissa Spiro, Planner Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Mar[ha Jones, Secretary Mr. Ward: Good evening. I'd like to call the April 29, 1996 Sou~hold Town Planning Board meeting to order. The first order of business is the setting of the next Planning Board meeting. Board to set Monday, May 20, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at Southold Town Halt, Main Rd., Southold as the time-and place for the next regular Planning Board meeting. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: Moved and seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings Mr. Ward: Beachcomber MQtet II - This proposed site plan is for the expansion of an existing motel through the addition of 46 more units in four new buildings. The project is located on Duck Pond Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & p/o Southold Town Planning 2 April t996 17. I see that the applicant is here, if they would like to address the Board at this time. Henry Raynor: Good evening Mr, Ward, gentlemen. My name is Henry Raynor, as agent for the Beachcomber. We're here tonight, here is Mr. Glenn Spaetta, of Glenn Spaetta Associates, who had prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which you have been studying.before you and if the Board is amenable he has a synopsis that he'd like to present to you this evening and if there are any questions he'd be more than happy to answer those, if you'd like to have the hearing proceed in that manner. Mr. Ward: That's fine. - Glenn Spaetta: Good evening. As you can see we have an aerial photo of the property with some overlays of different scenarios for development. As Henry said, i'm an environmental consultant, i've been in the field for over 15 years preparing environmental impact statements for various projects, including residential homes and large developments, commercial property as well as for the proposed action. The project originally consisted of 86 units proposed for development to expand the existing motel complex. That was several years ago. A scoping meeting was held. At subsequent discussions after that meeting the project was significantly downsized to include 46 units. These units are four separate buildings and are pictured on the site plan on the aerial photo here. The project involves three separate tax map parcels. One of them is owned by Pond Enterprises, Inc. and that's 2.1 acres, that includes where the existing motel is. The second one is owned by Patricia Krupski and that's 12.3 acres and includes where the cabana and a lot of the cleared area is as well as part of the woods on the property, and the third lot is owned by Nicholas Aliano and is 33.8 acres of which 32 is farm and approximately 1.8 is wooded. For the purposes of the project the lots have been combined together and will have to be, at a later date, merged together for the project. As part of the DEIS process, significant beneficial and adverse facts were discussed. Potential negative impacts of the project were some of the steeper sloped areas on the property and are located on the east of the clearing as well as on the south side of the clearing. Potential nitrogen loading into the Sound was a concern. Water usage, loss of some vegetation on the site, as well as traffic concerns and archeological concerns. Potential beneficial impacts to the project were an increase to local economic Southold Town PIanning 8o~ 3 Aorill~, 1996 concerns, increased tax revenue, approximately $48,000 per year. There will be more jobs created, short term, during construction, as well as an increase in future spending if additional people come to stay at the hotel and spend money in the Town of Southold when they visit wineries as part of tourism and into the local community. Also, the project will retain open space on approximately 43 of the 48 acres, as proposed. The development is concentrated in the resort residential portion of the property; it's broken into resort residential and agricultural conservation. You see the white line that runs through the middle of the property. Mitigating measures were utilized to minimize a potential impact of the project that might have been detrimental. As far as erosion control, the buildings have been re- arranged from the original proposal out of steep sloped areas so that they're in flat cleared portions of the property. The set backs of the buildings, the closest new one proposed is 110 feet from the bluff and we've avoided with the design of the proposed action, we avoided disrupting natural drainage swales and utilize some of the natural areas to retain the existing drainage patterns on site. The applicant will follow all erosion control guidelines and an erosion control plan will be submitted as part of this project. We've kept the buildings in the vacant cleared areas, as we've said before, that you see on the property. A lot of that is currently mowed and there's a cabana and kind of an open field there right now and it's just north of the woods. Water demands for the project have been investigated and the project was downsized as we've said before, from 86 units to 46 units, and that meets all Suffolk County Department of Health requirements allowable for the 48.2 acres which are being included for this property. The requirement is 14,460 gallons per day and the total proiect will be at 14,425 gallons per day, so it will meet both New York State DEC as vCell as Suffolk County Department of Health standards for water demands. The sanitary system will consist of conventional sanitary sewage disposal, septic tanks and leaching pools and will also comply with all Suffolk County Department of Health Article 6 requirements. The applicant investigated salt water intrusion as a potential negative impact and has located the water supply wells back...you'll see two blue spots there near the resort residential and agricultural conservation district Kine and the wells will be located in that portion of the property and in that way they will not adversely mitigate groundwater supply or create the potential for saltwater intrusion. There will be a very small amount of vegetation lost as a result of the project on the Southoid Town Planning Be 4 A~ri101996 eastern side of the property where some of the portions of the property would be cleared just slightly for the expansion of the units. Traffic impacts- approximately 33 trips per hour during the peak traffic hour and that amounts to about one car every two minutes on a Saturday afternoon in that peak hour and the total for the day on a typical Saturday, as a result of the project would probably be about an extra 100 trips per day. What the applicant is proposing is the addition of two stop signs, one at the top of the hill and...that's further to the left Garrett, on Duck Pond Rd., to the left of the red line, further to the left, there's a stop sign at the top of the hill so that when people have to turn right and go down to the beach they'll come to a complete halt. And also at the intersection of Vista Place and Birch Lane, so that.they'll be traffic control in both of those directions. The Cutchogue Fire Department has requested that the applicant put in a 400 gallon per minute firewell on the property and the applicant has located that on the east side of the property and that meets with their requirements. Several alternatives to the project were investigated and the first one would be no action. No action would be as the site is now, with just the motel units and cabanas there. A second alternative was looked at, this was considered alternative B which also clustered units on the property, but left two units back on the farmed portion of the property but within the resort residential zoning. And you can see approximately the way that would look. That was alternative B that was investigated and the applicant feels that the proposed alternative is better than that one. The third alternative looked at in addition to no action and that one you just saw, was clustering the units in a U-shaped formation in that cleared portion of the property - and you see the way that looks. And again, you can see by these overlays that most of the property is again staying vacant and clear and all of the development really takes place in the cleared portion of the property as it exists now. And again, this is ,an alternative that was proposed and not preferred by the applicant. Matters to be decided, as far as the Town of Southold, before the project can proceed, a denial of the project has to be given by the Building Department in order to be considered for special exception by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals would then have to make a decision as to whether or not to allow the resort residential zoning by special exception. The code permits each unit, 6,000 square feet, to be constructed. And so it allows for 6,000 square foot units by special exception. The Planning Board would also have to approve the site plan prior to it going forward. The Building Department would have to approve the design and finally the Highway Department would have to approve the stop signs that would go into place. ·. Southotd Town Pfanning Bo~ 5 A¢ril; 1996 Suffolk County Department of Health Services would also have to review the water supply and approve the system as well as the waste water for the project. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation would also have to approve the well permit and also the applicant would need to receive a non-jurisdiction letter for the tidal wetlands because it is close to it but it is outside the wetlands area. So, as you can see, an extensive review has been prepared and a DEIS has addressed concerns and issues of not only the Board but of other agencies as well that were involved in the comment period. At this point in time the applicant feels that the proposed action will have the most value not only to the Town of Seuthold but as well as makes the most economic sense for him at this time. With that, we'd be happy to open up for any questions that you might have. Mr. Ward: The Planning 8oard has two major concerns. One, is that the applicant going back a number of years, when he got a zone change, requested the zone change to move the existing motel back because the shoreline conditions kept undermining the motel and that the whole rationale for giving the zone change was to move the existing motel back so it would be out of the tidal and wave action along the shoreline. That alternative has not been addressed. That has to be addressed in this determination on your SEQRA review here. Secondly, the Board cannot understand how this project can be done as three separate holdings. They all work with one another. I don't believe we can really approve a project without knowing that it's under one ownership or one common ownership. Those are our two major concerns today. There have been other concerns raised by the community, but those are two major things we'd like to see addressed in detail in the environmental impact statement. Mr. Spaetta: We agree with you on the combining of the parcels, and that needs to be done. Right now they're all individual parcels. We mentioned up front that that needs to be done in order for the project to proceed. I'm sure that the applicant is willing to do that. It requires some additional steps that need to be taken. As far as the removal of the existing units, that does create some economic hardship since the units are currently operating and are viable and that was addressed in the environmental impact statement as to remove the units now while they're still operating and still able to generate income, does create some difficulty for the applicant. We would be happy though to expand on that and address that further. Mr. Ward: Yes, we're requesting that. Are there any questions? Anybody here that would like to address the Board on this paddcular project at this time, you can do that if you wish. i know some of you were here at the last hearing. ·. , ., Southold Town Planning Bol~l 6 Al~ril 1996 Rich Spellman: At the last hearing, I asked the question, having lived here not a tremendous amount of time, about nine years. To my recollection, and other people can speak for this too, I don't think I've ever seen at any given time any more than 25% of those units ever filled. And my question is, and I still don't understand it, if there's no more than 25% of those units filled, why double the number of units? That's the basic question and I haven't heard that explained. Maybe it doesn't have to be addressed at this point, I don't know, but it's a common sense question and I'd just like to get some sort of an answer to that question. Mr. Ward: Would the applicant like to address that? Nick Aliano: My name is Nick Aliano. I'm the owner of Pond Enterprises, the Krupski parcel, which .is my daughters, and the.Aliano parcel, so that's the three parcels. As .far as what the business has been doing, or not doing, I don't think that's anybody else's business but mine. I have reasons why it's not doing well now. The water comes up to the motel units now. And one more big storm and I'II get wiped out altogether. And my main purpose 10 years ago when I made this application, was to be protected that if it does hit, I can build right away. I won't have to go through 10 years of this nonsense that we're going through now. So, the fact that it's not doing wetl has nothing to do with anybody else but me. And I have plans for this property. I wouldn't be here spending money for 10 years if I didn't. That's all I have to say about it. Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board this evening? Kip Bedell: I live on Duck Pond Rd. I just have a question. Does the applicant own the property all the way to Oregon Rd.? Mr. Aliano: I do own property to Oregon Rd. Mr. Bedell: Again, I'm very concerned about the t~affic on Duck Pond Rd. This gentleman mentioned that there's going to be a car every minute, or something like that, in the season and this is a dead end road, ifs a residential area... Mr. Aliano: l'm there 25 years, and I feel like a Johnny-come-lately. I'm there 26 years to be exact. And the fact that I have property on Oregon Road and I have frontage on Oregon Road ... Mr. Bedell: What I'm saying is that I feel that this project is going to create far too much traffic on a dead end residential road and I think that if this should even be considered by the Board, there should be a private road that runs up to this motel and by-pass Duck Pond Road altogether. Southold Town Planning Bq 1996 Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board this evening? Tom Menginele: I also live on Duck Pond Road. My concern is what can happen in the future to where this site is going to be. Let's say it sells, can it become something else, maybe a half-way house or a rehabilitation center? Because you know it is in a residential area, and that's my concern. Mr. Aliano: Well, now we've got it going for what we want to use it for. If other uses that you're talking about would be something else I'd have to go into. That would be a whole new ball game. Mr. Menginele: Well, let's just say it sold, would this have to come before the Zoning Board again? Mr. Ward: Well, it would depend on what it was, but normally if it's a use that's not allowed within the zone, it would have to go for either a zone change, which would be the Town Board, or a special exception which would be the Zoning Board of Appeals. There would be other hearings, it wouldn't just happen. Mr. Menginele: And the way the zoning is right now for building, if in effect these buildings do get erected, can there be an add on? Or the way the zoning is right now is it certain buildings per amount of acreage? Mr. Ward: It sounds like right now the controlling factor happened to be the Health Department. I guess they had an application in for more units. Based on the amount of property that's here they would be allowed to build more units under the zoning category here, but at this particular junction they're going along, I guess, with what Health Services will allow in terms of their capacity. Mr. Menginele: And also, just one other point. Outside of the stop signs, because I did see that in the environmental impact, is there any other kind of alterations that are going to be made to the loads or...because right now you have no shoulder on those roads going down there. You go two feet off the road, you're either in a gully or into a tree. During the season, we do use the beaches out in front there and if a car comes, there's very little room. I was just wondering if that's being taken into consideration or even thought about? Mr. Ward: It will be looked at. Anyone else? Barbara Rickel: I live on Vista Place. I've lived there for 20 some odd years. I'm sorry, I just came in. I teach at the community college and we had a late meeting, so I don't know exactly what's been said but I want just to put on record that I'm totally Southold Town Planning 8 April' 1996 opposed to this expansion. I think ifs detrimental to our neighborhood. It's detrimental to the environment. It doesn't consider the needs of the people in the area and I see no reason for it. There's not a lot of use of that area, and when people do come, there is no policing in how they walk through our neighborhood, leave garbage and are inconsiderate. They let their dogs and their children roam all over our yards. I have found motel people using my swing set. I don't understand that. We need to be protected. I think that is a waste of everyone's effort to even consider the proposal. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board? Does the applicant have anything else further that they would like to present? Mr. Aliano: I don't have anything else to say except that the Town itself saw fit to add, before I made an application, to add about six or seven acres to the back of my motel, just like that, without me going to the Town, it was just re-zoned for six or seven more acres. Now, I ask just another six acres and all this fuss...well, I got the other six acres, but, I have nothing else to say, unless you have another question. Mr. Ward: Anyone else on the Board? If not, all in order to close the hearing. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Orlowski: Second. Mr. Ward: Moved and seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Carried. Just a note that the public comment period will run until May 9, 1996, and the Board may make a decision at the May 20 meeting whether to accept the DEIS or require a Final Environmental Impact Statement. So, those that are interested in following this, May 20 would be a meeting then that you may like to attend. Thank you all for coming. PHOHE hi0. Apr-. ~37 1'39~ 01 :~¥[PI, I PO'Z' Beachcomber It Statement ~ ~.__ The DF, IS for the Beachcomber expand/on evaluates the D~o,~ect ~s e~istin~ on three seDs~tely o~ned D~m~e]s of land r~th~ than on one me~ed tract of ]and, The North Fork gnvi~onmeDtal Council ~.9 eoneem~ed about how thi~ a~p~oach mAW o~ maw not ~mDa(~'t fu~.ume d~ve].oDm~nt of these parcels beyond the pmoQosed BeAchcombeF II pro,~e¢~t, Since p~rt of the SEORA review calls for an ar~ti(:iDatJ, on of a project's possible iff~T)a(~t on ¢ul. ume that ~ numbe~ of questioDs should be duvelopment, we feel addressed. I) What ar~ the Sm~l~o~tions beyond this Oroject if seD~rat, e parcels are later sold off? 2) P~rcel #3 ~no]udes &].most 30 acres f~resenT.,ly zoned A~ric'u]tu~al-ConsePv~tion, A(;(:~djn~ to the DEIS, this land wou].d no longer be £armed but instead would be left fallow o~der %o prove, de %ha, T~mo,~f~,et. ~4ith an adequate water SUDDiF¢. Without C~uenan%s and Restrictions, dormant increase the likelihood of development at some futume date? does leaving this land it heine re-zoned for Parcel for The e×istin~ 36 ~mote]. units are Dresen.tly located on consisting of 2.] acres. The normal ~].Iowable density ~a,r~I , h~ever, would, he ~4.5 units. If the three DarCelS ¢~re not me~ed, is the Beachcomber comD].e%, i~ effect, ~ettinl as extra 20 ,]nits? In other ~ords, should pT:blic ~ater ].al. er bet:omc available aud/o'r ¢t]rt.her do~n the road ~et, another e×pansion is Dlanned fo~- Darc~.] 2 or Dai'cel 3, would parcel' l's 3f~ units be factored ~nt'.~ the whole picture.? ~4) The Beachc6mher DEI$ mitigates a number of SEQRA issues (traffic, burden .on community .qerv~c~s, e%c by highli~htinE the "seasons]" nature of the Beachcomber coreD]ex What safeguards are there ensurin~ that Beachcomber ~'~l] remain seasonal? For that matter (g~ven f~he ~ecent confusioo over the definition of a "Darkin~ .~)ace") how exactin~ is the Town'.q definition of Last].y the N.F.E.C. would like to cite Chapter 37 of Town Law which ~ives the Southold the resDons.~bi].ity to "{r]e~ulate, in C. oas%a] areas sub.iect to coastal floodin~ and erosion, ].and ~.~c ~%nd dcvo].o~;mcnt (~ctivities so as to minimize or prevent damage & destruction to D~oDer~.y," In keeQ~.ng w~th this ].aw, in ~978 the Planning Board suDDo;'tsd a char~ge of zone on Parcel '2 so that Mr. Aliano cOuld "move the mote], and facilities back from the Sound as a result of .~ubstantial loss of beach through erosion." Mowever, 5].though Dresumab].y the chanze of zone was granted for this purT)ose, this move has never taken Discs. As re~,:nt]~, as 4/23/92 the Trustees have a]..qo ad.v~sed that the ex~stin~ motel should be moved ~% .[~;~.%st fifty feet back. As Der ChaDter 37 of ']'ow~ Law, shouldn't S~'~uthold see to it that this move of the existin~ motel be in~.]uded in the Beachcomber Dro.geot and thus accounted for in th~ DEIS? 295 Vista Place Cutchcgue, N.Y. 11935 May 3, 1996 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Planning Board: As a specialist in American Democracy, I have a good understanding of the concept of representative democracy. A small group of people try to represent and effect the best policies on behalf of the whole society. Such is the job of the Planning Board of · Southold Town. in the particular instance of the petition for expanding the Beachcomber Motel, the board needs to consider the benefits such an expansion would have to the community. The proposers would argue that a certain number of jobs and peripheral sales would result and that there would be a low environmental impact to the neighborhood. This argument is filled with weaknesses and perhaps even deceptions. At present the mo~el is not well utilized. The summer trade is minimal air_hough even on that level, customers intrude on the privacy and safety of the residential communities of Birch Hills and Vista Bluff; motel visitors roam the neig~zborhood, leaving litter, pet waste, and wander through private property. Motel visitors speed through the narrow road and dangerous corner leading down to the mo~e!. We have suffered a n~her of pet deaths and children have barely avoided being r~n down. A/~ increased motel population could only explode these problems into tragedies. A '~arger motel presence would strain local resources. Fire protection would have to be increased (there are few hydrants); and more Police protection would have to be provided. Both these additions would mean local residents would have to pay more taxes which would benefit nonresidents. The fragile water supply would be affected: please note the new discovery of water pollution leading north from Oregon Road and affecting the Sound front properties. Who would pay to protect the local residents from pollution caused by an increased number of visitors from other areas? In some of ~he discussions about 5he Motel expansion, ~ no~ed several comments that previous rulings about moving existing motel uni=s have not been complied with in over 10 years. This provides no confidence that future restrictions on the use and care of the property would be obeyed. Basically it is clear that the Life s~y!es and needs of the majority of the local residents would be adversely affected by the expansion of the motel. We have no confidence that our own investments in our homes would not be seriously damaqed by this plan. We believe the rezoning migh~ lead to other types of development of the area which would totally destroy its rural residental character. Previously, the Planning Board or previous approval bureau did great damage to the area by allowing the natural habitat of the birds to be damaqed. They should now amend this error by protecting both ~%e natural environment and the local population by refusing to allow the expansion of the motel. It should, on this occasion, make sure that previous rulings are obeyed. Perhaps fines are due for the lack of compliance. I would be happy to discuss my s~rong opposition to the petition to expand the Beachcomber Motel with ~Se Board if they so desire. Sincerely, Barbara D. Ripel, Ph.D. PETITION .... We, the undersigned, are stronolv oocosed to th~'-~'xca}"i~{6r~-~'ihe Beachcomber Motel (Beachcomber II), for the following reasons: This is a residential setting and therefore is no place for an expanded motel. The narrow, steep road leading down to the motel cannot accomodate the increased traffic. There will also be increased traffic on Duck Pond Road. There are many young children in this area whose lives may be in danger. The people in the neighborhood will not be able to walk/bicycle down to the beach due to the increased traffic. We are also concerned that in the future, the hotel property may be sold and converted into condominiums, timeshares, or possibly a rehabilitation center (we are aware the zoning would have to be changed). 5. Why expand a motel that does very little business and had the option of being moved back as per a 1978 ruling to avoid the erosion? ame Address /C C ~ame Address PUBLIC HEARING April 11, 1978 CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION #238 - NICHOLAS ALIANO & PATRICIA KRUPSKI A public hearing was held by the Southold Town Board at the~ Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, on April 11, 1978 on the application of Nicholas Aliano & Patricia Krupski for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "M-i" Multiple Residence District on property located at Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, New York.~ Present at the hearing were: Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia Councilman James Homan Councilman Henry W. Drum Justice Martin Surer Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Absent: Councilman William R. Pell 3rd and Justice Francis T. Doyen Councilman Drum read the notice of hearing as follows: Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, public hearings will be held by the Southold Town Board at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road,-Southold, New York, in said Town on the llth day of April, 1978, on the following proposal to amend the Building Zone Ordinance (including the Building Zone Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York: 8:00 P.M. by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M-I" Multiple Residence District the property of Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski, situated at Cutchogue, New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a monument at the intersection of the easterly line of Duck Pond Road and the southerly line of Duck Pond Road which monument is distant North 29° 50' 50" East 213.08 feet from the northwesterly corner of lands of N, Aliano; thence from said point of beginning running North 52° 31' 10" East partly through lands of N. Aliano and Patricia Krupski to lands of R. Hammel; thence along said lands of R. Hammet and J. Zuhoski the following two (2) courses and distances: (1) South 45° 52' 40" East 39.06 feet; and (2) South 46° 17' 50" East 367.21 feet; thence from said point running along lands of Aliano et ano. South 43° 42' 10" West 946°44 feet to lands of Fellinger-Ihar; thence along said last mentioned lands North 42° 01' 40" West 465.90 feet to the southerly side of Duck Pond Road; thence along the southerly side of Duck Pond Road North 29° 50' 50" East 213/08 feet to the monument at the point or place of beginning. Any person,desiring to be heard on the above proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. DATED: March 14, 1978 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD JUDITH T~ TERRY, TOWN CLERK COUNCILM~N DRUM: PUBLIC HEARING CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION # 238 (2) April 11, 1978 NICHOLAS ALIANO & ~ATRICIA KRUPSKI COUNCILMAN DRUM: We have proof of notice of publication from the Suffolk Weekly Times, notarized March 24, 1978, and proof of notice of publication from the Long Island Traveler Watchman, notarized March 24, 1978. We have an affidavit from Judith T~ Terry, Town Clerk that this has been posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board at the Town Clerk's Office, Main Road, Southold, New York. We have received a letter from the Planning Board, Town-of Southold, dated March 13, 1978, to the Southold Town Board: Gentlemen: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board at a regular meeting held on January 30, 1978: RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board approval of the petition of Nicholas Alia~o & Patricia Krupski, Case No. 238 for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M-i" General ~ultiple Residence District on property located at Cutchogue, New!York in view of the fact that it is apparent that the petitioner must move the motel and facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion. The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance with the development plan of the Town of Southold for this location. /s/ Muriel Brush, Secretary We have received a letter from the Suffolk County Department of Planning, dated March 1, 1978 to the Southold Town Board: On the petitioner Aliano vs. Krupski. Gentlemen: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the above captioned application which has been referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination. The decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. /s/ Lee Koppelman Director of Planning SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: I would like to make a correction of the preceding letter. I believe you indicated that the petitioner was Aliano vs. Krupski. It is Aliano and Krupski. COUNCILMAN DRUM: Did I say that? Excuse'me, the petitioner is Aliano and Krupski. SUPERVISOR MART~CCHIA: Councilman Drum has read the legal notice on petition of ~icholas Aliano ahd Patricia Krupski, Case No. 238 requesting a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "M-t" General Multiple Residence. The subject matter has been advertised in both of the local papers and notarized as such, it has been posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, and we have the recommendations and comments of the Southold Town Planning Board recommending approval and the Suffolk County Department of Planning has left it to local determination. At this time, I would like to open up the hearing to anyone who wishes to speak in behalf of the applicants. (3) PUBLIC HEARING p~G ~ ,pril 11, 1978 CHANGE OF ZONE AP ATIpN ~238- NICHOLAS AL 0 & PATRICIA KRUPSKI NICHOLAS ALIANO: I am Nick Aliano owner of the Beachcomber Motel which is the concern of this petition. What I would like. to do first of all is give you an idea of what the motel looked like. This is what the beach looked like prior to the last storm. (Mr. Aliano presented photographs.) And this is a pciture of what it looks like now. Originally, I had about 150 to 200 feet of beachfront.about 8 years ago. Since that time, especially this last winter, not only have I lost all of the beachj but I have lost some of the sidewalk and it is already eroding the building. I have had the local sand & gravel man dump about 10 truck loads of sand in to shore up against my buildings and sidewalk. I have a photo here to show that even that sand was washed away after the next storm. So there is no question, that I am in emminent danger of losing my whole business. I bought as much property behind me and surrounding me that I could afford to move the location back. The local farmers in the area will attest that it nothing more than shrubs, sand, ~nd scrub oak where I want to put the expansion or what have you,~behind the motel. There is about three-quarters of an acre of farmland that this involves. My intention is to put tennis courts and a golf course and situate the expansion along the perimeter of the cliff, it will be westerly. It is up to you gentlemen as to whether of not I stay in business. Without this expansion, I cannot stay in business. I think that my reputation of cleaning up the place, when I bought it 8 years ago it was a sore eye to the Community and I think anyone in town will tell you that what I have done here is a credit. So now, I am asking your consideration of this extension. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Is there a map? MR. ALIANO: The property west of me is owned by my family, that's across from Depot Lane. The property is east of me, my line is on the middle of a cliff, so that % couldn't do anything about that. The property south of me is owned by myself. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: This request that you are making for "M-I" zoning involves how much property? MR. ALIANO: It's about 9. acres. I have "M-i" zoning now, but of course that map shows before the beach ereoded and that's about 1~ acre you can take out of there. Business has improved and I must have room for expansion anyway. Even if this had not happened, I have need for the tennis court and golf' course. I have already put a swimming pool in. We are off the beaten-track too far away from everything, and you have to ~ive people some- thing to do while they are at a motel on vacatzon. I think I bring a lot of business to the town. It's a family-run operation. Thereare ten people in my family and we run a motel and restaruant. This is a picture from the L.I. TravelEr Mattituck Watchman. It shows the erosion and it also states that a matter or fact the Town Hall has a copy of the erosion situation. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: We have had a very bad winter along the Sound. MR. ALIANO: Yes, as I said, I put in 8-10 truckloads of sand and gravel mixture and that has all been washed away. I showed you PUBLIC HEARING ~C A~A April 11. 1978 CHANGE OF ZONE AP ATION # 238 - NICHOLAS NO & PATRICIA KRUPSKI the photographs of before and after. It's all been washed away, and I can't keep doing this. JUSTICE MARTIN SUTER: Was it your intention to move the building back? MR. ALIANO: No, I can't move the building back. Originally, When I filed the application, my intention was to expand because the business had increased that much. But since this erosion it won't really be an expansion, it's just a question of re-building. JUSTICE SUTER: So what does that mean? You plan to re-build and phase this out? MR. ALIANO: Yes that's correct to re-build and make it nice with the tennis court and gold course, the pool is already there. COUNCILMAN DRUM: On the bluff? MR. ALIANO: the middle. No, not on the bluff, it will have to be below or in SUPERVISOR ~RTOCCHIA: Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Aliano, is there something you are not clear about? Does anyone else wish to speak in behalf of the application? LOUIS EDSON, Maple Lane, Southold: I have known Nick Aliano for about 8 years when :it wa~ working back in MacDon~lds, we had some business transactions.~ We have remained friends ever since. I- have seen some other project~ that he has done and done well. I saw this place when he first took it over, it certainly wasn't anything very attractive. He has spent a lot of money and time down there and it shows. I think when people do this, it calls for some type of encouragement. The Town Board should encourage the growth of the Town. I recommend the approval of his application. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: of this application? Does anyone else wish to speak in behalf (There was no response.) SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone wish to speak in opposition? JOHN & OLIVIA FELLINGER-I~R: I would like to ask you, where will the new buildings or additions be located? SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: of zone. The Planning etc. The Town Board is concerned with the change Board would be concerned with the site plans, JOHN FELLINGER-IHAR: I have a map here. See, we are the neighbors to the proposed 10 acre parcel. We would be concerned only if the motel is put up next to us. We would be concerned only if the motel would be extended next to us approximately east of us 2~e~e105 feet east of us and goes down 460'. We are concerned (5) ~"PUBLIC HEARING ~ CHANGE OF ZONE APP ATION # 238 - ~ ~ril 11, 1978 NICHOLAS AL'I'ANO & PATRICIA KRUPSKI density and population because we have a house here. We sympathize very much with Mr. Aliano, he is an excellent man and we like h%m very much and we know what happened on the beach and we hope there is somesolution for him. We are just concerned that next to us. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Will he have to go under the site plan? TOWN ATTORNEY ROBERT W. TASKER: I think he wili probably have to have a site plan with specified setbacks. MR. FELLINGER-IHAR: It is about 2~ acres east of us that we concerned with right next to our residence. I was told that a house would be built there by Mr. Aliano. are eventually SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone else wish to speak in opposition to this application? BILL WILHELM, ~resident of the Birch Hills Property Owners Association: I would just like to know a little more about what is involved. For example, if there is a real motive involved here to protect the real estate, why was not bulkheading considered. My other point is the concern about expansion of the property with the additional buildings. In regards to health, we had some difficulty when we were building there and also some warnings. In fact we had to sign a waiver regarding pollutants in the soil. For example, our nitrate levels are very high there. If there is indication that a significant expansion of that kind of thing would aggrevate the nitrate level, etc. Mr. Calvin Smith of ths Suffolk County Health Department is in charge of that. So even though I have no objections, I have some concerns. I question whether the solving of the problem could be done in other ways rather than in expansion. JUSTICE ~RTIN SUTER: We have no control over the Health Department. He must meet all of their requirements the same as you did. MR. WILHELM: Well, It turned out that we couldn't meet them and we had to sign a waiver. JUSTICE SUTER: This is up to the Health Department. MARK BRIAN: I have a question regarding the expansion. I live in the general area. I am interested in discovering whether or not anybody has information as to the proposed expansion of the motel. It is a substantial number of extra units or is it just a replacement on a 1-1 basis of what is already there? If it is a replacement on a 1-1 basis certainly there would be no objection, on my part. However, if it is expanded, I am wondering if that particulal area is a desirable area in view of the rather limited road access and particularly the problems we have been having with the drainage area near the intersection of Duck Pond Road, whether or not the motel would be appropriate until this problem is resolved. I understand there is supposed to be some resolution of this drainage problem in the area, but in any case the road is breaking up rather badly in certain areas and whether the additional traffic due to the motel would increase the number of residents would necessarily be desirable from the standpoint of the road and the residents who already live in the area. Since I don't (6) PUBLIC HEARING PL~iC CHANGE OF ZONE AP ATION #238 NICHOLAS April 11, 1978 & PATRICIA KRUPSKI know what the plans are, I can't no objection at ~his point. But, particular plans are. say that I am against it, I have could elaborate as to what the SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: To my knowledge, none have been submitted that I know of. The Planning Board would approve the site plan. MR. ALIANO: I have already told the Planning Board what my intention was. I originally wanted to expand what I had. But since I made application I am in danger of losing what I have, so it would wind up a 1-1 but I am not going to guarantee that all of a sudden that the sand is going to come back again. I plan to expand as needed. It is strictly a seasonal motel type of operation. I am only open in the summer. I don't get that winter business that breaks up the road. I am not going to deal with that problem, that is up on Oregon Road, no wheres near me. MR. BRIAN: Basically, what I was interested in was this expansion or whether it was primarly for the replacing of buildings .... MR. ALIANO: It is both, either, or. Time will tell as far as the expansion. I don't expect to expand right away, but I want to know that it can be done. MR. BRIAN: Did you consider bulkheading? MR. ALIANO: Yes, it would cost me $30,000. and there is no guarantee that the bulkheading will stay, I don't have that strong a footing it's a 22 year old building. So, If I put $30,000. into it and I can't get insurance on bulkheading. I called the flood control people about it, they will not insure bulkheading. Rambo & the one from Greenport gave me prices of about $30,000. I would rather take that $30,000. and put the building back and let this building fall down. It is about ready to go now. MR. BRIAN: fall down. Is that what you have in mind/ just letting the building I mean, you won't cart anything away? MR. ALIANO: Well, I don't have any choice enough property in the surrounding area, I to have it dumped there. in the matter. I own am certainly not going SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on the subject, in opposition to this application? BILL WILHELM: I would like to make a statement in opposition. Since I get the impression that the primary effort here is to expand the facility. I have this personal opinion that I don't think it would be to the advantage of the community to have such a large enterprise down there. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? (There was no response.) HEARING ~ '" (7) PUBLIC CHANGE OF ZONE APPliCATION # 238 - NICHOLAS & PATRICIA KRUPSKI SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Has everyone who wishes to speak had an opportunity to speak? .(There was no response.) SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Hearing none, the hearing will be closed, after digesting all the facts, the Board will make a determination. Respectfully submitted, ~etty ~'r~ev~_lle Deputy Town Clerk April 9, 1996 Henry Raynor P.O. Box '1459 Re: ProPosed site plan For Beachcomber Mo~el $CTM# 1000-85.2_j, 2 & 'f7 Dear Mr. RaYnor: (~p~, ~ - ~ ' ' - The Fo¢lewmg action was Oaken heid open until :he next Public meetin9 on April 29, notification of ProPe~y OWners. 1996 pending fU~her BE/T FURTHER ~ESOLFED thai: :he PUblic comment Period wil~ be held open ' until May 9, 1996. Please contact thfs Sincerely, cf ?u ha~q%estions regarding the above ~'C~ard O. Ward Chairman ~- ~MiTHTOWN AVENUE 90X ~ GLENN SPETTA ASSOCIATES , ENV~ClONMENTAL CCNSUL~1NG AND ANA6¥$~$ , COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT May 17, 1998 Planning Board Town of 8outhold Town Hell, 55095 Main Road Southoic;, New York 11o~71 Attention: Richard Ward, Chairman Re: Beachcomber Motel II ~CTM# 1000-83.2-1,2& plo 17 Deer Mr. Ward: At the lest Planning Board Meeting on April 29, lgg~ you e~preased several concerns of the Board with regard to the referenced motel expansion, The ~irst pertained to the Applicant's moving the existmg motel units further south from their current location and the second involved the consolidation 'of the three lots involved in the proposed action into one o',mership. The following responses are made with regard to the Planning E~oard's 1. k4oving the eXi~[?r'~ I~eachcomber Motel Units south from their existing location. Applicant's Reeponee: There ia potential for future Ices of some of the units (nine or more) at the existing ~eachcomber Motelr However, the existtng units am stlt! in eound condition and contribute to the economic base of the Beachcomber's operation via rental income, Therefore, to selectively move these units is not an viable economi~ alternative at this point in time, M~ving the units will cause economic hardship for the Applicant The Applicant will not operate any units that are considered unsafe. The Applicant is willing ',o move impact~ exiatin~ rental units Whet, they can no longer function as rental units and at a point in time when the proposed Beachcomber Motel II units are realizing ar' income that will assist with offsetting the cost of moving impacted existing motel units. The amount of u~dts to be moved shell be dependent upon the extent of actual or expected potential damage, To the Applicant's recollection the original toning change in the late 1970'$ was consistent with Master Plan recommendations for promoting tourism and did not require moving the existing motel units. 2. ¢onaoIId~,tion of the Applicant's lots. Applioant'l Reaponle: Aa dlsouesed In the DEIS there are three parcels involved in the proposed project: 1) Suffolk County Tax Map Number ($CTM #) 1000-083-2-I, 2,1 acres owned by Pond Enteq~rises, lac,, with Mr Nicholas Aliano as President of the Corpora(;ort The existing Beachcomber Motet is located on this lot and consiat~ of thirty.six motel units, three apartments, an office, and a fifty seat restaurant with parking for approximately 24-30 cars. 2) SCTM # 1000-083-2-2, 12.3 acres owned by Patrioia Krupski (Mr. Aliano'~ daughter). A pool and cabana (with five units) that ara currently used ay motel guests are located in a grass:/urea just south of the existing motel. 3) SCTM # 1000-083-2.17, 33,9 aore~ owned by Mr, Nicholas Aliano contains approximately 32 acres which are leased out for farming and 1.8 wooded acres. There ia a small wooden structure in the farm field which houses an irrigafio', well. Mr, Aliano has initiated steps towards the consolidation of the lots under Pond Enterl~rises, Inc, However, prior to consolidating the lots he feels that it is n~csssary to rece!'e a negative declaration from the Town Planning Board with regard to the proposed action, The Applicant will comply with an official State Environmental Quality Review "Findings Statement", Certification of Findings ~,o Approve/Fund/Undertake the proposed g¢:;on and resolution by the Town Board that accepts the Applicant's DEI$ and makes the consolidation of the lots a condition for granting additional r~quired permits. Mr. Ali&no also feels the~. if the proposed Motel expansion does not receive the necessary permit.~, ~o construct that the three lots ~evert back to their present ownerehip, I have asked Mr. Raynor to enter these comments into the record at the May 20, 1996 Ptanning Board Meeting on behalf of the Applicant, We trust that these responSeS resolve the above two issues to the Planning Board's satisfaction, Please contact me on 738-5928 wi~.h any question~ c~ comments in this matter, $1n~rely, Ol~nn D. Sparta GDS N, Aliano H. Raynor PLANNING BOARD bIEMBEI~ RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMER$ KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11~971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 May 21, 1996 PI_,ANN~G BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Henry Raynor P.O. Box 1459 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Proposed site plan for Beachcomber Motel II SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Ray-nor: The following took place at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, May 20, 1996: WHEREAS, the Planning Board has received comments during the public comment period that require mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, these comments have been sent to the applicants environmental consultant to prepare responses; be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, upon receipt of the responses, will prepare the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Chairman May7,1996 Southold Town Planning Board Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Ward, I am writing this letter on behalf of my wife and I, to express our concerns with the application by the Beachcomber Motel to expand it's facility's. I verbally expressed our concerns at two public meetings held by the Board as a part of the review process. This letter is meant to formalize those concerns. As a property owner of an adjoining lot to the Beachcomber property which is to be utilized as a part of the expansion, one of our major concerns is the possible negative impact on the limited water supply. It appears that the intended wells will draw from the same aquifer as the adjacent properties. We would like to know how the logistical location of the wells is determined? Is it based on expected usage ? If so, what happens if that usage were to change, to say a Time Share or a Condominium type of set up in the future? How are we protected against that? Is the owner willing to stipulate that he has no intentions of changing this property from a seasonal to year round usage in the future? We have heard Mr. Aliano state that it's no one else's business but his as to his reason's for expanding what appears to be an unprofitable business by over twice it's current capacity, but we strongly disagree with his opinion, we feel it is our business, as adjacent property owners, if his intentions are other than those he currently espouses to. As a point of fact and record, Mr. Aliano's record of following through on his expressed plans does not give me a great deal of confidence in his currently expressed plans. The point we allude to is his lack of follow up on his last expansion, a part of which was the relocation of the existing units. We feel that if Mr. Aliano is not required to fulfill his commitments to the board he will continue to flout his responsibility's, and do as he pleases, utilizing his version of what he has committed to. Therefore we request that he be directed to fulfill his current commitments before any new plans be considered. Then at the time the new plans are to be considered, protection be built into those plans against a possible change from Motel type of setup to a Time Share or Condominium type of setup. If these points are not addressed by Mr. Aliano, to the board's satisfaction, we urge you to reject his request for any further expansion. Sincerely, Mr. Rich~ Spellman/~ We, the undersigned, are strongly opposed to Beachcomber Motel (Beachcomber II), for the following reasons: This is a residential setting and therefore is no place for an expanded motel. The narrow, steep road leading down to the motel cannot accomodate the increased traffic. There will also be increased traffic on Duck Pond Road. There are many young children in this area whose lives may be in danger. ) The people in the neighborhood will not be able to walk/bicycle down to the beach due to the increased traffic. We are also concerned that in the future, the hotel property may be sold and converted into condominiums, timeshares, or possibly a rehabilitation center (we are aware the zoning would have to be changed)· 5. Why expand a motel that does very little business and had the option of being moved back as per a 1978 ruling to avoid the erosion? Name Address ,}~o ~ame Address i . i ,~ vi U · /~ 295 Vista Place Cutchog~e, N.Y. 11935 May 3, 1996 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Planning Board: PL,~ ~ As a specialist in American Democracy, I have a good understanding of the concept of representative democracy. A small group of people try to represent and effect the best policies on behalf of the whole society. Such is the job of the Planning Board of Southold Town. In the particular instanoe of the petition for expanding the Beachcomber Motel, the board needs to consider the benefits such an expansion would have to the community. The proposers would argue that a certain number of jobs and peripheral sales would result and that there would be a low environmental impact to the neighborhood. This argument is filled with weaknesses and perhaps even deceptions. At present the motel is not well utilized. The summer trade is minimal although even on that level, customers intrude on the privacy and safety of the residential communities of Birch Hills and Vista Bluff; motel visitors roam the neighborhood, leaving litter, pet waste, and wander through private property. Motel visitors speed through the narrow road and dangerous corner leading down to the motel. We have suffered a n~ber of pet deaths and children have barely avoided being run down. An increased motel population could only explode these problems into tragedies. A larger motel presence would strain local resources. Fire protection would have to be increased (there are few hydrants); and more Police protection would have to be provided. Both these additions would mean local residents would have to pay more taxes which would benefit nonresidents. The fragile water supply would be affected: please note the new discovery of water pollution leading north from Oregon Road and affecting the Sound front properties. Who would pay to protect the local residents from pollution caused by an increased number of visitors from other areas? In some of the discussions about the Motel expansion, I noted several comments that previous rulings about moving existing motel units have not been complied with in over 10 years. This provides no confidence that future restrictions on the use and care of the property would be obeyed. Basically it is clear that the life styles and needs of the majority of the local residents would be adversely affected by the expansion of the motel. We have no confidence that our own investments in our homes would not be seriously damaged by this plan. We believe the rezoning might lead to other types of development of the area which would totally destroy its rural residental character. Previously, the Planning Board or previous approval bureau did great damage to the area by allowing the natural habitat of the birds to be damaged. They should now amend this error by protecting both the natural environment and the local population by refusing to allow the expansion of the motel. It should, on this occasion, make sure that previous rulings are obeyed. Perhaps fines are due for the lack of compliance. I would be happy to discuss my strong opposition to the petition to expand the Beachcomber Motel with the Board if they so desire. Sincerely, Barbara D. Ri D. PLANNING BOARD MEMBerS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 April 30, 1996 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOVv-N OF SOUTHOLD Henry.Raynor P.O. Box 1459 Mattltuck, NY 11952 Re: Proposed site plan for Beachcomber Motel It SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following took place at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, April 29, 1996: The public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was closed. It was noted that the public comment period will run until May 9, 1996. The Board will make a decision at its May 20th meeting whether to accept the Draft Environmental Impact Statement or require a Final Environmental Impact Statement. Please contact this office if you have an,/questions regarding the above. Chairman cc: Charles Voorhis, Environmental Consultant AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING This is to serve notice that I personally posted the property known as by placing the Town's official poster notice(s) within 10 feet of the front property line facing the street(s) where it can be easily seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for seven days prior to the date of the public hearing, on A?~lc-- ~'t~1996. I have sent notices, by certified mail, to the owners of record of every property which abuts and every property which is across from any public or I~rivate street from the above mentioned property on %)~ ,1996 Your na~:~_~int~ Signature Address Date No~c AMY FROST ~Y! Not~y Public, State of ~ No. ~ali~i~ In Su~lk C~ ~mmission E~i~ ~1 13, PLEASE RETURN THIS AFFIDAWT ON THE DAY OF, OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING Re: '~o. chcom~r Date of Hearing: FILE NUMBER:~iii!iP1473800-00107??iilTown of SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK County LEAD AGENCY: 473800 Town of SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK County OFFICE or BOARD:iii!iiPlanning Board <Y/N> CLASS: T Unlisted GENERIC EIS: N TITLE: Beachcomber Motel II Type 1 ENCON INVOLVED:· N DESCRIPT!ON:ii!i!iconst. motel units on 14.1 ac. A total of 8 bldgS are prop. · Loc. S/E/C LI Sound & Duck Pond Lane. DEVELOPMENT TYPE: .C .- ... DATE RECEIVED: ........ Residential subdivision· '. Positive Declaration 11/12/92 Commercial Industrial EIS Notice Completion 03/25/96 Private Other Governm't Draft EIS 03/25/96 Pages 85 Hearing Scheduled 04/08/96 STATUS: O Changed To Neg Dec / / OK Withdrawn Void Final EIS / / ......... Findings filed. · . · . . · ~ ~ .. Current Record 11 00 IMPORTANT >> File Number: P1-473800-00107 Use the above number in all correspondence about this action! To the Lead Agency: The above information confirms that filings on the described Positive Declaration were officially received by, and entered in the SEQR Repository on the date(s) shown in the box headed DATE RECEIVED above. The latest filing is indicated by the most recent date in that box. The date and time in the second line show when this document was printed. Please check the information above carefully. For corrections or questions contact Charles Lockrow, (518)457-2224, or write to: SEQR Repository NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs 50 Wolf Road, Room 514 Albany, NY 12233 Town of SOUTHOLD Planning Board 53095 Main Road-P.O. Southold, NY 11971 Box 1179 PLANNING BOARD MEMBerS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI. JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 9, 1996 Henry Raynor P.O. Box 1459 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Proposed site plan for 8eachcomDer Motel It SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board at their regular meeting of April 8, 1996: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board keep the hearing held open until the next public meeting on April 29, 1996 pending further notification of property owners. BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED that the public comment period will be held open until May 9, 1996. Please contact this office If you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, IRichard G. Ward Chairman ~ WT1 !, ~WATT Vt")tl'~ T1qD~!T. FROM ~ Pana~:onic ANS/FAX PHOHE NO. ~ 5164778239 Apr. 07 1996 OI:OBPM PO? Beaohcomber II Statement $0OI;!0L01!)?:l'l The DEIS for the Beachcomber exoansion evaJuates the pro,jeot as existing on three separately owned (~aroe]s of ]and rather than on one merged tract of ]and. The North Fork Environmental Council is concerned about how this a~oroach may or may not ~mDaot future d~veloDment of theme oarcels beyond the proposed Beachcomber II pa~t of the SE~RA review calls fo~ an a project's possible impact oD foture feel that a number of questions should be pro,jeer. Since antiolpstion of development, we addressed, 1) What are-. the 5mp].ioati. ons beyond this project, i? the separate parcels are later sold off? 2) P0r¢:el #R ~ne]udes almost 30 aores Dresenl'.]y zoned A~r~ou]tura]-Conservation, Ao(~ordJn~ to the DEIS, %bls land would no longer be farmed but instead wou].d be ]eft fallow order to provide the pro,jeer with an adequate water supplY, without Covenants and Restriotions. does leaving this land dormant, increase the likelihood of Jt being re-zoned for development at some future (3) The existin~ 36 ~otel units are presently looated on Par'oel ~ consisting of 2.1 apres. The Do,'ma] allowable denzity for th{:~ ,)aro~9~l, however, wou',Ld be 14,5 un,ts. If the three parcels ~lre not mor~ed, is the Beachcomber complex, in effeot, ~ettin~ an extra 20 units? ]'n other word~ should p~lblic water ].aLe'l- beoomo available and/or further down the road yet another FROM ~ Pa~hasomic ANS/FAX PHOhlE HO. ~ 51B477S239 Apr. 07 1996 OI~O?PM P03 e×pan~ion ~ ¥~lanned for parc~.] 2 er parcel 3, would parcel' ]'~ 36 un~ts be factored ~nto th~-~ whole picture? (4) The Beache6~mber DE].S mitigates a number of SEQRA is~ue~ (~raff]c, burden .on community ~erv~oes, etc, ) by highlighting the "seasonal" nature of the Beachcomber comp]ex. What s~fe~usrds are there ensurin~ that Beachcomber %~]] remain seasonal? For that matter (g~ven the recent confusion over the definition of ~ "~arkin~ s~aoe") how exactin~ is the Town'~ definition of "seas ona,l "? Last]y the N.F.E.C. would like to ¢~Jte Chapter 37 of Town Law which gives the 8outhold the responsibility to "[r]egulate, in coastal area~ subject to coastal floodin~ and erosion, ].and %~se [~nd de¥ol, ot~ment activities so as to minimize or prevent damage & destruction to property." In keeping with this ]aw, in 1978 the Planning Bo~rd supported a change of zone on PaPce] Z so that Mr. Aliano could "move %he mote] and facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion." However, al. though presumably the ~hange of zone was granted for this purpose, this move has never t~ken place. As fervently as 4/23/92 the Trustees have also a8.v~sed that the ex~st~ng motel should be moved at lc~ast fifty feet back. As per chapter 37 of Town Law, shouJ, dn't Southold see to Jt that this move of the existin~ motel be i,,~]uded in the Beachcomber project and thus accounted for in the DEI8? / ! FILE NUMBER:ii~i~!P1473800-00107iiiii?!Town of SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK County ~EAD .... " " ' ' ' "'' AGENCY: 473800"''. .. Town of'SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK county oFFICE or BOARD:' Planning Board ..' ' "" '.' ' :.i. ' ''' ."' ". i...' :.". ' 'CLASSi.T. Un'listed GENERIC EIS: N TITLE:. Be.achcomber Motel II ''. .... . Type 1 ' ENCON INVOLVED: N DESCRIPTION:':~onst~ motel units on 14.1 ac. A total of 8 bldgs are prop. ..... ~.: ... .Loc. S/E/C LI Sound & Duck Pond Lane. DEVELOPMENT TYPE:.Cl.' ":: ~DATE RECEIVED:'i /'.~'.i'.' '..':-... '.' ' · :' '.' '..'..Residential subdivision ~. 'Positive Declaration . - · 1'1/12/92. 'Commercial Industrial '.EIS Notice Completion.' 03/25/96 · ':Private Other Governm't: .".Draft EIS 03/25/96.' '.Pages 851 ' · .':'Hearing Scheduled 04/08/96. STATUS:. O . .".Changed To Neg Dec / / OK Withdrawn Void :. .'Final EIS / / · ·.. i. '..i.' ...... Findings filed ~ ~ ... : ........ 11 00 IMPORTANT >> File Number: P1-473800-00107 Use the above number in all correspondence about this action~ To the Lead Agency: The above information confirms that filings on the described Positive Declaration were officially received by, and entered in the SEQR Repository on the date(s) shown in the box headed DATE RECEIVED above. The latest filing is indicated by the most recent date in that box. The date and time in the second line show when this document was printed. Please check the information above carefully. For corrections or questions contact Charles Lockrow, (518)457-2224, or write to: Town of SOUTHOLD Planning Board 53095 Main Road-P.O. Southold, NY 11971 Box 1179 SEQR Repository NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs 50 Wolf Road, Room 514 Albany, NY 12233 LEGAL NOTICE Notice of Public Hearing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Sec- tion 276 of the Town Law, a public hearing will be held by the Southold Town planning Board, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York in said town on the 8th day of April, 1996 on the question of the following: 7:30 p.m. Public hearing and amendment to file Cov- enants and Restrictions for the proposed major subdivision for Highpoint Woods fat East Marion, in East Marion, Town of Southold, County or Suffolk, State of New York., Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-22-3-5 & 31-4-15.9 & 16.1 The property is bordered on the north by land now or for- merly of 172 Duffield St., Inc., and by land now or fohnerly of Rose DeNicola; on the east by land now or formerly of Stephanie V. Seremetric &. Martha Ann Campbell, by land now or formerly of Efstratios Papazaharious, et al~ by land now or formerly of Cleaves Points Construction Co., by land now or formerly of Dor- othy E. Cook, by land now or formerly of John & Luz Psaroudakis, hy land now for formerly of Kenneth Ketcham, by land now or formerly of Frances T. Ketcham and by land now or formerly of Frank B. Cowan, Jr., et al; on the south by Main RoaO, by land. now or formerly of Panagiotis Touliatos, et al, and by land now or formerly of Nancy J. Poole; on the west by Soundcrest Woodsi Section One, subdivision lots II through 21. 7:35 p.m. Public hearing for the proposed lot line change for Frank Buonaiuto and Bayview/ South Harbor Partnership, in Southold, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York~ Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-75-4-8 & 22.1. The property is bordered on the north by land now or for- merly of Frank Nawrocki and others, and by Grange Road; on the northeast by the recharge area for South Harbor Homes subdivision; on the east by a conservation easement for Peconic Land Trust, and by land now or formerly of G.A. Stepnoski; on the southeast by Main Bayview Road; on the south by land now or formerly of Southold Fire District; and on the west by South Harbor Road. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Article XXV of the code of the Town of Southold a public hearing will be held by the Southold Town Planning Board, at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York in said Town on the 8th day of April, 1996 on the question of the fol- lowing: 7:40 p.m. Public hearing for the DEIS for the Beachcomber Motel II, in Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17. The property is bordered on the n~orth by Long Island Sound, on the east by land now or formerly of J. London, and by land now or formerly of John Zuhoski; on the south by land now or formerly of F. McBride; on the west by land now or formerly of R. Spellman, by land now or for- merly of.J & M Taber and Duck Pond Road. Dated:. March 26, ~996 ~ BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD Richard G. Ward, Chairman 1 X-3/28/96(49) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK ss: Joey Mac Lellan, being duly sworn, says that he is the Editor, of the TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suf- folk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Traveler-Watchman once each week for // .................................................................... :..~w~eks successively, commencing on the ..:..~..'...~.. ......... da,~ of ~2~'~ ~ ~' ,1 9~ ~ V v "-'~ ~' Sworn to before me this ...... :~:.Z.. ............ day of Notary Public BARBARA A, SCHNEIDER NOTi&~Y pUrgLIC, State of New York Ne, ~o°c.'~346 ~ Qua!flied in Sufi~lk County ] 1050 SMITHTOWN AVENUE P.O. BOX 94 BOHEMIA. NY 11716 (516) 567-5859 GLENN SPETTA ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS · ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND ANALYSES · COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT · ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS · AQUATIC AND BENTHIC SURVEYS March 22, 1996 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Robert Kassner Town of Southold Planning Department Subject: DEIS for the Beachcomber Motel II Cutchoguc, New York SCTM # 1000-83-2-1,2,17 Dear Mr. Kassner: In accordance with your phone request, and as a result of the Town Planning Board's decision to accept the subject DEIS as complete, enclosed please find an additional 5 copies of the DEIS for distribution to other regulatory agencies. Please contact me on 738-5926 to keep me informed on the progress of the SEQR review or if you require any additional information pertaining to the DEIS. Sincerely, Glenn D. Spetta GDS cc: N. Aliano H. Raynor [mm:c:Beachcomber:L-96-004] 1050 SMITHTOWN AVENUE P,O BOX 94 BOHEMIA, NY 11716 (5t6) 567-5859 GLENN SPETTA ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS · ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND ANALYSES · COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT · ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS · AQUATIC AND BENTHIC SURVEYS Planning Board Off:ice Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Subject: Robert Kassner Town of Southold Planning Department DEIS for the Beachcomber Motel II Cutchogue, New York SCTM # 1000-83-2-1,2,17 March 15, 1996 Reference: 1. 2. Dear Mr. Kassner: Letter from Charles Voorhis, Charles Voorhis & Associates to Richard Ward, Planning Board Chairman, dated March 14, 1996 Fax from Robert Kassner, Town of Southold Planning Department to Glenn Spetta, Glenn Spetta Associates, dated March 15, 1996 In accordance with your request (reference 2) attached please find a single set of change pages which clarifies and corrects items identified in reference 1. These changes are being faxed to you in order that you may have a complete revised DEIS in time for the Planning Board meeting on March 18, 1996. Seven (7) copies of the revised pages will also be mailed to you for placement in the copies of DEIS's that the Planning Board currently has. Please contact me on 738-5926 if the Board requires additional review copies or if I may be of assistance in answering questions pertaining to the DEIS. Sincerely, Glenn D. Spetta GDS N. Aliano R. Kalin P. Grosser H. Raynor S. Hyman [mm:c:Beachcomber:L-96-003] PLANNING BOARD RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCPLIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS K~NNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 19, 1996 Henry Raynor P.O. Box 1459 Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Proposed site plan for Beachcomber Motel SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board at their regular meeting of March 18, 1996: WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was received for Beachcomber Motel II; and WHEREAS, the DEIS contains extensive analysis pertaining to the Action particularly concerning the environmental impacts and mitigation associated therewith and is --' adequate for public review, be it therefore RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board deem the DEIS complete; and be it further RESOLVED, that a Notice of Completion of Draft ElS be filed in accordance with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 44 of the Town Code; and be it further RESOLVED, that copies of the DEIS will be sent to all involved agencies and maintained for public inspection at the office of the Southold Town Planning Board and the Cutchogue Branch of the Southold Town Library; and be it further Page 2 Proposed site plan for Beachcomber Motel II March 19, 1996 RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board will conduct a public hearing on the DEIS on April 8, 1996. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Chairman enc. 1050 8MI"rHTOWN AVENUE P,O. ='OX 94 8ONEMIA, NY 1 (516) 567-5859 GLENN SPE'I'I'A ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS * ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUL~NG AND ANALY~E$ , COASTAL ZONE MANA(~EMENT · ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STAI~MENT$ · ~:)UA?IC AND ~IENTHIC ~UNVI~?I~i Plann/ng Boa~jd Office Town of Soul,old Town Hall, 5.~;095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Subject: 'Reference: Robert Kassner Town of Southold Planning Department DEIS for the Beachcomber Moral ri Cutcho~ueo New York SC'I'M ~1000-83-2-1,2,17 1. Letter from Charles Voorhis, Charles Voorhis & Associates to Richard Ward, Planning Board Chairman, dated March 14, 1996 2. Fax from Robert Kassner, .Town of Southold Plan.,fill8 Department to Gle:m Spetta, Glenn Spetta A~socaates, dated March 15, 1996 Dear Mr. Ka~sner: In acc'or'dance with your request ~re/erence 2) at~ched please ~nd a s/nile set of c.han..ge pages wh/ch clarifies and corrects items idantified m.refarence .1., These chan~es are being ~ax-ed to you ~n order that you may have a complete revised DF. IS tn time for the Planl~r~ Board meeting on March 18, 1996. Seven (7) copies of the. revised pages will also be mafl~;l to you ~or placement in the copies of DE,!S's that the Planning Board currently has. Please contact me on 738-5926 if the Board .requires additional review co~ios or if I may be of assistance in answering questions pertaining to the DEIS. -' Sincerely, Glenn D, Spetta GDS N. Aliano R. Kalin P. C-ro~er H. Ra!rnor S. Hyman [mm:c:Beach comber:L-96-003] 1996 (2) The sanimr~ s~s~m i~ desi~nad in accordance with '$tandarcls for Subsudace Sewage Dispc~.~l Systems for Other Than Single l:=mily Residences" published by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). Section 2.D (Construction and Operation) includes a d/~cussion of the development potential under Article 6 of the Suffolk Count~ Sanitary Code when public water is supplied or ff a sewage treatment plant is construc~d on the APPlicant's proper~y. The ex/stin8 and proposed ~nitary design flow consisU of the following: Table .'l-4 Sanitary Flow Calculations Apartmen~ 3 uri~ts x 3f0 gpd/um.'t = 1,050 ~ C.~bana $ umts x i00/pd/umt = 500 gpd Motel 36 unto x 150 gpd/unit = 5,400 gpd Bar 5 seats x 15 8pd/seat = 75 ~ Restaurant 50 seats x 10 gpd/seat = 'Total Existing Flow = Proposed Motel Units 46 units x 150/pd = 6,900 Totei of F. xis~g and Proposed Sanitarf Flow- 14,425 gpd The .,mz~itary design flow from the proposed development is 46 units x 150 ~l~d/un/t or · 4,900 gpd. Each 12 unit buildin~ will have its own sanitary disposal consiisfing of a 3,600 gallon septic tank and one 10 foot diameter by 6 foot deep leacl~in§ pool providing 188.6 square feet of sidewall leaching area. This meets the $CDH$ requirement of 10 ~ per square foot of leaching area. Near the un/is the lowe:tt elevation is about 14 feet makin~ the depth to water a minimum of eleven feet. Th/s prov/dcs adequate room to install thc leachini pools with a mi~mum distance between the bottom of the pool and the ~'oundwater ruble of 2 feet as required by the $CDHS. The leaching pools for each of the building are spread about the pordon of the proport~ to be developed dispersint the nitrogen loading from the sanim~ systems. (3) Water supply design to establish size for ~he proposed action has been based upon the followinl criteria: Rev. 0-1, 11/95 2 - 9 S3I.~I~I9¥J ~('J~rblJ-.S l*lk~l~:~ 96, SI a/¥14 Rev. 0-1, 11/95 Water Des' Crite~t Average Day Tourist Season 14,925 gallons per day (gpd) 13st/mated Maximum Day 30,000 gpd Estimated Peak Hour 60 gallons per minute (gpm) The p~ watea' supply system w~l be dea/l~ed/n accordance with NYS Depa~llent of Heallh and Ten States Standards and will consist of two wells (one as backup) each with a capacity of 60 gpm. A 3,000 gallon hydropneumatic tank will be prcr~ided for storal;e, with Pressure co~troh providing working pressures fi'om 40 to 60 pounds per square inch (psi). The storage will also provide chlorine contact time should chlorination be requited. Should the water quality fi'om the wells be impacted ~rom pestbides beyond acceptable limits, granular activated ¢&rbon filters will be placed prior to the storage tank in the system. The system will be constructed with fittings and room for granular activated carbon should it be needed in the future. It is not expel:ted that nitrates will be a problem in :he well's water. Since the water needs will be seasonal, iris recommended that the existing Well No. 2 (25 gpm) be retained for u~e during the off season months. The proposed location of the new wells will be in the vicin/ty of the southerly portiere of the RR zoned property and the northerly Portion of the A-C zoned property. It is proposed to place the two wells approximately 60 to 100 feet apart and at least 200 :feet fi'om potential pollution sources, as required by the S-u~folk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) for wells screened in the upper Glacial aquiibr. The proposed well depth is approximately 110 feet based upon a ground elevsttion of between 50 and 55 feet above sea level. This places the bottom of the well at approximately 55 to 60 feet below sea level and 60 to 65 feet below the water table. The bottom c~ existing Well No. 2 is currently 61 feet below sea level and has demomtrated e~cellent water quality in the past. ThLs well is located approximately 600 feet east-northeast of the proposed wells. Based upo~ the aquifer characteristics 2 - 10 (4) of th,.~ area it is e~ected that the drawdown in the wells will b~ between 1 and 2 fe~t ~k~ring pumpi~ ~er p~pa~e ofw~ ~escn~ a ~n~ of saluter ~ion ~u~ u~ ~om ~1~, ~t ~e ~e ~page ~ ~e s,,mmer ~ o~ ~ at a rae of 10.4 ~llons ~r minute. ~e season~ aspec~ of the water use ~ ~pr~ · e situation as it relates to sal~ater ~sion s~ ~e wells c~ be rested ~ ~e off se~on when ~e ~o~r rede ~ ~mst ~d thc aq~er s~tem ~n remm to equfl~fium. ~e availab~ of tMcc we~ ~ also allow for rotagon of well use to ~e ~e s~s ~ a~ ~ven location. ~cre is not ~e~od to ~ ~ ~t on ~o~tcr qu~ as a ~ult of the p~ ~m ~e water supp~ wells. ~e water supply system ~ also be ~Nable of prong up to 14~ ~m of wate:r for fire fi~t~g ff ncoded. Mdkion~ ~ flow c~ be obtained ~ draf~g ~om ~n~ ~d Sold or by the cons~ction of fire w~s on si~e. P~kmg ~o~ desi~ ~d la,ut ~e de~cted on ~e pre~a~ de~lopment pl~, A tot~ of 108 p~g staDs ~I be prided. ~l~lago~ for ~ng at · is total ~e ~ven below: _V~.sting Motel _Exes.' ting Restaurant ._Existing Apartmqats ~Proposed Mo~ U~ ~ployees Acce~o~ Uses To~ Req~rements To~ Prodded Table 2.6 Parkin~ Calculations 36 Units x 1 Unit = 36 Stalls required 50 Scats x 1/3 Seats = 17 Stalls rcquirod 3 Apartments x 1/Apt. = 3 Stalls required 46 Units x 1/Unit = 46 Stalls requir~t- 6 Emplo~.ees x 1/Emp = 6 S~alls .required No Speafic Requirements = As requtrefl . = 108 Stalls requtrod 108 Stalls provided 104 Standard + 4 Handicap D. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION Com;tructlon will commence after the granting of all permits amd approvals. The Beachcomber Motel II expans/on h planned to undergo a phased construction per/od, It is antic/pated that construct/on will betlin in late 1996 to early 1997 with approximately all 4/5 units completed/n one year. Development w/Il be limited to those areas on-site which Rev. 0.1, 11/95 2- 11 have already been cleared. Very few trees will be removed and very liItle alteration bc done to the ex/sting terrain. New landscaping will be added in disturbed areas. As each motel building is constucted its septic system wlil also be built. The sy~,cms w/il be designed to accommodate san/tary flow from the proposed new motel units. Water sul~ply w~l be designed for both water supply and fire serv'/ces, although it is ant/cipated that additional fire fighting supplies will be utfl/zed from the Long Island Sound. The developmental potential of the property will double ff public water is b~ought into the sil~. This would increase the allowable sanitary flow from 14,425 5,pd to 28,950 ~cl. Fu~,~er development could ~ake the form of add/tional motel units in the ER zoned portion of the property and/or single faro/fy residences in ,]~e A-C zoned area. It should al,o bentre,hat =mc onofa,.. .trea=n:p an,(S ).ould -- dermity consuatnts placed on ~is proper~ ~ the SCDHS. Site density would then be -- 1,rnlted by requirements such as Town zoning, parking, site conditions etc, Approval to~ .., constl-uc~ a STP would be required by Suffolk Count~ Department of Public Works. ' Ope~'ation of the Beachcomber Motel II will be as a family resor~ providing motel accomodafions for i~msient tourists. All units will be individually hea~ed/ak condition~;d and furnished with sofas, beds, refrigerators and televisions, Ail uwits ,,viii have private bathrooms. -~_;_ The 1.~roposed motel units will be operated by members of the Alian!,_fanlfly on a seasorml b~is. It will be open to the public beginning Memorial Day weekend h~rou~h mid October. As an in~ot-mal resort, landscaping will be done u~ilizinll non-fenili~.er depende~lt vegetation. Exotic plantings and specimen ~pe varieties will not be med. The grassey areas sun ounding the bufldmp will not be fertilized and will be maintained only by mowing. Rev. 0-1, 11/9~ ~ - 1~ E. APPROYAL$ Upon approval of the DEIS by the Lead Agency the Applicant will initiate the permiting and approval process. The Applicant will diligently fonow up and coordiante with all involved agencies to ensure all the necessary approvals are received, The fotlewin~ approvals are r~quir~d prior to ~nstruciion of the l~achcomber 1I a~ propor~d: Pem,lts, Approvals, Fundin§: Southold Town 1. Building I~partment. Denial of pro~ect in order to be considered for Sp¢oial Excepilon by the ZBA Planning Board - Site Plan Building Department $. Highway Department F~x~ee 'r .c~a's Zoning .Code allows moU~l units in Re~ordRes!denu.'al .~, ning by Special 'ptlon of the ~ Board of Appeals. The Cod~. permits .a. dermty of one unit per each' 6~000 square feet of land area where there Is no public.water ur s~wer. A dens!~ of one unit per each 4,000 square feet of land is pcnmtted where there is pubhc water and sewer. ' ~Suffolk Caunw Department of Health Services: 1. Water Supply (Suffolk County Department of Health Services) - r~wiew and .a]~preval of the desigi for the water supply system. 2. wastewater (Division of Wastewater Management) New York State: 1. w. cn Permit (Division of Water) - Suffolk County Department of t!ealth vail require review and approval of the design for th~. water supply sys~m, NYSDECwfll review and approve a water supply l~rmit and a Long Island Wells ~rmit for the wells ia exce~ of 4~ gpm. 2. Tidal Wetlands - l.~r of non.jurisdiition for revised site plan (Ap~p. lic~..tinn # .C. om . in ayp? umn 86 ^pplicant will r~quest non-~ur~sdicuon for the reused site plan. Rev. 0-1, 11/95 2 - 13 ?B March 14, 1996 Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Beachcomber Motel II Review of Draft EIS - Second Submission Dear Mr. Ward: As per the Board's request, we have completed a review of the Drat~ ElS for the above referenced project (document dated December 1995). We have reviewed each of the points contained in our letter of April 26, 1995. In addition, we have given consideration to the Planning staffcomments dated June 12, 1995. In all cases, we believe the applicant's consultant has done an excellent job in revising the Draft EIS to provide the Board with additional information necessary to advance the SEQR process, and ultimately assist the Board and involved agencies in rendering a decision on project. At this stage, the document is consistent with the relevant Scoping Documents and provides significant information on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development. We believe that the document is adequate for circulation to involved agencies and parties of interest, provided several very minor clarification's and corrections are incorporated into the text These items are noted as follows: · Page 2-9 - The reference to "Section 2.D." at the top of the page is ueclear with regard what section of the document this is cross referenced. · Page 2-9 - As part ofTable 2-4, it would be helpful ifthe total flow is tabulated. 2heword "building" should be plural in the last sentence of subsection (2) on this page. · Page 2-10 - The word "will" should be added to the first complete sentence ~ "Ten State Standards and...". · Page 2-12 - The reference to flow in the second full paragraph should be corrected from 14,475 to 14,425 gpd. · Page 2-13 - The Southold Town permits list should be changed to list the Building Depamnent denial first., before thc ZBA special exception. If the Board is in agreement that the document is otherwise complete, you may wish to consider accepting the document at the meeting of March 18, 1996, subject to these corrections being made and incorporated into the submission documents that the applicant will provide for 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 ,, (516) 331-1455 · FAX 331-8046 Beachcomber Motel H Review of Revised Draft ElS circulation to involved agencies and parties of interest. We would also be pleased to review a fax of the changed pages prior to the Monday meeting, if you find this to be preferable. I will be pleased to further assist in deliberations on this project as well as the preparation of a Final EIS and Findings, or a Negative Declaration, depending upon the nature of substantive commems on the Drafr EIS. Thank you for the oppommity to assist the Board in this review, and please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Charles J~ CHARLES INC. CONSULTANTS Page PLANIVING BOARD M~MBF_~S RICHARD' G. WARD Chairman GEORGE R. ITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENMIETT ORLOWSE~, JR. WILLIAM J. CREMER, S E~N'ETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765~1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 1, 1996 Chades Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Rd. Miller Place, NY 11764 Re: Review of revised DEIS for Beachcomber Motel II SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the revised DEIS for the above mentioned site plan to your office for review. The Planning Board has received the $500 review fee from the applicant and the purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. Please contact this office if there are any questions regarding the above. Site Plan Reviewer 1050 SMITHTOWN AVENUE P.O. BOX 94 BOHEMIA, NY 11716 (516) 567-5659 GLENN SPETTA ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL · ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND ANALYSES · COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT · ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT STATEMENTS · AQUATIC AND BENTHIC SURVEYS January 29,1996 Mr. Robert Kassner Town of Southold Planning Department Main Road Southold, New York 11971 ch¢~( in d~w~ Subject: DEIS for The Beachcomber Motel II proposed expansion Dear Mr. Kassner: In accordance with your request of January 25, 1996 enclosed please find a check from the Applicant to the Town of Southold in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) for costs associated with reviewing the revised subject document. Please contact me on 563-5926 to confirm your receipt of the review fee and/or if you have any questions pertaining to the subject DEIS. Sincerely, Glenn Spetta GDS cc: N. Aliano H. Raynor [msw:a:bch96-03] 1050 SMITHTOWN AVENUE PO. BOX 94 BOHEMIA, NY 11716 (516) 567-5859 GLENN SPETTA ASSOCIATES · ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND ANALYSES ° COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT · ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS · AQUATIC ANO BENTHIC SURVEYS January 12, 1996 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Valerie Scopaz Town Planner Subject: DEIS for the Beachcomber Motel II Cutchogue, New York SCTM # 1000-83-2-1,2,17 Reference: Letter from Richard Ward,. Planning. Board Chairman, to Glenn Spetm Associates dated June 13, 1995, containing: I- Memo from V. Scopaz to Richard Ward dated June 12, 1995 2. Letter to Richard Ward from Charles Voorhis & Associates, Inc. dated April 26, 1995 Dear Ms. Scopaz: In accordance With the request~ made in the referenced letter(s) seven (7) copies of the revised subject Draft Enviromnental Impact Statement (DEIS) are enclosed and submitted to the Planning Board t? determine completeness for acceptance. The comments made in the referenced letter(s) have been answered and incorporated into the text of the DEIS. A reviewers copy is also enclosed Which highlights the areas that have been changed/modified to address the questions/comments raised. I trust that this information adequately addresses all of the reviewers referenced comments. Please contact mC on 563-5926 if you have any questions in this regard. ~ Sincerely, Glenn D. Spetta GDS N. Aliano: R. Kalln P. Grosser H. Raynor S. Hyman [mm:c:Beachco~r ber:L-96-001] SOLd,~ : PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Ma~k S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 14, 1995 Charles Voorhis & Associates. Inc. Environmental a]~d Planning Consultants 54 North Country Road, Suite 2 Miller Place, NY 11764 Dear Mr. Voorhis, The enclosed stage lB field reconnaissance Addendum was sent to this office by Archaeological Services Inc. The report does not make any mention of the flakes and tools found in stage lB and seems to conclude that there are not artifacts on the site? Enclosed also, is our memorandum of June 12, 1995, and our resolution of June 12, 1995, for your guidance and further review. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact this office or Archaeological Services directly. lnc r ~ Site ~Plan RevieWer Encls. Beechcomber II, Cullural Resources Assessment Addendum, Cutchogue, New York CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT STAGE lB FIELD RECONNAISSANCE ADDENDUM BEACHCOMBER II CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. POB 1522, ROCKY POINT, NEW YORK 11778 ASI B1 _ PLANNING BOAND I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Beachcomber II, Cultural Resources Assessment Addendum, Cutchogue, New York BEACHCOMBER II, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK FIELD RECONNAISSANCE Completion date o~le: October 6, 1995 SIGNED: ,/ ~/~ / _~'?'~ ~ ROBERT J. KALIN PROFESSOR, SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/GEOLOGIST, NATIONAL AND NEW YORK STATE CERTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGIST PRESIDENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC. POB 1522, ROCKY POINT, NEW YORK 11778 (516) 331-5980 FAX (516) 744-6617 ARCHAEOLOGY SEAL ASI B2 m m Beachcomber II, Cultural Resources Assessment Addendum, Cutchogue, New York ABSTRACT An additional twenty-five subsudace tests were dug within the proposed impact area of the Beachcomber II project, off Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, Southold Township, Suffolk County, New York. The proposed impact area including all proposed roads and areas where surface artifacts were collected has been evaluated for presence or absence of cultural resources by means of methodological surface examination and a subsurface protocol which included digging and analyzing the soil from a total of twenty-five subsurface tests dug along the course of the proposed roads and other areas. The surface study and subsurface tests revealed no sig,,nificant cultural materials. No culturally significant evidences were observed or recovered. LONG ISLAND SOUND ATLANTIC OCEAN '~ 1, Map showing general location of the study area, ASI B3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Beachcomber II, Cultura! Resources Assessment Addendum, Cutchogue, New York OBJECTIVES The objective o! this study is to make an assessment, by means of additional surface observations and subsurface testing (shovel probes), regarding the presence or absence of significant cultural evidence within the projected impact area of Beachcomber II (road courses) and in those areas where surface evidences were encountered. FIELD SURVEY DATES AND CONDITIONS The field survey was conducted on 10-1-95. The general conditions were satisfactory throughout the study period. FIELD TEAM The test probes were dug by Mr. Carlton E. Welch, ASI senior field technician, under the direction of the principal investigator. DISPOSITION OF ARTIFACTS OR OTHER EVIDENCES Cultural materials removed from the property for further study or identification are temporarily stored at the ASI facilities at Miller Place, New York. If appropriate for preservation, they are submitted (with the permission of the owner) to the New York State ArchaeolOgical Association Indian Museum, Riverhead, New York or another similar repository for conservation. At the subject property no cultural materials were removed from ihe study area; all materials were identified in the field, counted, and recorded on AS1 field forms and then reinterred in the test hole from which they were removed. AS1 B4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Beachcomber II, Cultural Resources Assessment Addendum, Cutchogue, New York STRATEGY AND METHODS A. SURFACE OBSERVATIONS: Systematic observations of the sudace were conducted by walking along the course of the proposed internal roads and in areas where cultural materials were recovered in the Stage lB study. Particular attention was directed to all exposed soil surfaces in existing grassed areas and other clear patches in vegetated areas. Evidences recorded during this phase of the study were several pieces of brown and green contemporlary bottle glass, plastic fragments, and several aluminum tabs from soft drink containiers. These materials were left in place. 1. RESULTS OF SURFACE OBSERVATIONS The field walk-over survey, as noted above, revealed no significant surface cultural evidences or additional prehistoric materials. Observations over the site revealed that the major portion of the study area is stripped of topsoil. B. SUBSURFACE STUDY: 1. STRATEGY: Soils evolve with the physical, climatic and human history of the parcel. Cultural and other evidences may be buried within the soil and preserved there. These materialS, and the information they represent, can be retrieved by disinterment and disengagement from the soil by sieving, and cleaning. Subsequently, they are identified, counted, and recorded, and finally evaluated for cultural significance. For these purposes; it is often impractical to test the entire soil mantle, thus, soil sampling is necessary. At the Beachcomber II proposed expansion site, shovel probes were located systematically along the proposed internal roadway at 50 foot intervals in such a way as cover~ the entire proposed impact area and to prevent concentrations in areas possessing an~/particular characteristic of soil, topography, or disturbance level in preference to those lacking these characteristics. In addition, several additional tests were dug withih the area where surface reconnaissance had revealed evidences of a prehistoric natCre. This strategy provided a random representation of the soil and subsoil and their cultural content--or lack of it within the proposed impact area, as well as additional t¢sts in a selected area of potential sensitivity. See Figure 2, a full-scale certified map (Beachcomber Motel II, 7-29-93, Barrett Bonacci Hyman and Van Weele, scale 1" = 50'~ included with this report. 2. FIELD METHODS The field crew followed a designated transect along the course of the proposed project as staked by the NRCS staff. Distances were estimated by pacing. Test holes were dug along each transect at paced 50' intervals. Most tests were dug within areas ASI B5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Beachcomber II, Cultural Resources Assessment Addendum, Cutchogue, New York of stripped or scoured soil, although patches of thin native soil were identified in several areas. Surrounding positive test probes with evidences of potential cultural sensitivity, additional tests ("iron cross tests") were planned at one-meter intervals. None were required at the Beachcomber II site. Standard shovel tests were dug to undisturbed, glacial, culturally barren sub- soil. At each holelthe excavated soil was analyzed for cultural evidence by sieving and studying any residue retained on a 0.64 cm (1/4 inch) wire mesh screen. The volume of soil dug ~nd screened was approximately consistent from hole to hole. The percent granular s volume of material These materials w~ in the test side-wal selected tests. Co~ DATUM A formal dat structure. This po.' See Figure 2. Graph )il material coarser than 0.64 cm (1/4 inch) was estimated from the retained on the screen after sieving a standard volume of soil. ~re characterized as to their texture. The soil stratigraphy exposed s was examined at each probe and a stratigraphic sketch made at rots were made of all cultural materials recovered or observed. Jm was established at the nodheast corner of the existing (motel) ition served as origin for all subsequent surfaoe measurements. [] CULT EVIDENCE [] CN Distribution of culturally positive and negative (CN) subsurface tests. ASI B6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Beachcornber ll, Cultural Resources Assessment Addendum , Cutchogue, New York TABLE 1--FIELD DATA--SUBSURFACE TESTS TH SOIL CULTURE 96 COARSE RENIARKS 1 SANDY LOAM GL(1)/PL(1) 0.1 THIS SOIL 2 PEBBLY SAND CN 0.5 FILL 3 PEBBLY SAND CN 0.5 SCOURED SURFACE 4 PEBBLY SAND CN 0.5 SCOURED $ PEBBLY SANDi CN 0.5 SCOURED 6 SANDY LOAM: CH(1)/AL(1) 0.1 THIN SOIL 7 PEBBLY SAND CN 0.5 SCOURED 8 PEBBLY SAND! CN 0.5 SCOURED 9 PEBBLY SANDI CN 0.5 SCOURED 10 PEBBLY SANDI CN 0.5 SCOURED 11 PEBBLY SANDI CN 0.5 SCOURED 12 PEBBLY SANDi CN 0.5 SCOURED 13 PEBBLY SANDI ROCK sl-r(1) 0.$ SCOURED 14 PEBBLY SAND! CN 0.5 SCOURED 15 PEBBLY SANDI CN 0.5 SCOURED 16 PEBBLY SAND! CN 0.5 SCOURED 17 PEBBLY SAND i CN 0.5 SCOURED 18 SANDY LOAM CN 0.1 SOIL 19 SANDY LOAM CN 0.1 SOIL 20 SANDY LOAM ASPH (1) 0.1 SOIL 21 SANDY LOAM CN 0.1 SOIL 22 SANDY LOAM CN 0.1 SOIL 23 SANDY LOAM CN 0.1 SOIL 24 SANDY LOAM CN 0.1 SOIL 25 SANDY LOAM CN 0.1 SOIL ['Note:See Figure Z (ar enclosed full scale map) for test hole locations. Number in parenthesis is the count of individual materials recovered, e.g. CH (Z) = 2 counts of charcoal. Also: ASPH = asphalt; CE = ceramic; CO = coal; CI!= cinder; BR = brick, GRN = green; IRON -- rusted iron fragments; SH = shell; W WARE = Blue willow Ware.] ASI B7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Beachcomber II, Cultural Resources Assessment Addendum, Cutchogue, New York I BEACHCOMBER RECOVERIES POSITIVE SUBSURFACE TESTS li ASPH 16.7% ~CH 16.7% · AL 1 6.7% []GL 16.7% · PL 1 6.7% []RK S~I- 16.7% Graph 2. Data recovery from subsudace culturally positive tests. All materials were reinterred. No culturally significant recoveries we{'e made. Note: ASPH -- road asphalt; CH = charcoal; RK STT = rock shatter, PL = plastic, GL = glass, AL = alumindm. SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE TESTING During thei subsurface testing phase a total of twenty-five (25) aligned, random soil probe position,s were occupied in areas proposed for disturbance or construction, or in areas where bultural evidences had been recorded from the surface during an earlier study; at each location a test probe was dug to culturally barren subsoil. The soil from each testlwas analyzed for presence and nature of cultural materials. Of these, four (4) out pf 25 probes or nearly 17% of the total held cultural evidences of recent or contemp~)rary association (See Graph 1). The tests which held cultural evidence revealed ia light subsurface scatter of contemporary materials such as asphalt road surfacing, charcoal, aluminum, glass and rock shatter, this latter probably derived from grassi cutting activity. The character of the recoveries are all compatible and congruous wit~ the known use and recent history of the tested area. No additional recoveries of a prehistoric nature were made in the area where surface evidences were encountered. No culturally significant materials were recovered. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED No significant problems were encountered during the study that could have influenced its results. ASI B8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Beachcomber I/, Cu/tural Resources Assessment Addendum, Cutchogue, New York FEATURES REPORTED NO significant cultural features were observed and none were reported. CONCLUSIONS A systemati? surface and subsurface survey of the proposed road plan at the Beachcomber II sitle revealed no prehistoric or significant historic era evidences or other culturally sigrtificant materials on the surface or within the subsurface or the proposed impact a~rea. Much of the proposed impact zone has been stripped of topsoil. Additional !observations and testing in the area where surface materials were observed during the previous study revealed no surface or subsurface prehistoric cultural evidences.! We conclude that the properly has suffered so severely from excavation, grading, soil stripping, and construction processes in the past that little or nothing of the nati~,e soil and incorporated archaeological evidences have been preserved. RATIONALE These conclusions are based upon a thorough methodical surface inspection and a thorough systematic subsudace study utilizing hand-dug tests of soil and subsoil (tested to well belo~ plow zone); both aspects of this study revealed nothing of cultural significance. GOALS AND SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL STUDIES No further st[udy is warranted. ASI B9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Beachcomber II, Cultural Resources Assessment Addendum, Cutchogue, New York FIGURE 2. MAP ENCLOSED ASI B 10 CUTCHOGUE FIRE DISTRICT New Suffolk Road. PO ~ox 9~0. Cuteho~ue. NY 11935 Telephone (516) 734-6907 * Fax (516) 7~4-7079 August 14, 1995 Mr. R~chard Ward, Chairman Southdld Town Planning Bd. Town Hall South~ld, N.Y. 11971 Ref;B~achcomber Motel Expansion Dear Mr. Ward, Reference the above properties, it is the opinion of this board that a new Fi~e Well be placed as marked by an X on the enclosed drawings. The Fire Well is to conform to our specifications and be equipped as follow~; a) 2p H.P., 3 Phase, Submersible pump capable to deliver 400 GPM at 10 PSI discharge at center of tee at top of well. Pump shall be of submersible turbine type, equipped with grease packed b~arings in bowl assemblies. The bowls shall be of a smooth fknieh design to guide the water from one stage to the next w~th a minimum of turbulence. b) T~p of the well is to be finished off with an 8" x 4" well seal. 4!' galvanized tee and plug, and 4" x 4~1/2" solid brass ferrule a~d cap. The hose threads and hydrant wrench nut shall conform t~ the standards of the Cutchogue Fire District. If you have any questions, please advise. Very t~uly yours, Mathew:J. Martin Secret~ry cc: Chief Brewer Glenn Spetta Associates mjm/encl. SOLiTHOLD ~0 ¢~iN PLAhi'~iNG ~OARD CUTCHOGUE FIRE DISTRICT New I~uffolk l:toad, PO t~x 9~{0, Cutcho~ue, NY 11935 Telephone (516) 734-6907 * Fax (516! 734-7079 August 14, 1995 Glenn Spetta Associates 1050 Smith,own Ave PO Box 94 Bohemia, NY 11716 Ref: ExpanSion of B~chcomber Motel Gentlemen, With ~eference to your letter of June 28, 1995 we are recommending to the Southold Town Planning Board the installation of a Fire Well on the Beachcomber property. When this installation is completed and accepted by the Board of Fi~e Commissioners of the Cutchogue Fire Department, the District will assume the maintenance on the well. We will also require the necessary easements for access to the well. Reading your enclosure C, you ~oted that your water system can supply ~45 gpm for fire protection and if necessary we can draft from the sound. Considering the size of your complex 145 gpm would not be an adequate flow for your potential. LI Sound is a large body of water but sometimes not accessible due to the tides, beaches and winter freezing. In closing, the Cutchogue Fire Department can provide Fire Protection,!to the Beachcomber Motel, if the above well is installed add proper fire lanes are open on the property. Thank you for your reply and should you have any questions please contact us again. CC: C_~_~ew~r Very truly yours, Board of Fire Commissioners Matthew J. Martin Secretary ./ '1 I ! ! / , New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40 - SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Phone (516) 444-0295 Fax # (516) 444-0297 Michael D. Zagata Commissioner Mr. Richard Ward Chairman Town of Southold [Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 June 23, 1995 Dear Mr. Ward: This responds to your June 13, 1995 letter to Glenn Spetta Associates which was copied to Charles Hamilton, regarding the construction of a seawall at the Beachcomber Motel. A field inspection conducted on June 21, 1995 and a search of Department records shows that a storm damage permit (#1-4738-00710/00001-0) was issued for the reconstruction of the damaged seawall/foundations on December 21, 1992. The wall was completed in May iof 1993. Examination of the permit, existing site conditions and photos after the storm, shows that the reconstructed seawall and foundations are in full compliance. If you have! any additional questions, please do not hesitate to call me at the above number. Sincerely, Louis A. Chiarella Regional Manager, Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection cc: Charles Ha~nilton Pond Enterprises, 11 Ashley Ln., Shoreham, NY 11786 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 13, 1995 Glenn Spetta Associates Environmentali Consultants 1050 Smithto~Nn Ave. Bohemia, NY 11716 Re: Beachcomber Motel, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & p/o 17 Dear Mr. Spe~a: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board on Monday, June 12, 1995: BE IT RESOLV~.D that the Southold Town Planning Board deems the Draft Environmental/Impact Statement of March 1995 to be incomplete, therefore unacceptable for the purpose of a coordinated review pursuant to the State Environmental ]Quality Review Act The DEIS was ].deemed incomplete for the following reasons: 1. Specific information required in the Scoping Session is either missing, or incon- sistent. The enclosed report from our consultant itemizes the information that must be s~pplied. In addition, it has been brought to the Board's attention that the applicant has not complied with ihe Southold Town Trustees' emergency repair authorization which was issued on December 21, 1992: in that a full permit application has not been submitted to the Trustees. Further, there is no record in the Town's files of the issuance of a permit for the Page 2 Proposed site plan for Beachcomber Motel June 13, 1995 concrete retaining wall that has been placed on the beach north of the motel. Our understanding is that both Town Trustee and New York State Department of Environmental: Conservation permits were required for this work. It will be necessary for these potential violations permit deficiencies to be discussed within the DEIS document before we can deem it complete. The site plan that is part of the DEIS musl~ be revised to show the new retaining walls and the revised ground elevations betWeen the restaurant and motel buildings and shoreline. Finally, the DEiS must address the concerns set forth in the staff report of June 12, 1995. Please contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. i~ncerely~,? Richard G. Ward Chairman cc: Henry RaYnor, Agent for the Applicant Board of Trustees NYSDEC, ]Permit Section, Charles Hamilton Charles VOorhis, Voorhis and Associates enc. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr~ Bennett Orl0wski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P, O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 MEMORANDUM PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Richard C. Ward. Chairman Members of the Planning Board FROM: RE: Valerie Scopaz. Town Planner BeachComber Motel. Proposed Expansion of SCTM # 1000-83-1,2 & p/o 17 Cutch~gue. NY DATE: June 12, 1995 In reading the DiEIS. six concerns came to mind. which the text did not address or answer: 1. The pr~opsed drainage for the site involves the placement of a bubble~-type overflow facility just behind the Coastal Erosion Hazardi Line. The DEIS does not discuss the potential enviror~mental impacts of placing this facility at this site. Nor does the document address the wisdom of placing an overflo~v basin within the A7 flood zone. 2. Three ~f the four proposed buildings will be located within the A7 zone. However. the DEIS document and the site plan do not indicate if the ground will be built up to the required elevati6n (11') or whether the buildings will be elevated above ground. The proposed layout will require regrading and stabilization of the east slope and bluff, which is vegetated with xeric speciesi. The DEIS does not provide much detail about how this will be i accomplished or mitigated. Further. Alternative C would require less regrading and stabilization in this sensitive area; a fact that is given short shrift in the text. thus making it difficult to assess the relative environmental sensitivities of the twd proposed layouts. The site diagram that accompanied the archeological review text was difficult to compare with the site plan because of its lack of scale. Placement of the test sites on the site plan itself would ~acilltate assessment of the Stage 1 survey. Also. Stage lB, resulted in the finding of flakes and tools near the basketball court, and along the route of the extension of the road and parking area. The items found might indicate habitation of the site by native Americans. However, the text did not explain why Stage lB testing was not conducted here, even though this area is proposed to be regraded for the road and parking spaces The dgcument does not consider the selective retraction of the existing building and portions of buildings lying seaward of the Coastail Erosion Hazard line, In 1978. the applicant had requested a change of zone of additional property in this Iocatioh in order to provide for such a retreat (as quoted in Town Board minutes). Perhaps the retreat could be incorpbrated into the expansion plans? The proposed and the alternate site layouts discussed in the report are not compatible with the drainage and slope conditions on the site, The DEIS could explore alternative design layduts that w~ork with the constraints of the site in a more acceptable envirohmental manner; one that requires less regrading and disturbance of the slopes, These comments are made in addition to the observations made by our environmental consultant. Charles Voorhis, in his report of May 26. 1995. I endorse Mr. Voorhis' comments, and recommend their acceptance, cc: Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Mr. Richard G. Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Soutbold, NY 11971 Beachcomber Motel II Review o£Draft EIS Dear Mr. Ward:: April 26, 1995 We have Completed our review of the above referenced Draft ElS. This review is completed x,, order to detengine that the basic content of the Draft E!S is consistent with the azopmg outline mhd meeting held with regard to the proposed project. In addition, review has.been conducted to determine the adequacy of the document for inter-agency and public review in accordance with Drat~ EIS procedures c~ntalned in SEQRA Part 617. First, I would like to point out that the site design of the project has been significantly amended to address previous concerns. The Board issued a Positive Declaration based on this and a number of issues Including disturbance of steep slopes, water supply, conformance with Article 6 of the Sanitary Cod~, intended use of other lands and how the project fits in the context of other lands, traffic and other less significant issues. Since that time, the proposed number of units has been reduced fi.om 86 9nits in 8 buildings to 46 units in 4 buildings. Units have been moved from the areas with the steepest $1opes, and mitigation of slope impacts are proposed. Therefore'at tiffs time, I believe it is important to have the Drm't EIS submission complete, in order to maintain the option that if there are no sul:4stantive comments on the Draft EIS, and the Board is satisfied with the site design plan, there could be an opportunity to issue a Negative Declaration based on the Draft EIS at the close of the comnlent period. This would forego the Final ElS process and could save considerable time for the applicant. With this ig mind, I offer the following comments. Once these comments are incorporated into the documen[, I believe the EIS will be complete and adequate for decision making, provided ti~ere are no additlonai substantive comments t?om the Planning Board, involved agencies or the public, that wouk[ require response in a Final EIS. Comments provided are referenced to the appropriate page g-umber of the Draft EIS. In addition, ail review comments made in reference to the SEQR Scoping Checldist, specificaily refers to that checklist as "Amended February 22, 1993 Including Scoping Meeting Issues." As a general conm~ent, since there was never any verbal mention in thc DEIS of permanent or transitory structures on the existing farm, and since Figure 1-2 depicts a square-like structure directly on the area bf property designated as farmland, it would be helpful ifa few details were provided flutt discuss flfislstmcture. The specific issue is whether this structure (or other structures not noted) will place additional demands on the proposed action's overail sanitary design flow as related to compliance with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary If it is indeed tlie intention of the applicant to continue 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 · (516) 331-1455 ° FAX 331-8046 Beachcomber Estates Review of Draft renting a designated portion oftbe land for farming use, determination of design flow compliance must be provided, since these structur6s can affect project compliance. The applicant should ~*,~ whether or not fanning w'dl continue on the subject property. Tha combination of farming and sanitary flow for the existing and proposed motel units will cause a significant elevation of nitrogen in recharge, particularly during the summer sea.son. In addition, determination should I~ made as to tho applicability of Health Department criteria relating to combined farm and motel use regarding Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. 3. Page 1-5 of the DEIS, C., Erosion Control. line 2, there is a misspelled word - "protion." Page 1-6 of the DEIS, the statement "...will not cause saltwater intrusion to the water supply nor impact groUndwater quality in this area," provides no substantive detail in reaching this conclusion. As a mater of fact, and as it is sta~d later on in the DEIS, saltwater intrusion i~ stated to already ~ in a nearby well. The document does not provide any verifiable identification 9fa flesh/saltwater intel£ace location. The document ~,hould make reference- to this matter while also referring the reader to page 3-13 of the DEIS for more information. ' The Description of the Proposed Project section should provide details necessary to address the NYSDEC review letter of December 7, 1992 (included in Appendix D-$3) or indicate mitigation incorporated into the project that may address NYSDEC comments. Page 1-7 of the DEIS, what is presently cited as "(Figure 7- )" should be recorded as (Figure 7-1). Additionally ca this page, 3., what is cited as "(Figure 7- )" should be recorded as (Figure 7-2). Page 2-1 of the DEIS, refers to 30.8 acres of farmland; however, other portions of the document refer to 32 acresiof fanaland. This discrepancy should be corrected. Page 2.6, Table 2-2 - ~ito Data in the DEIS, does not address all the requests cited in the "Design & Layout" section of thc Amended Senping Checklist. The document, under 3, Parking, a., Pavement Area, it is ~ifficult to determine iftha paved area, as listed by the preparer under Proposed Land Uses (on page 2-6), refers specifically to site coverage. If this paved area of 0.4 acres (0.8% of the site) does indeed refer to the number of parkiag stalls (103) listed above it, please note it as such. Page 2-8 of the DEIS, should note timt the balance of the 48.2 acre site must not be used for additional developmer~t in order to comply with Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, unless public water is supplied or a sewage treatment plant is constructed. 10. The ~ section, page 2-12 of the DEIS docs not conform with the request as noted in the Amended S~:oping Checklist. Please indicate the status of required permits. In addition, this application twas pending with the NYSDEC in 1993. Site activities appear to still be in NYSDEC jurisdiction, yet NYSDEC is not hsted as a permttiag agency. 11. Page 3-9 of the DEIS does not describe (as is required by thc Scopiag Checklist on page 3, Section IV, A., 3.) "slopes particularly on east side of site." ~ 12. On page 3-13 of the DEIS (bottom of page), mention is made cfa drinking water well that became salty and where, "the saltwater interface is not at a great depth." This well should be identified and any further information regarding the saltwater intrusion of this well cited. Beachcomber Estates H Review of Draft 13, 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Page 3-17 of the DEIS (bottom of page), the document mentions that, "proper contingencies must be taken to treat aldiearb if~ha need arises." However, there is no mention as to what these proper contingencies are. Please elaborate on this matter. Page 3-21 of the DEIS, first line, "It should be planned that treatment may be necessary for the removal of dichloropropane, as well." What exactly are the applicants actual plans for this ocourrenc~ A basic plan of action should be stated. Page 3-34 of the DEIS, second paragraph, the document states that, "early colonizing plants found in this portion of the property were: common lamb's-quarters, common purslane...' These plant types, as the docum~nt states, axe found from a list in Appendix C-2, yet the plants are not listed in this Appendix.: Page 3-37 0fthe DEIS, second paragraph, last sentence, states, "It is anticipated that other species not identified during san~pliag sessions such as opossum, red fox, mice, and chipmunks also may utilize the site and are additionally listed in Appendix C-4.' When consulting Appendix C-4, it notes (by means of an asterisk - *) that red fox was "Identified on Site." This information is not consistent and should be corrected accordingly. Page 5 of the Amended Seeping Checklist, Section IV, C., 3., b., asks the applicant to discuss the benefits of,the eyastmg wetland, such as flood and erosion control, and recreation. Page 3-47 Of the DEIS, 3, c., Fire Protection. refers to a letter provided by the Cutchogne Fire District (Matthew J. Matin, Secretary) which appears in Appendix D-57 and states, "The Cutehogue Fire Departmen~ feels that it cannot provide adequate fire protection for this site. The water supply in that area is inadequate to handie that many units and without a site plan we cannot determine the actual water requ~raments and access. If you can provide us with a site plan we will be happy to continue the study." Please provide a copy of the site plan to the Cutchogne Fire Department and update the DEIS as needed to incorporate further information from the Fire Department. Section 1VIA.2 (page 4-3) should include discussion regarding water quantity issues as well as water quality. A~ldilional information should be provided on the well system, and expected salt-water intrusion or upconing. Well installation should be compared with standards supplied in Table 3-2 on page 3-17 to determine conformance with design recommeadations. The impact of farmlng on site recharge should be discussed under scenarios if farming continues or ceases. Page 4-4 o~ the DEIS, discusses potential adverse impacts to groundwater quality due to nitrogen loading. The source of nitrogen in recharge estimates in mg/l and nitrogen loading in pounds/day should be Ilrovided. The reference to 5.6 mg/l nitrogen in recharge should indicate that this value is based on rqcharge over the entire site, and does not include consideration of farm nitrogen. Nitrogen load referenced on page 4-6 does not agree with our computations. Based on a farm application rate of 160 pound~dacre (page 4-4) and sanitary nitrogen of 30 mg/1, the nitrogen load from the farm and existing me,tel should be in the range of 8.9 pounds/day. Tlie proposed project without active farming would be ia the range of 3.7 pounds/day, and with active fanning it would be 10.7 pounds/day. Appropriat~ conclusions should be made based on revised estimates. Please indicate the significance of elevated nitrogen in relation to water supply and discharge to surface water. Page Beachcomber Estate~ Review of Draft 21. Page 4-6 of ibc DEIS, indicates that aa impact of the project is discontinuance of fanning; however, the description of the project does not clearly indicate iftlfis is part of the proposed project. Instead, page 2-1 seems to indicate that farming will continue if allowed. 22, Page 4-7 of the DEIS, makes reference to aa Appendix of plunts and shrubs used to attra~ birds and other wildlife; however, the appendix is not included. 23. Page 4-8 oftbe DEIS, makes reference to a matrix of habitat requirements for avifauna, y*t no sach appendix appears in the document. 24. Page 4-101of the DE/S, c., Firo, Protectlon. please elaborate (other than just citing a correspondence in the appendix) on the "concerns' of the Cutchogue Fire Department. . 25, Please pro~'ide a more detailed statement regarding the mitigating measures employed to reduce nitrogen loading on the site, on page 5-3 of the DE1S. Be sure to ineinde scenarios with and without farming. This section should also indiente that as mitigation, the applicant will not conduct additional development on the 48.2 acre site until public water is available or a sewage treatment plaat is constructed. Mitigation concerning salt-water intrusion/upconing should be discussed, particularly where discretion in the operation oftbe system is required (i.e. alternate well pumping, etc.). 26. Page 5-4 should include mitigation proposed to offset impacts regarding fire protection. 27. The Adv~rs~ Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoid~ section of the DEIS (page 6-1), does not speeifieallyimention the loss of 0.2 acres of relatively mature trees for the purposes of well extension. This fact should be cited accordingly. 28. Table 7-1 oh page 7-4 should be amended to address nitrogen loading as per the appropriate comments provided abbve. In addition, based on current values included on page 4-6 of the DEIS, the reference at the bottom of the page should be 2.90 instead of 2.85 pounds/day. Thank you ifor the opportunity to provide these comments on the Draft ElS for Beachcomber Estates. As noted ha the opening of this letter, it is recommended that comments be incorporated into the text of the Draft EIS for resubmission to the Planning Board. The review of the revised document would b9 expedited if the preparer could submit a reviewers copy, noting the specific areas where the document has .been amended to address these comments. Once these comments are addressed to the safisfactmn of the Board, the document can be circulated for coordinated review. As noted, if there are no substantive comments on the Draft ElS, and the Board is satisfied with the site plan, there is a possibility to issue a Negative Declaration based on the accepted Draft ElS. Please feel flee to call if you have any questions. cc: Robert Kassner CHARLES V~=~~SOCIATES, INC. E N VI R O N M E N '1~ ~1~'/~[~itl~G CONSULTANTS Very trq~ly~ygurg,9 ~ ~., Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP Page 4 E N VI R ON M E N T~.~ N D\~,,~t'~G CONSULTANTS April 26, 1995 Mr. P/chard G. Ward, Chairman STOUthold Planning Board own Hall, 53095 Ma/n Road P.O. Boxl179 __ ...~ = ,'-;~, ,_'~.- Southold, NY 11.971 RE: B~achcomber Motel H P, evlew Of[Dral~ ElS D~ar Mr. Ward:: We have cgmpleted our review of the above retren¢.ed Dra~. ElS. T. his review is completed in order to detemgae that the basic content of the Drai~ ElS is consistent vath the scopin8 outli~e and meeting held with regard to the prol~osed project. In addition, review has been conducted to determine the adequacy of the document for inter-agency and public review ia ecc~rdance with Drai~ ElS proc~d~r~ cc~ntalned ia SEQRA Part 617. Firs!, I wogld like tO point out that the site design of'the p.roject has b~n sli~'~ificantiy amended t,o..adcki~s pr.?ious, concerns. The Board issued s Posiuve Declaration bi .u~.. on this and a number of t:~aes itlcludmg disturbance of steep slopes, water su. pply, co~ormaace vath Article 6 of the Sanitary Code, iat~ded use of other lands and how the project fits in the cont=~t of other lances, trafS¢ and other IiSi iignificant issues. Since that time, the proposed numbex of units has been reduced i-om 86 uriits in $ buildings to 46 u~ts ia 4 buildings. Units have b~n moved fi.om the wi~ the. s!e!pest .~opes, and mitigation oi'slope ir~. p.acts are propo,sed. Therefor~ ,~.this time, I believe it is 'uriportgnt t.o have the Drat:t ElS subnussion complete, m o.rder !o maintain the .option.that if there are no sub~tantlve comments on the Dr~ ElS, and the Board l.s satisfied w~th the site plan, there could b~ aa opportunity to issue a Negative Declaration based on the Drat~ ElS at th~ close of the comment period. This would forego the l:inal ElS process and could save considerable time for the'iappllcant. With this i~ mind, I offer the fo.l?wing comments. Once these comments are incorpor, at. ed into the docume.n.t, I believe the ElS vail be complete and ad.equate for decision making, provtded there are n{ additional substantive comments fi.om the Plannmg Board, involved agencies or the public, that ~vould~eclulre response ia a Final ElS. Comments provided are referenced lo the appropriate'page ngmber oi'the Draft ElS. Ia addition, all review comments made in reference to the SEQR $copln8 Chariest, specifically r~ers to that checklist as 'Amended Februat7:22, 1993 Including S~ping Meeting Issues." I. Aa a gcacral cx:mun~nt, sm¢~ there was never any verbal mention m thc D£IS ofpcr~-,,,'~t or tran~itory strucaa'ca on th~ ~d$-tin$ farm, and siac~ Figure 1-2 d~-picts a squam-llk~ structure di~_~!y on th~ ar~a ¢ ~ property dcsignar~ a.s ~.aanlaad, it would b~ l~lpful ifa f~w details ~ provid~ that dis ,ct:~ss this: ra'uctum. Tlc spa:itc Lssue b ~ this sa-uctut¢ (or other sixuc~rcs not acted) will plac~ additic aal d~a~ands on ~c proposed a~ion's overall _~-itary d~igu flow aa telat~ to complianc~ with Articl~ S of thc Suffolk County Sanitary Ii'it i.s inde~xi thc iatcation of th~ applicant to continu~ 54 NORTHj(~OUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 · (516) 331-1455 ' FAX 331-8046 B~t~hcomber Ertate~ 1I l~'Iew of Draf* Iris rcnang a designa~t portion ofth~ hnd for fiu'm~ use, ~:rmin~on of design flow compllanc~ must b~ provided, sinc~ th¢.s~ struc~r~s can atTcct projccI compliant, ~ ~1 ~ ~ res~rdi~ Article S o£~ Su~o~ Co,~t~ Sa~ita~ Co~. 3. Pag~ 1-5 of~ DEI$, C, Erosion Conu'ol. ~ 2, ther~ is a r~sspelled word Pa8~ I-6 otth~ DEIS, fl~ s~,xem~t "...will no~ cause ~r ~ion ~ ~ ~ supply ~ a ne-~,by w~. ~ ~ ~ ~ pm~ ~y vc~le id~°n ora ~t~ p~ 3-13 ~f~ D~S for ~ ~o~o~, ~SDEC ~ 1~ ofD~ ~, 1992 (mclud~ m Ap~ D-53) or ~c~ ~fi~ P~ I-7 or~ DEIS, w~ b p~fly ci~ a "~ 7- )" ~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7-!). ~fi~,'y ~ ~s p~, 3, w~ ~ ci~ ~ "(Fi~ % )" ~ould ~ ~r~ ~ ~ 7-2). Pagc 2-1 ofilz DEIS, refers to 30,8 acres of farmh~ however, other portions or,he documc~ rear to 32 acresloffzrmb~d, This discrepancy should bc corr~'~d, Page. 2-6, 'l'abk 2-2 - Site D~m i~ il~ DEIS, do~s ~ address all tim ~lU~Sts clt~t ia th~ "D~i~ & Layout" s~;'fion offl:~ ~ S~pin8 Checkli~ TI~ ~ ,,~ ~., ~ a., Pav~~ (on ~e 2~), ~fea s~a~y ~ si~ ~ve~. ~ pav~ ~ of 0,4 ~ (?.8% ~ s~) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ofp~ ~ 003) h~ Page 2,4 offlz DEL~, should ~.~ that gz b,h,,..~ of~ 48.2 ~v~op~ ~ or~ ~ ~ly ~ ~dc 6 or~ S~ ~ ~ ~ su~p~ or a ~ ~ p~ ~ ~, 10. 11. sppHcationlwas pendin~ with the NYSDEC i~ 1~3. Sit~ activities appear to still be ia NYSDF.~ jurisdlolioa~ y~ NYSDEC h ~ ~ as a ~ agency. Page 3~ o£th~ DF, IS doea ~ de~crlb~ (a~ is r~q~ircd by th~ Scop~ C~ldlst ~,,, Nc 3, ~ IV', A., 3.) "alop~a lW~icu~ly on ~ ~ of sro." 12. CHARLES V~/~SOCIATES, INC. · ENvIFIONMEN~G CONgULTANTS O~ p~¢ 3-i3 of the DEIS (ho~f~-a of page), magkm is mad~ ora ~ ~ ~s~l that b~ar~ i~rusion of this well ciu:d. Pa~ 2 Draft 13. 14. 15. 16. 17, 1~. 19, 20, Page 3-17 otthe DEIS Cootiom ot'pa~¢), th~ docum~t m~atioas d,~,. "proper conilngmci~s mu~ b~ takm to U'vat aldicarb itllz ~,,',~_ arise." However, there is no ~oa a.s to wh~t rinse proper cont~,.,,cies are. PPca.~ elabora~ ca ~ ~_-_~.r., Page 3-21 o£the DF. IS, fu'st ~ "It should be planned thai treatmc~ may be necessa.T for the removal of dichloropropa~, a.s well." Whta ~xactly are the applicants a~!~! plam for il~ occu~re~:e~ A basic plan of ~,ioa should be sta~. P.ag¢ 3-34 oft,he DF. IS, ~,~4 paragraph, ~e docummt stat~ Rat, %arly wl~ p~ fo~ a ~ ~ of~' pr~ w~: ~ ~b's~, ~ p~s~..." '~ p~ ~, ~ P~! 3-37 ~f~ D~. ~ p~p~ ~ ~ s~. "It ~ ~cip~t~ 0~ ~ s~f~ ~ ofm ~ - *) ~ ~ fox ~ "I~ on gig.~ ~s ~o~oa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PaSi 3-47 0flh~ DEIS, 3. c,, ~ r~fers Io a ~ provi&d by ~h~ C,-,'~,~ue Fi~ Dimi~ D '.cplu~. feels ,h~t it ca~ot provide .a~qua~ fire protection for this site. The Water supply ia thai ~u-ea b ~,,~-- lo h,~tI¢ ~ many umts aa~ without, a sit~ plan we cannot d~o,,!,~ tl~ aaaal ~ ~ and acc~, Ii'you c.aa provi~ u.s ,,,nth a sit~ plan wc will b~ happy lo ~ g~e stud~," Pka~ provi& a copy oftl~ sit~ platt to the Cutchosu¢ Fire Departm~ and up.4..,~- t~ DEI$ page. 3-17 i ~.,2 (page 4-3) should iaclud~ dhoi.ssioa regarcliag wa~ q,,,,~6ty is~tu:s a~ well u wa~r ditioml iai'crrruUioa should be provided ea ~ well system, and expeaed upcoa~. Well iasiallalioa should be compared with ~.~a~rd~ supplied ia Table 3-2 Pay¢ 4-4 of the DEIS, discu~s~ potaatial adverm ~ ~o groumlwat:r quality du~ to tgtrogm !-~-4~-g TI~ sour~ otnitrosen in recharge e~mam in m8/l ,~ ~trogen 1,~-.- ia p~,,-4,~day ' bas,ed ~ r&]~.rge ore4- t~ mt~r~ $ite~ and does no~ incl~l~ considea=~tioa of ~arm t~itro~na. Nitro~m load rffem0aed ca p~,e 4-6 does not a~ree wit our co~putaticm.. Based on ~, ~rn aPplicatkm ra~ of 160 pound,acre (ga~ 4-4) ?a ~mitaty ~itn:~ea et30 mg/k ~I~ nitrogen load txo~ the farm ami txi~-g mo~l ~ho,~ld b~ i~ tl~ rm~c of 8.9 pounds/day. Th~ proposed proj~ without ~u~ive tv~;,,: would, be i~ the r~,? of 3.7 po~i_~day, ~d with active f~miag it would b~ 10.7 pouads/day, App'topria~ ~o~clusiom should b~ made based oa revis~ ~tlmazes. Plea.~ indlc~ the aig;~C~.aac~ of elev?!-a ait:ogea ia re. laioa to water supply md discharge to suffac~ wa~'. Page 3 B~cbcomber E~t~t~s ~ /I. pa&¢ 4-6 o£the DEIS, indi~'nt,'~ that an impact ot'tl~ project is discontinuanc~ oft~umi~g; however, thc dascriptio~ oftl~ project docs z~c~ clearly Ladl¢~-' il'this is part ot'Ll~ propos~ proja::t. ~ page 2-1 seer~ to ~,,~*~ ,~._ ~ will continue il'allowed. 22¸ p.~ie 4-7 of the DEIS, makes refct~mce to an Appeadix ofplant~ a~l shrubs ,_,__-~_ u> alxra~ birch ~d other wildlife; however, the appendix is not included. page 44 oftl~ DF. IS, makes re~e. rea~ ~o a matrix o£habitat requLrttamcs for ~viiu~a, y*t no suda aplxadix appears in Page 4-10 .~fth~ DEI.q, e., ~ plea.~ elaborate (other than just citing a correspondence in die appendS) on tlz "conccn~" of the Cutcho~uc Firc Department. Plca.~. lirovide a mom dar. ailed s~!*ment regarding thc mitigating mea.sure~ employed to reduce niuog~n l~o~g.' o~. II~ $it~ on p~¢ 5-3 or,he DEIS.. B~ sm to include scenarioa wiga and without tlun~8. This se~on should also mdlcat~ ~M, a, mitigation, the applicant will not conduct additional development on the 48.2 acre sit~ until publi~ water Ls available or a s~'wage treatrt~t pla~ is constn,~t'~. Mitisalioa co~ salt-water ilatrusion/upconi%o should be disc~Rd, partiadarly wl~r¢ dlser~ion m the operalion et' the system Lq r~uired (i.e. alt:mate well pumpms, etc.). page :5-4 should include mitigation propo~l to offset impacts regarctln8 fir, proration. Th, ta, dvers~ Environmental Eff~ts That Cannot Be Avoided s~-tion olrlhe DEIS t~a&e 6-1), does not specifically m~6,~n the lo.~ Of 0.2 ac. rea of relatively mn,re trina for the purpo~s, of well e'~t~_~i,-~. TabI, e 7-1 on pa$¢ 7-4 ...~. ~d b~ amendtd to addrc~ nitrogen Ioadln& a.s p~r th~ appropriat~ conune~ provided above. In addition, based on curr~ values im:l,~ ca page 4-6 of the BEI.q, tl~ refiu'ence ai th~ bottom ofth~ page should be 2.90 ins*,,~,t 0£2.85 pounds/day, 'l'tumk you for the opportunity to provide the~e commenta on the Draft ElS for Beachcomber L:,Cs{os. A~, noted in the openin8 ot'thls letter, it is recommended that corranenU be incorporated into th,~ io.,~t of the Dra ~ EIS for resubmis,sioa to the Plarmin8 Board. The review of~: revised d,~¢umont ~ouM I:, expedited if the preparer could submit a reviewers copy, noting the specitlc areas whera the d?ume ~t has been amended to ad~e,u these commen~. Once these co~aunents are ,,LI~ ~.~.qed tO the s~ ,tisfa~lion o£the Board, the document can be ¢irculitted for coor, dinated review. A~ ~oted. il'there ~ze no substantive comments on the Draft EIS, and the Board is ~atisfied with the ~t~,' pl~uk there is It possibility to issue a Negative Declaration basecl on the accept.t Draft EIS, please feel Sree to call iFyou have any questions. Rob~ert l(aee,~er o,,^,,,, gti, . q V SOCIATES, NC. ~1' ivII/ON',' :,N I~~ CONSULTANTS Charles I. Voorhis, CI[~, AIC. P Page 4' CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATfNC. Environmental & Planning Consu~nts 54 N. Country Road Suite 2 MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 11764 (516) 331-1455 TO DATE RE: WE ARE SENDING YOU [] Attached [] Under separate cover via [] Shop drawings [] Prints [] Plans [] Copy of letter [] Change order [] [] Samples the following items: [] Specifications THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: [] For approval /~or your use [] As requested [] Approved as submitted [] Approved as noted [] Returned for corrections [] Resubmit [] Submit__ [] Return copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints [] For review and comment [] [] FOR BIDS DUE 19__ [] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO I SIGNED: If enclosures are not as ~oted, kindly notify us at once PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards 'l~elephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD SCOWF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P,O. Box I179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 February 23, 19993 Henry Raynor Raynor Sute~ Hardware 320 Love La~e Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel SCTM~1000-83-2-1 Dear Mr. Raynor: AttachEd to this letter is an annotated version of the Scoping CheCklist that was used at the January 22nd scoping session. The encilosed Checklist will be used by the Planning Board and the reviewing agencies as the official synopsis of that meeting. Ini the absence of any written objections from either your client ~r any of the coordinating agencies, the enclosed outline will! stand. AccordiDgly, I suggest that you review the Checklist with your client and his consultants. If there are any questions or objections, please bring them to Valerie Scopaz's attention immediately,~ in writing. If the enclosed s~rnopsis must be emended, the revisions will be transmitted to all involved parties. Sincerely, Richard ~. Ward 7F5 Chairman Board of Trustees~ Southold Zoning Board of A~peals, Southold Building Department, Southold Highway Department, Southold Department of Health Services, Suffolk County S. Costa, V. Minei, P. Ponturo Planning Commission, Suffolk County - F. Dowling Department of Environmental Conservation, New York K. Munze Department of State, New York - M. Persaud Suffolk County water Authority - M. LoGrande, E. Rosavitch GroundWater Resources Committee, Southold Planning and Zoning Committee, Southold SEQR SCOPING CHECKLIST SOUTHOLD TOWN "' PLANNING BOARD w- APPLICATION OF BEACHCOMBER Il MOTEL AMENDED FEBRUARY 22, 1993 INCLUDING SCOPING MEETING ISSUES This outline has been amended to include comments made as scoping meeting of January 22, 1993. Additions to the previously distributed outline are in italics. This outline is based upon 6 NYCRR Pa~ 617.21 as ~repared by the Ne.w. York State Department of Environmental Conservatton to prowde a format and gmdelines for the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The subject Draft EIS should conform to this Outline in terms of format as well as content. The document should be consistent and ctncise and all data and assumptions should be justified and/or referenced. All information Shown on maps orplans and in the text should be consistent. Keep in mind that this document will be remewedby general public as well as several governmental agencies. A concise and simply written text is preferable to a wordy or obtuse one. Accordingly, it Would help to provide a Glossary so that the laX reader can interpret the acronyms that a~e typically used in an Environmental Impact Statement. Upon completion, seven (7) copies bf the document should be submitted to the Planning Board for review to determine acceptance. Cover Sheet All EIS's (Draft .or Final) shall begin with a cover sheet that includes: A. Whether ~t is a draft or final statement B. Name or other descriptive title of the project C. Lo~ation (county and town) of the project D. Name and address of the lead agency which required preparation of the statement and the name and telephone number of a person at the agency to be coatacted for further information E. Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and a co~ttact name and telephone number F. Date of acceptance of the Draft EIS. . G. In the case of a Draft EIS, the deadline date by which comments are due shOuld be indicated Il. Table of Contents and Summary A table of contents and a brief summary are required for Draft and Final EIS's. The su_m~, ary should include: A. Brief description of the action B. Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts, (issues of controversy must be Co specified) Mitigation measures proposed Alternative considered Malters to be decided (permits, approvals, funding) III. Description of the Proposed Action A. PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS Page 1 Co Do o Beachcomber 1I Motel Scoping Outline Background and history - Discuss in detail, include zoning districts and amount of land in each district as well as parcel locations and areas. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing project must be explained,particularly with reference to the potential change of intensity of use of the existing facilities, such as the restaurant, the swimming pool, etc. Public need for the project, and municipality objectives based on adopted community development plans Objectives of the project sponsor Benefits of the proposed action economic LOCATION 1. Establish geographic boundaries of the project (use of regional and local scale maps is recommended) 2. Description of access to site - Provide detailed discussion of adjacent road. 3. Description of existing zoning of proposed site DESIGN AND LAYOUT - A detailed table of anticipated site coverage quantities is recommended. Total site area cb/ proposed impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots, roads) amount of land to be cleared and regraded open space ~ wetlands/water areas, natural and/or covenanted areas. Discuss the sterilization of land in order to meet Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 6. 2. Structures a) total building area b) layout of buildings (design concept, units per building, orientation, building footprint, etc.) ~/ site plans drainage plans 3. Parking a) pavement area b) number of spaces and layout 4. Sanitary System Design (ex~sting and proposed) a) location and setbacks, and uses (motel, restaurant) b) system design, leaching capability, depth to water c) Health Department compliance 5. ~ Water Supply Design (existing and proposed) a) depth of well b) potential salt-water intrusion c) Health Department compliance CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. Construction a) total construction period anticipated b) schedule of construction c) future potential development, on site or on adjoining properties Page 2 Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Outline Operation a) type of operation . b) schedule of operation c) fertilization of landscaped areas d) seasonal use and maintenance Eo APPROVALS 1. Required changes or variances to the zoning regulations 2. Other permit approval or funding requirements and status of required permits a) Town Planning Board site plan b) ZBA special permit - applicant should seek to resolveproperty division issue with ZBA and state terms in Draft EIS. c) Town Trustees Coastal Erosion Hazard.Act d) Suffolk County Health Department samtary and .water permits - applicant should seek to determine SCDHS density requirements with regard to existing motel, herein referred to as Beachcomer I. e) New York State well and discharge permits f) New York State wetlands permits Note: Please include an Appendix to the Environmental Impact Statement that contains a copy of the completed application form for each permit that must be obtained before this project can be constructed. For instance: Town Board of Trustees: Coastal Erosion Hazard Application Zoning Board of Appeals: Special Exception application planning Board: Site Plan application Suffolk County Department of Health Services: Water Supply and Wastewater applications New York State Department of Environmental Conservation: Tidal Wetlands application IV. Environmental Setting Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) composition and thickness of subsurface material b) test hole in accord with SCDHS requirements 2. Surface a) ~st of soil types b) discussion .o(s. oil characteristics - physical properties (indicate hydrological (tnfiltration) capabiliti.es) of the soils on site - engineering properties (soil bearing capacity) c) distribution of soil types at project site d) suitability for proposed use 3. Topography a) description of topography at project site - slopes partiCUlarly on east side of site, shall be described - prominent or unique features - beach, dune and bluff type environment Page 3 Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Outline WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) location and description of aquifers and recharge areas - depth of water table - seasonal variation - (address potential malfunction of sanitary system due to same) - qualit~ - suitability for consmptive use OAuantlty IlOW b) identification of present uses and level of use of groundwater - existing water and waste disposal supply for Beachcomber I, including restaurant Surface water a) location and description of surface waters located on project site or those that may be influenced by the project - classification according to New York State Department of Health and/or NYSDEC - consult Town Wetlands inventory b) identification of uses and level of use of all surface waters - recreational, shellfish, etc. description of existing drainage areas, patterns and channels discussion of potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and eutrophication of surface water - include FEMA/FIRM flood zone maps and resultant land use restrictions TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a) list vegetation types on the project site and within the surrounding b) discussion of site vegetation characteristics - species presence and abundance - age - size - distribution - dominance - community types unique, rare and endangered species value as habitat for wildlife - productivity area Wildlife a) list of wildlife species on theproject site and within surrounding area, including migratory and resident species b) discussion of wildlife population characteristics - species presence and abundance - distribution - dominance - unique, rare and endangered species - productivity Wetlands a) list wetland areas within or contiguous to the project site P~e4 Human Resources A. Co h) Beachcomber 1I Motel Scoping Outline discuss wetland characteristics - acreage vegetative cover classification - benefits of wetland such as flood and erosion control, recreation TRANSPORTATION 1. Transporting services a) description of the size, capacity and condition of services - access/egress from site b) description of current level of use of services - source of existing traffic - seasonal influence and use LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) description of the existing land use of the project site and the surroundin, g area - residentaal - vacant, open space b) description of existing zoning of site and surrounding area 2. use plans a)d description of any land use plans or master plans which include project site and surrounding area b) discussion of future development trends or pressures ~/ 208 Study recommendations .and Article 6 implementation NURPS Study recommendations for surface water protection COMMUNITY SERVICES (for this section include a list of existing facilities and a discussion of existing levels of usage and projected future needs) 1. Educational facilities 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. o Police protection Fire protection Health care facilities Social services Recreational facilities Utilities Public water supply - explore options with regard to Suffolk County Water Authority public water main extension and other water supply options. Solid waste disposal CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. ' Visual resources a) description of the physical character of the community - views of area resources associated with site - visibility of site from waterways and surrounding areas b) description of natural areas of significance 2. Historic and archaeological resources Page Beachcomber I1 Motel Scoping Outline a) h) c) Noise a) location and description of histon~c areas or structures listed on State or National Register or designated by the community, or included on Statewide Inventory identification of sites havingpotential significant archaeological value based on contact with State Parks contact local archaeological society with regard to historic/archaeological resources identification of existing level of noise in the community - use published references SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Identify those aspects of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action and require discussion. Areas of primary concern are listed as follows: POtential for erosion and/or siltation to the site waterway as a result of site co~strnction. Topographic disturbances and potential for sedimentation due to Slope destabilization of erodable soils on slopes. Alteration of ground or surface water quality from inadequate sanitary setbacks and/or unsaturated depth and potential water quality impacts due to water supply pumping. Nitrogen budget in consideration of recharge zones an~i groundwater flow. Describe existing motel sanitary facilities. Include a hi~tory of SCDHS approvals, and location of existing as well as proposed sanitary system. EcOlogical impacts resulting from use and occupation of the site for motel pu~oses, as related to identified species. Loss of unique wooded areas of site for water supply and grading envelopes. D. Conformance of proposed project to land use plans, with particular regard to ToWn zoning and Article 6 requirements for density/discharge requirements. VI. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section V. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas of impact. Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) use excavated material for land reclamation 2. Surface a) use topsoil stockpiled during construction for restoration and landscaping b) minimize disturbance of non-construction sites - propose covenants c) design and implement soil erosion control plan Page 6 Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Outline WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) propose system of treatment for stormwater runoff of wastewater prior to recharge of groundwater b) promote permeable areas on the site through use of alternative road and parking base specifications 2. Surface water a) ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during construction and operation to avoid siltation - hay bales - temporary restoration of vegetation to disturbed areas - landscaping - xeric type native planting suggested b) design adequate stormwater control system, modify sewage treatment facilities, and/or avoid direct discharges to surface water ~esources TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1.: Vegetation } restrict clearing to only those areas necessary preserve part of site as a natural area after construction, landscape site with naturally occurring vegetation 2; Wildlife a) provide adequate habitat (shelter and food) for remaining wildlife species b) schedule construction to avoid sensitive periods of fish, shellfish and wildlife cycles Human Resources TRANSPORTATION 1. Provide adequate horizontal and vertical road geometrics for anticipated traffic 2. Provide mitigation for traffic impacts as identified through traffic evaluation. The discussion must include road safety aspects as well as physical traffic impacts. LALND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) design project to comply with existing land use plans b) design functional and v~sually appealing facility to set standard and precedent for future surrounding land use COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. , Fire protection cb} use construction materials that minimize fire hazards incorporate sprinkler and alarm systems into building design provide equipment, funds or serwces directly to the community 2. Utilities a) install utility services underground b) incorporate water saving fixtures into facility design c) incorporate energy-saving measures into facility design Page7 Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Outline 3. Solid Waste disposal - discuss means of reducing solid waste generation Co CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) design exterior of structure in a manner which will not detract from the natural and human setting of the site b) minimize visual impact through thoughtful and innovative design (consider: height, size) design landscaping to be visually pleasing and to serve as a buffer between surrounding land uses, parking areas, operational equipment and facilities c) Noise a) b) schedule construction/operation to occur during "normal business" hours .minimizin$ noise impact dunng sensitive times (early morning, night) assure adherence to construction noise standards VII. ADVERSEiENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Identify those adverse environmental effects is Section V that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section VI. VII. ALTERNATIVES .This sectiOn contains categories of alterna.tives with examples. Discussion of each alternatave should be at a level sufficient to perlmt, a comparative assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. It ~s not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is or is not feasible. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES 1. Site layout a) location and types of structures b) location of access routes, parking and utility routes - Consider flow of residents and vehicles between existing and proposed sites ALTERNATIVES SIZE 1. Increase or decrease project size to minimize possible impacts NO ACTION 1. Impacts of no action a) effect on public need b) effect on private developers' need c) beneficial or adverse environmental impacts IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be consumed, convertedor made unavailable for future use. X. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS (if applicable) Describe in this section the potential growth aspects the proposed project may have on the surrounding community as well as the school and fire district. Page 8 Beachcomber I1 Motel Scoping Outline APPENDICES Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the EIS. A. List of.underlying studies, reports and information considered and relied on in preparing statement LiSt all federal, state, regional, or local agencies, organizations consultants and private persons consulted in prepanng the statement Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale Relevant correspondence regarding the projects may be included (required in the Final EIS) Page 9 FAX TRANSMITTAL Te: From: Re: Corn men ts: SOUT~-DLD TO~,¢< !54-2 NORTH COt ;,NTRY_ R.,...," "" O," M'~.LEg', P,_.<. ;_' ¢,,'~ * 7,~.'.. [5,~'. .., ~'~ ', * ~' SEQR SCOPING CHECKLIST APPLICATION OF tlEACItCOMBFR 11 MOTEL &MENDED I,'£BRU&RY Z2:1993 I~NCLUDING ,gCOPING MEE, .N~ Ad&dc,ns t*' ~hc ~rCViOh:~' ~istdb~:ted c~dline arc' il! ;!alic~ Ibm outm:e ,s oa.-e,.: ,,pon 6 N't CRR., a:t ,,.7.,..t as~.repm J ,..~ L,. N.~,,, 5 c.~ S.aL co ,,Jse anu al! data and assurngtions sho~ ld¢e h:: :ified a~d/or referenced. ;-7 .- . · , ,. ;'i . . %~:.~-. * ? -, a% . r -, dele, mm_ a..c.ktanc.,. Cove r Shoe t A. g, ,,ct,}... ,, ~s a uraft or f ha, ~,¢t~- .ertl C /vc~,doa (coonty and town) of lhe pr~ect coniacted for farthe~ ink, rmation F. Date .of acceptance of lee Dr'aft ElS should be indicated II. Tabk of ~..~n,e ,ts ~nd A t<'~ ' '" D~e !ummaW should, include: A., Brk( ~escr/g,~ion of t~e B. S;grdt}cant, c.encfici~: awl a~vers~ specified) C. Mit[g~d?a measgres p/oposed D. Altercatwe c")ns!dered I!! Des,:rip,ion of t~,' [roposed Actio:. A. IR3 '.C~ .:~:~FOSE, NEEDAND / Page I I~achcomb~r II Motel Scop~ug Outline Background ~nd hi~to~ - Dis.:u~s !n The relatio~sh~..~of thex~t~e f~r ~nc~r° osed pro{ec~ to ~he exfstingp~,j'; o'ect must be ln~e~,~t) of use of the ex)~tmg tac~l,de), soch as swimming pool, e~c. . , Pub~;c need for thy prqect, and wuntopal;b ados;ted commumt/development Objectives of the project sponsor Behefits of the proposed act[on economic LOCATION 1 Fstablish geographic boundaries of the p;ojec( (u,~. of. regk, nal.and local scale ~aps is recommended) 2. PcscNpt~on of access to site - Provide detai~ed d~scuss~on of ad.lucern road. 3. Desc{[ption of ex)sting zoning., ~, opos~d ..z,. DEoltsN .~NtD LAYOUT - A deta ?u table ..,f a, ,~t~p...d site coverage ~mntlties is r,~commended, · Total site area ~mbm)t of I~nd to be cleared ~nd regraded open space - ~et!ar ds/w~ter areas, natural .~nd,/Or covenanted areas. Discuss the steri! ~ato' of aa~i:~t>rde~w County Samtary Code A~t~,. e 6. Structures a~ total buildin~ ~rea b/ Iay~ut o~)>o~d~n~s (des~m concept u~ts orientat)erL bu l~mg foolpr:nt, ¢;c ) c) siteplans d) dramage plans 3. Parking a) ~avement area b} .amber of spaces and la?~ut Sanita~y System Design (exrmng a~d a) locat~oa a~d ~etback:~, and us:es (motel, ~ ~'~altE Depaitment ccmp~ance Water Sapp!yDes~gn (existing and proposed) a} d?th or,ell b) Eo,emial ,Mt-water inwusic, n c) Health Deparlme~t compli~rT.::~ CON 1, STRUCTION AND OPERATIO'x:~ Construction . period anti,.ipate3 ~t total cor,>tructf~)n schedule of ~ onstrucl~cn po,e.t a, develrpment :;~ s:te or oa ~.~)ommgp,~p.rC. llvachcumb~r II Motd WA'IER RESOURCES Groundwater a) Iocation and..d, escdptbn of aq~d¢'er~ arid recharge areas - depth of wa[er table . seasonal var,ation - (ad&ess pott'p, tial ~a fanctizn of sanha~ syste~n due to same) - qualit~ - suitabi [ty for consumptke use ~uant~ty IlOW - ex~:mng water and waste d,:~pe..:a! ~:,;,p!y f~:~r Ben&comber 1, mdudmg restau~anl Surface water a) location and description vf su:.faee waters located on project site c r tho~e that may be influenced by the pro, ecl - - cla$s',hcanon ac~:ordmg~o Now Yorg State Departed:em of Health a~d/or ~ YSDE(. - consult Town Wetlands iaventoo' b) ;dentiflcat;c.n of use~ and level of ~k;e of al! ~arface - recreational, shellfish, etc. ~IIDdOfl 0f e.,lst.r,o d~,,.,.a5 . ar~,.~s, z atto, zone maps and resultant land uae TFRRF STRIAL AND AQUA'IIC ECOLOGY Vegetation - spec:es plesence and abur:dur:,e - age - S1Z6 - distribution - dominance - co,inanity ~es ~ . umque, rare and eadanesrec sp,x~es value as habitat for wil~hfe - productivity Wildlife ~:" l~t of ..wildlife...p.s"ecies one. the ~ro'e(J..~ t b) discussion of wildlife popt:'.;mon - spec/es ~re~ence and abund.~nce - O/str{butmn - dominance - umque,?re and veea% ~d ' - productMty Wetlands proje,~ srre Page 4 Mote! Operation a) tTpe of operation b) schedule of operation c) ~rtilizatlon o}'laudscaped areas d) :.easonaI use and main[ennnce APPROVALS I, Req,~hed chapges or variances to ~l:;e zo.i~; permits a) Town Plann~ng Board slteplan dw!slOl~ IsSoe w~th ZBA an~ aate terms m Draft c'~ Town Trustees Coastal Erosio~ ~Iaza,~ ' ~ t~ c~" aoaHcant ~oOd ~e~k Io diqermine SCDH$ denC v recair ~meats ~m, regard to ex~ tm~ m )~e~, he~ ~.n rcf d lo as Be.~ New Yor~ State well a~d ~lschar~e pc~ ,~,~ 0 N:~w 5 ork State wetlands parm:ts before this pwjcct can bc con~truc' d For ~mlng Board of Appeals: S2cc;d, F~'cr?ti,,n applk'aHo~ Plonning Board: Site Plan application apphcation~ application IV' Env!ronmea*at Setting Natural Resource A. GEOIJDGY 1. Subsurface b/ ,est h.)le m a~cord w~.h S_ L ~] 2. Surface a) l(ist of soil type~ . b) uiscussion of sod charact~r;;:tcs - hydm'.ogical (infil~ratbn) capabilities) . (.ngh,oeringpropcrties(so-i~bear~s~gcapa,:iw) ~ auitabihty for propose, d 3. Topography . , - slooes, .?m'ctlculad_ environment Paqe; I). b) Beachco.mbcr II Motel Scoping Outllae discus.q wetland cba~acte;istics - acreage - vegetative cover - cl,/sslfication - benefits of wetland 5u¢}~ a~ ~:)od :n?, ~,o:&m c,,ntrcl, recreation TRANSPORTATION 1, Transporting s?vices a) des~r~ptlop of the * ' - access/egress from ,qlte dc. scrip,ion o. c~, re,. ~8vet .... < ~ ...... - source o~ existing ~raffic - seasonal ~l]~e~c¢ ~nd use L ..D L,SF ~d~D ZO, ING su rrounding area - residentiSl - vacant open spa? 2 ~nd use plans project s~te and surroand~r,g 9 Police protection Fire protection ]Health care facdi Social set-rices R~,cre:qio~al fac/l/tieq Sohd waste disposal i. Vi.qua! resources descripd~,n of nataral area7 ~,f s~;~fi~ :~a,-e WA'IER RESOURCI~S 1. Groundwater a) propose s?tem of treatmer~t prier recharge, road and parking base. 2. Smface water and o~eration to - waler resources *J izRRP, S'tRIAL AND AQUA7 IC ECCL~.OO Y Vegetation q0ild!ife species ~nd wildlife c)~cles ANSPC}RT'A¥1ON traffic physica~ traffic i..\ND I~$E AND ZONING 1, Ex/stivg l:-md u~e. and zoning CC, MMUNFFY Flr,~ prott L5 io. corf, orate Utilities Page Beachcomber 1! Mnt¢l $cop~ng ©utl~ne a) c~ i~duded on Statewide [nvcato:y ' .... ldsloric/ar<:haeologi, al rcso~uces: published references (.~EOLOGY :Subsurface Surface~" landscaping cove 1 Visual 3. Noise a) ~ csource$ consider; he~ ~L s~z~, B~achcomber II Mot~l Sc*,plng Outline pr:!'parm~, s~?;!¢men$ ~,/""~ ~ FUTURE HYDRANT ~ // EXIST. , /~/ - /1/ SITE PLAN SCALE: I" -- 50' FLOOR PLAN OF PROPOSED PUMP STATION AND TANK WATR 89-07 Drawing Nome, G F1 W AS SHOWN JULY 1991 JULY 25. 1991 PR( ~POSEI )RO. TANK 3000 GALLONS) ~ OM BEACHCOMBER II RESORT PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM ~,¢~ ¢/ : , McLendon & Murrell, P.C. ENGINEERS - ARCHITECTS · PLANNERS · SCIEN11STS · SURVEYORS N Y.FAIRFIELD N,J, Sheet heet Title: PLATE][ , I OF 1 '^LT~O. or ~ DO~.~. ~X~ ~ ^ SITE ,PLAN AND DETAILS Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Documentation ATTACHMENT I POSITIVE DECLARATION ENVlRONMENT/~~G CONSULTANTS PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (5[6) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQR ., POSITI~E DEt..LARA'I ,ON ' Notice: of Intent to Pr pare a Draft ElS Determination o' Significance SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Lead,4gency: ',4ddre~s: P!ann ng Board of the Town of Southold Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. l:ox 1179 South )Id, New York 11971 Dcae: November 2, 1992 ThJsnot;ce' '~ '~ ,'<'-', ~ ' " +' ~': '" ° ~ *;~- .~I 'i.',. *~ ' 'n~ ts l.,suvd pu.~m, nt .o Par, 51 t o. th~ ,n.M~m,.n,..,s r%u a, ,,ns pv. tamh.o · to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Revi¢ x') of the Em-ironmenta[ Conservation Law. The lead agency l:~ determined that the proposed ac. ItOh described velow may have a significant .:fleet on the environment and that x Draft Environmental In:pact Statement will be prepared. Title of Act:'on: SEQR Status:' Beachcomb¢r Motel ~ype I action Project Description: The r)roject, ,hich is the. subject of this Long E,a~F involves a request._ fo, $~te plan ap~. royal to constn ct $0. rnmel um~s on a 14.1 acre parcel. The proposed project calls. for construcl on of 86 motel units accessed from a circular_patt~ rn.drivewa. ), which, . .. surrc-unds, the recreation complex. A ottd of.e~ght omldmg~ areproposed of which riva wi il contain 12-u nits, two will contain 9-units, and one will :op. tain g-units. Seven of the buildings have a footprint o ',3.0'x120' a. nd one building will have a footurint oil 0 xS0'; It ~s noted that the 9-unlt buildings (buijdings I .:nd 2) naye d-units, which a,~,e:~ t~o be 2- story, and co fid fuact,on as apartments n~.ving noor areas of 1,2L. ) square feet. Ail other umts appear to have ·flocr areas c 7 ap?roximately 600 square feet. ( Beachcomber Motel II ' $£QP, Det~rmln,,tion SCTM Number:' Location: District 100( - Section 083 - Block 01 -Lots 1, 2 & 17 The site of tle subject application is located on .the east side of Duck Pot :1 Lan[ and the Long Island Sound m Outchogue. ~ pew York, Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consi !oration of the criteria for determination of significance contained i~ 6 NYC.R.R Part 617.11 the Lo,ag Environmental 'Assessment Form Parts I; II and the fol!owmg specific reasons: The proposed project represents a m~jo; increase in intensiry of use of :he parcel. The 1: art !I Long IzAF provides an ought e o, several areas of s;_~nmcant enGrom-nent,al impact expecred as a resu t of theproject. Ba¢~ en review, it has been determined that an Envi:'omnental ~mpao. gtatement is appropriate in order to asses.,; ~mpacts, pro,.,de, a means 0t rater- ~genq' coordination, and explore mmga.lon measures and alternatives. Buildings I, 2 and 3 are iocated ia a sloe:; slope area (>25%). Grade h-ar, sitians of . are', .,.n o. <z~!,~,~ ~, ~..;i · ,- · . ~ 'h.'l~; - 20 25 feet . .p~rent ..cro..a .... l~not., of ~a,,dmss 2 an,, ~ uno c c,~,~,n~ 1 a~d , ha~e i~r~de t. an,~t oa~ o. 10-.~ fo. et ,c,o., ,,.c .en~,h o, me buLdl,~s. ,a,~ a, ea cons,.~red ~o o~ s..,sg~e d~.. to cc~rsc, ,oc.~bL ~oll~.. ,,e area must be a.o,o.d d~velopcd in aa cxtremely sensitive man :c~ A_s proposed s~gnificant excavation and asociated soi~ de-stabilizatlon is expacte -~ '-' ,, ~ '~. ~,q-., ,'-~ ., ~..d a.ve.oFment x~,~,. ,~qta,...xtens,ve structure reta~p~?.n~ or other measures t ) allow conslmctlon ~ proposed. ~ne area is somewhat proxiraate to ~ng Island & trod, and de-stabilization could have ramlf:.cations 5n t~rms of tra~?or~ of sod menr to the existing site ~d potentia!Ig to the Sound. Additional cpnaderanon abc dd be given to design in this a'rea to minindze loss of vegetation, and reduce { rosion and sedimentation. Design alternatives shouldbe considered..' The project.lnvolves construction of 86-u ~its on 1'4.I acres. SCDI-IS indicates that motel units m excess of 400 square feet h we a design flow of !50 g,allons per d~.v (gpd). This would result in aflow of 12,9 )0 gallons ocr day which exceedi the ' allowable flow for 14.1. a.cres (4,230 gpd). A prelimi'naw re'port su'.o, mltted by the. applicant addresses this issue through ter ~porary stets izatlon of ad/acent lands ot the 9'vner until such time a.s public w,ater su!: ply is available, however,'this should be ' incorporated into the site plan review pn cess in terms of acreage proposed for use. In addition, the allowable flow would e-ff, ctively be doubled if v-ub'ilc ~"ater suvvlv is available, therefore, the design flow. v;ou:. :1 still exceed the allo,~vable, flow [,as~rdo~:- - ' 14.1 acres, therefore, some pomon of th~ adjacent lands must remain undeveloved in perpetuity. Coor.dination wlth .qqCDHS tt rough the site plan review and ElS pro' cess- would be beneficial. . in addition to design flow .".nd density, ~ Draft BIS should consider sanitary system desigr, should be considered in ierms of C ispersal of sanitary waste, depth to water Page 2 of 3 oE(2R D~.t~n:nln arian ...... ,-; ?~ lead with and design constrain, ts tar umts m 15 foo~ elevauoa area, :a::d .... rc~.n freeport of contain:naars to Long Isl:md Sound. Water use issues ar~ crldcal in th~ Town ff Southold. A pre!~mina~ w~ter use report submitte~ by the applicant provide~ins~g';~ into intended water supply. ~e report however ~s not c~ns~steat w~th the s~te pit n, depicting alternate access roads and well field location which do not correspond w/th the site plan. In additiov, due to the anticipated slgnificqat water use, ~otentk I mc~ emen't of the sait water intqrfacel need ibr well pumping control and distriI utioa, water qealkv, and integrauon xmth the BeacEcomber I project, d~scuss~on of wet :r supp~> bsues sho~,~ u~ ,ace, vo, a.ed hl~O . the EISprocess for inter-agent, review a ~d ~norc detailed analysis by th~ lead and involved agencies. . ~e project will result in lhe removal o~ r erhaps up to 2 acres of vegetation in a sensitive slope area. Ia addition, depend ag u~on the location cf the water supply system, add~t'ioa~ acreage, possibly m th, steep slope heavily wsoded m-ex may alee b~ removed, ~roper design, and ciearia~ limitations should be considered. ~a s~gnificance or the small man-made pone should be co~idered and appropriate setbac ~ obse~'ed. ~e impact on infr~tructure and commu ' · < ~ '- ' <~ ,~" *'" ~ ~;~ ~ ..... ' ~':~de ,r~p: ~.er ho~r dt,r,ng p~aa t,a,,~¢ hours project will proouce approximately 6~ v~;" - ' ' .... : ~. . r~.. . onSalurday. ~eabilityofthe.surrou'ad:- '~ ~'"~' o 'n--'n' , :- *; traffic should be determined. ~e area r.,aes are local/rural in c,h.xracter, ~d there are constraints noted in terms or hanzon' a! ann ~..~ h,a, ,..~, m~n. and traffic control signote on Duck Pond Road. Other dom and for c?nmunkv ze~iccs should be de:erin/ned i~l connectmn w~th a motel u: e of th~s mtens4ty. For Further ]information: Contact Person: Address: PhonE: No.: Bennett eric ~vski, Jr. Chairman, Fanning ~oard Town of Sou hold Town Hall, 5 3095 Main Road P.O. Box 117 ) Town Hail, } lain Road., Southo!d (5!6) 765-19..8 Copies,of, thlt Notice Sent to: , Comm~s_qon?DF. partment of Env:ronmenlal C ~nservatlon Regional Of.qc¢-Ncw York St.ate the Dep,ztme: t of Envisonmenta! Conservation Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Ap licant .,. Su~f'olk County Departmen[ of Heal t,.h Sea ices Suffolk County Departmerj~ of Pl.a.n. mng~. _; , NYS Legisla':ive Commission on water ixesour( ~ ,',~ee~s for Long Island SoutholdTo,vn Board of Zoning Appeals Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Building Department Page 3 of 3 Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Documentation ATTACHMENT II LONG EAF CRAMER, vq~ ~,~OCIATES ENVIRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS October 29, 1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re' Review of Beachcomber Motel Long EAF SCTM No. 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue Dear Mr. Orlowski: As per the your request, we have completed a preliminary review of th.e a.bove referenced project in accordance with your request. Tasks and completed actMt~es are identified as follows: Review Part I LEAF The parcel has been field inspected by CVA, and the LEAF has been reviewed and amended as necessary. A copy of same is attached. Prepare Part H LEAF The Part II LEAF checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional information concerning our findings is included below. Environmental and Planning Consideration~ The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site and area have been consulted. The project involves site plan approval to construct 86 units on a 14.1 acre parcel on the east side of Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, New York. The proposed site plan is included with the application and was prepared by Barrett, Lanzisera, Beckman and Hyman, project no. 8630, last revision 5-1-92. The .subject site is primarily vacant with the exception .of an existing pool, cabana, bo.cci court, miniature golf, and basketball area which ~s present in connection with adjacent lands operated as the Beachcomber Motel. All but the bocci court are proposed to remain. The site contains a flat meadow area surrounding the recreation complex. Southwest of this area is a deciduous woodlot which includes slopes well in excess of 35 percent. East of the recreation area is a slope including deciduous woodlands and xeric-oriented flora, with unstable soils and slopes in excess of 25 percent. There is a small apparently man-.made pond locat, ed m the western part of the site, which includes surface water and ~s surrounded pnmarily by common reed. The proposed project calls for construction of 86 motel units accessed from a circular pattern driveway which surrounds the recreation complex. A total of eight buildings are proposed of which five will contain 12-units, two will contain 9-units, and one will contain 8-units. Seven of the buildings have a footprint .0f 30.'x120' and o.n.e building will have a footprint of 30'x80'. It is noted that the 9-umt buddings (buildings 1. and2) have 6-units, which appear to be 2-story, and could function as apartments haxang 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Page 1 of 3 Beachcomber Motel Long EAF Review floor areas of 1,200 square feet. All other units appear to have floor areas of approximately 600 square feet. The proposed project represents a major increase in intensity of use of the parcel. The Part II Long EAF (attached) provides an outline of several areas of significant environmental impact expected as a result of the project, and should be used in connection with this letter as a guide in addressing significant environmental issues. Based on our review, we believe that an Environmental Impact Statement is . appropriate in.order to assess impacts, provide a means of ~.n. ter-agen~ coordinatton, and explore Imtigation measures and alternatives. A brief d~scussion of anticipated impacts follows: Buildings 1, 2 and 3 are located in a steep slope area (>25%). Grade transitions of 20-25 feet are apparent across the length of bui~dln~ 2 and 3, and buildings 1 and 4 have grade transitions of 10-15 feet across the length of the buildings. ThLs area is considered to be sensitive due to coarse erodable soils. The area must be avoided or developed in an extremely sensitive manner. As proposed significant excavation and associated soil de-stabilization is expected, and development would requh-e extensive structu, e retalnrnent or other measures to allow construction as proposed. The area is somewhat proximate to Long Island Sound, and de- stabilization could have ramifications in terms of transport of sediment to the existing site and potentially to the Sound. Additional consideration should be given to design in this area to minimize loss of vegetation, and reduce erosion and sedimentation. Design alternatives should be considered. The project involves construction of 86-units on 14.1 acres. SCDHS indicates that motel units in excess of 400 square feet have a design flow of 150 gallons per day (gpd). This would result in a flow of 12,900 gallons per day which exceeds the allowable flow for 14.1 acres (4,230 gpd). The H2M report addresses this issue through temporary sterilization of adjacent lands of the owner until such time as public water supply is available, however, this should be incorporated into the site plan review process in terms of acreage proposed for use. In addition, the allowable flow would effectively be doubled if public water supply i~ available, therefore, the design flow would still exceed the allowable flow based on 14.1 acres, therefore, some portion of the adjacent lands must remain undeveloped in perpetuity. As indicated, the H2M provides some insight into these issues; however, coordination with SCDHS through the site plan review and EIS process would be benefidal. The applicant may indicate that use is seasonal and therefore sanitary flow and water use is less than design flow;, however, once constructed the use pattern may change and the Town and SCDHS should address potential use based on design flow. In addition to design flow and density, sanitary system design should be considered in terms of dhpersal of sanitary waste, depth to water and design constraints for units in 15 foot elevation area, and nitrogen load with transport of contaminants to Long Island Sound. Water use issues are critical in the Town of Southold. The H2M report provides insight into intended water supply. The report however is not consistent with the site plan, depicting alternate access roads and well field location which do not correspond with the site plan. In addition, due to the anticipated ~ignificant water use, potential movement of the salt water interface, need for well pumping control and distribution, water quality, and integration with the Beachcomber I project, discussion of water supply issues should be incorporated into the EIS Page 2 of 3 Beachcomber Motel Long EAF Review process for inter-agency review and more detailed analysis by the lead and involved agencies. The project will result ia the removal of perhaps up to 2 acres of vegetation in a sensitive slope area. In addition, depending upon the location of tho water supply system, additional acreage, possibly in the steep slope heavily wooded area may also be removed. Proper design, and clearing limitations should be considered. The sJ?ifieance of the small man-made pond should be considered and appropriate setbacks observed. The impact on infrastructure and community services should be determined. The project will produce approximately 65 vehicle trips per hour during peak traffic hours on Saturday. The ability of the surrounding road system to accommodate increased traffic should be determined. The area roads are local/rural in charaaer, and there are constraints noted in terms of horizontal and vertical ali~ment and traffic control signage on Duck Pond Road. Other demand for community services should be determined in connection with a motel use of this intensity. In sum~. ary, .the above paragraphs provide greater insight into environmental issues, and in connection wah the Long EAFParts I and II, form thebasis for a Determination of Significance. It is our recommendation that a Positive Declaration be issued in order to assess impacts, provide, a means of inter-agency coordination, and explore mitigation measures and alternatives. If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours~ Page 3 of 3 " '- FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORUM. h SOUTHOLDTOWN / ....... ~ ':" PLANNING BOARD ~ Purpose: Th~ ful] EAF is oes~gned to neap appucants and agencies determine, in an or<~erly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable, It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one parti.cuiar area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides obiective data and information about a given proiect ~nd its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis teat takes place in Parts 2 and 3." Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possib[eimpacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, teen Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions ,dentifythePortionso'EAFcomple,ed for this project: ~Partl X Part2 O Part3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a si§nificant im.pact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. [] B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONFD negative declaration will be prepared.' ~ C. The project may result in one or more lar§e and that have a significant impact important impacts may on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. "A Conditioned Negative D~claration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Sig a u~re of Prep~r (If ~ifferent from responsible officer~ Date IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing comm~j~n~ty~ ONO Example~ that would apply to column 2 · The permanent population of the city, tow. n or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. · The municipal budget for capital expenditures o~ •per·ting services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. · Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or · Proposed action will cause · change in the d~nsity of land use. · Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. · Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) Proposed Action will ~t an important precedent for future projects. Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. Other impacts: . 1 2 3' Sm·Il to Potential i Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Ch&ngeI [] [] [::]Yes nH• [] [] []Yes I-]No [] [] OYes ON• [] ~ [-)Yes Ohlo [] ~] OYes •No ~-~ [] OYes [] O []Yes •No [] [] OYes ON• 0 [] OYes ONo 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public contrSVrr~y related to potential adver~ environmental impacts? /1~O OYES If Any Action In Part 2 Ia Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3--EVALUATION OF T. HE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Re~pons~bility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared il one or more impact,s) is considered to be potentially targa, even if the impact(s) may b mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: · The probability of the impact occurring · The duration of the impact · Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value · Whether the impact can or will be controlled · The regional consequence of the impact · IV potential divergence from local needs and goals · Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) t PART 1--PROJECT INFORM.. ~ON Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a si§niticant effect on the environment. Please complete' the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered- as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any ad~lition,~ information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation, if information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION ~=~h~nmh~r ~fn~.P. 1. ~i~e Plan LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) ]m~ pcm,'-I ~n~d. ~cb _Qqu~. TOW~ of So~/thold NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR W~nry F,. Ra~vnor, Jr. (Aaent for Aliano) ADDRESS BUSINESS TELEPHONE §16 ) 298-8420 CITYIPO NAME OF OWNER (11 different) Nicholas Aliano ADDRESS Ash1 ey Lane STATE ZIP CODE NY 11952 BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( ) CITYIPO Shoreh~m DESCRIPTION OF ACTION STATE I ZIP CODE NY I 11786 Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site De$oription Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: I-]Urban ~llndustrial ~Commercial [:]Residential (suburban) ~Forest [~AgricuJture []Other 2. Total acreage of project area: 14.'L acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) . Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) C.~117~&¢..~-~1~ 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? .... ~l~:ural (non-farm) PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION acres acres ~'.~ acres :~'...~ acres  acres acres lacres acres acres ~.~ acres O,.4 acres ~"-~ acres topsoil, sand, qravela~e~ ~ acres a. Soil drainage: ~]Well drained 100 % of site E]Moderately well drained 0,% of site E]Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved~how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYi= La~d Classification System? ~ acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). ~ 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? IF]Yes [2]No a. What is depth to bedrock? '--' ~O (in feet) 2 [~lS% or g~ !er ._ 9/0 6. Is proiect substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State o ional Registers of Historic Places? rqYes :.C3No ~"' Is project substantiall¥ contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ~Yes ~No + ~0 ~ ~o ~ 35 ~ & What is t~e depth of the water table~ (in fee0 -- O. I~ ~ite located over a primary, principal, or ~ole ~ource aquifed e~ ~o ~0. Do hunting, fi~hing or shell fi~hing opportunities pre,ently exist in the project area~ ~Ye~ ~o 1~. Doe~ pro~ect ~ite contain any *pecie~ o~ plant or ~nimal life that i~ identified a~ threatened or endangered~ ~Yes ~No According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (Le., cliffs, dunes, other ~eological formations) ~Yes ~o Describe 13. Is the project site presently used'by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? OYes [~No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? [:]Yes [~:No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: i~/a a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: , · a. Name . n/~.. .~I',4'/,Z. G/~ .,~q~l~')..~ /l~,/f'A/~n~'~..~cres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? DYes ~o a) If Yes, does .~,ufficient capacity exist to allow connection? [~Yes E:]No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? []Yes [:]No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? E]Yes 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 I--lyes J~]No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? fqYes [~No / ./ B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor + 45 b. Project acreage to be developed: lZ~ acres initially; 14 c. Project acreage to remain undeve[oped ?q acres. d. Length of project, in miles: (Il~ appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed f. Number of ofhstreet parking spaces existing ~ ; proposed acres. acres ultimately. per town Code C g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 60 (upon completion of project)? ~" h. If residential:: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condornioiu Initially Ultimately i. Di'mensions {in feet) of largest proposed structure ~ height; ~ width; ~ length. feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare proiect will occupy is? ~ ft. ~:~..' j. Linear 3 per code ~o exceed 125 ft · ~.,Will'disturbed areas be recla d? [~Yes ENo []N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? lawn & Landscaping b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~]Yes I~No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? []Yes f-lNo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? /" ~ '~- 0 - acres. $. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? ,lo s~te! tonslcub~c yargs. months, (including demolition). year, (including demolition). year. (~ I-lYes E~No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: 1 a. Total number of phases anticipated b, Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c, Approximate completion date of final phase d, Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during con~tn]ction? (]]Yes [~o 18 (number). 6 month 1993 month f-lYes [3No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 50 ...; after project is complete 5 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? I-lyes []No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? OYes ~,o a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. 'Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged n/a 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? /~es :(~]No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain domestic sewerage ~]Yes []No ./ 15. 16. 17. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 ,,'ear flood plain? [~Yes Will the project generate solid waste? ~f~es ~No a. If yes, what is the amoun't per month ~ tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ,~es /3No c. If yes, give name ~'~O~"l~l..~ ~'~1] ~lJ'~"" ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain [~No C]Yes Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what i~ the anticipated site life? Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ~Yes E~Yes I~No · tonsJmonth. yeats. rqNo 18. 19. Will project routinely produce odors [more than one hour per day)? r-lYes F~No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? I-lYes 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? :J~]Yes r-INo electricity If yes , indicate type(s) :J~]No 22, If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity ~ gallons/minute. 23, Total anticipated water usage per day ~ gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? /3Yes ~]No If Yes. explain per SCDOHS City, Town, Village Board ~Yes ~No City, Town, Village Planning Board :l[]Yes ~]No City, Town-Zoning Board [:]Yes lC]No City, County Health Department :~]Yes Other Local Agencies :~Yes [:]No Other Regional Agencies fi'lYes ~]No State Agencies ~]Yes Federal Agencies f-lYes ST?E PLAN WATER & SEWER SCPC dec C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? []Yes If Yes, iodicate decision required: E]zoning amendment [:]zoning variance ~special use permit [~subdivision ~]site plan [-Inew/revision of master plan [:]resource management plan [qother 2, What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? RR 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 6, Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? [~Yes 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ~,~ mile radius of proposed action? R-80 RR R-40 AC []No 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adioining/surrounding land uses within a % mile? 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? I-1No /'~es :~No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? E~Yes E3No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle proiected demand? []Yes [:]No 7'~~ ~ 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ~Ye~l'~[~No~ a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ~:]Yes [:]No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or E. Verification ,~V'/~:~v'~ J',Y',* ~ /f.:Z.~..,~ I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my ~nowledge. Applicant/Sl?opsor Name ~-~ H~pry E. Raynort Jr. Date July 13, 1992 C Signature~~/ ~:/~'f~L~ ~"" Title Agent for Aliano & Krupski I[ the aclion is in Ihe~Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete Ihe Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding wilh this assessment. Pad2- °ROJECTIMPACTSANDTHEIPMAGNITUDE Ile,,p<)n~lbil~t~ of te~l Age~'~ Genital Informatlo~ (Read Carefully) · In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and a-.terminations be~n rea~om~ble! The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental angler. · Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) &:~s not mean that it is ab• necessarily Ilg~llica~, Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at furtber., · The E~amples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing tyl~s of impact~ and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that woold Uiuer a responte in column 2. The examples are ~enerally applicable tic•ugh•ut the State and for mo~t situations. BuL for any specific project or site other e~ampte~ and/o~ lower thresholds may he approl)riate fo~ a Potential Large Impact re~pofl~e, thus requirin$ evaluatioa in Part 3. · The Impact~ of each ~oje~,, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefor'e. the examples are illustrative and have be~n offered as guidance. Tbey do not constitute an exhaust~e list o{ impact~ and thre'~holds to answ~' each question, · The number of examples per question does not ind{cate the importance of each questicm. · In identifying impact~, consider long term, short term and cumlative effect5. In~trucflon~ (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Ye~ if tbe~e will be a~' impact, b. Maybe answers should be considered as Ye~ answers. c. If answering Ye~ to a question then check the appropriate box (column I o~ 2) to indicate th~ potential size of th,· impacL If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example prove·d, check column 2. If impact will occur but thresh•lc is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of th~ impact then consider' the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3 e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the p~oject to a small to mod·rgb impact, al~o ch~ the Y~ box in column 3. A No response indic_~te~ teat ~uch a reduction is ~ot po~131e. Thi must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND .... 1. Will the propo~,~:l action result in a ph~cal chao~e mt:he pro~,,ct~ljte~ ONO ,,,j~ E S Ezamples that would apply to column 2 · Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exce~l 10%. · Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 fe~t. · Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. · Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 fe~t of existing ground sudace, · . Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involv~ more than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. · Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. · Construction in a designated floodway. · Other impactm /)_~"~'_.,4'~*'u~4.'"r/~N ~ ..~.,~-,~ ?. Will there be an effect b. _4¥ unique or unusual land forms lo. on th~ $ite~' (i.e., cliffs, dunes, i~logical formations, etc.)J~NO ~J~ES · Specific land forms: /'4'~D,~'~s~_~,/.42. ,~),/~'J~/'~'~ ~J',~'~ ~. I 2 3 Sm~JI to Potential Can Impact Moderate Large Mitigated By - ' Cmpa~' impact Project Chang~ X OYes [~]No [] [] OYes •No [] O OYes •No [] ])~ OYes ON• [] ~ OYes ONc [] [] OYes ON O ]~ OYes ON [] ~ OYes ON IMPACT ON WATER 3 Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected~ (Under Articles 1S, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation La~,, E~CL) E-amples that would apply to column 2 · Developable area of site contains a protected water body. · Dredein8 more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. · Extension of utility disttibutio~ facilities through a protected water body. · Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. · Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any nomprotected e×isti~,~r new body of water? ,,~O r-lYE S Examples that would apply to column 2 · A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. · Construction of a'body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. · Other impacts: S. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater qua. lity or quantity? Eumpl~s that would apply t~ colurr~ 2 · Proposed Action will require a discharge p~rmit. · Proposed Action requires use of a s<~rce of water that does not have approval to serve proposed,(pmject)action. · Propos~d Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping Capacity. · Construction1 of operation causing ~ contamination of a water supply system.' · Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater, ~e'7~W~V~"~ · Liquid effluent will be conveye~ off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. · Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. · Proposed Action witl likel,' c~use siltation or other discharge into an existing body of wat~-~ ~.~ the ~.,:tt'nt tJ~at there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. · Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ~,. Will proposed action alter draina~ flow or patterns, or s~lce '-~- water runoff~ Exz.mples that wou~d apply to column 2 · P' ' d Arq ~ , 'todd change flooci water tlo~s I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderale Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change O [] DYes [~]No [] I-~ OYes [] [] OYe~ DNo  [] DYes [] i-lYes [-1No ~ I-1 I-lyes [] [-] E~Yes []No E] n OYes ON• [] .J~ [::]Yes []]No EON, X OYes []N [] [] []Yes ON ,~k O DYe~ F1N, [] E~Yes [] [] QYes ~N 71 [] ~-~Yes ~N [] []' El]Yes FIN X [] J~Yes [] [] OYes [] [] [:)Yes products greater than 1,100 gallons. · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services, · Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. · Other impacts: · Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. · Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. · Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. · Other impact~: IMPACT ON .MR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality~ ,,~O OYES Ezample~ that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle tdps in any given · Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than '1 ton of refuse I~r hour. · Emission rate of total contaminant~ will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more th,~n 10 million BTU's per hour. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of indusb'ial development within existing industrial areas. · Ot.['~r impact~: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened o~ endangered speciesi' nNO XES E~.ample~ that Would apply to column · Reductk:m of one or more species listed on the Nee York o~ Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. · Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. · Other impact~: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threat,en~ or non-endangered species? /~O [~YES Example~ that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. · Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land re~u~e~i' OYES Example~ that would apply to column 2 · The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, ~rchard. etc.) 2 Sn.,ll to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate L~rge Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change 0 [] OYes ONo ~ ~ ~Yes' ONo D ~ ~Yes DNo 0 0 Ov~ ONo O 0 OYes ONo O O OY~ ONo O O OY~ 'DNo O 0 0~ ONo 0 O O~es 0 0 O~es ONo 0 ~ OY~ ONo · Co~struction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of a~ricultural land. · The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of airicultural land or, if located in an AIricultutal District. more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. · The peopled act~m would disrupt o~ prevent installatio~ of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsuHace drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping; or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources[" (If necessary, use the Visual E^F Addendum in Section'617.~1, Appendix B.) ' E-amples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from o~ in sharp contrast to current surrounding land u~e patterns, whet~r' man-made or natural. · Propo~d land uses, or proiect component~ v~sible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or signh~icantly reduce their · enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to d~e area. a Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance[" ring [:]YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substnntially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Re, aster of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site, · Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities[" x ~ . Examples that would apply to column 2 v,~O OYES )The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. "-~"A maior reduction of an o~en space important to the community. · Other impacts: .,1 2 '3 ~,.mll to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Chang~ n n []Yes 0 [] []Yes ElNa 0 [] OYes I-lNg O [] OYes ONe F'I [] ['-]Yes ONe ONe O O OYes [-]No 0 0 OYes ONe  0 OYes ONe 0 O OYes ONe 0 O [-]Yes ONe Beachcomber 11 Motel Scoping Documentation ATTACHMENT III SEQR SCOPING CHECKI,IST ENVlRONMENT~I:~G CONSULTANTS ~0 ~0 ~O ~O ~xO oNF'I S~Al-1 oNo sa,LO o~0 s~xO °~O oNo s~XO oNo saxO tBU~ iOe[OJd /q] PeteBIilPi 0 [] [] [] O O [] 0 0 D 0 O ioedWl eBJel IEl%UelOd 0 [] [] 0 0 loldwl el, IJepoyI oi IliUm, I OL HJ. IV:JH :)Ill]lid NO .LOYdHI ~J. OVdl~ll riO00 aNY :~SlON A~)b':JN:1 NO .I.OVdl~l COUNTY Of SUFFOLK ~O~£RT .,J. (~AFFNEY l,-mua~y 22, 1993 Valcrle Scopaz Southold Town 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Beachcomber Motel Expansion $c'n,~#:1000-$3-1-2, 83-1-17 De~u Ms. Scopaz: Deparlment ) has rece~v<.d your The Suffolk County Depaxre;n,. of Health Ser'v~ces (SCDHS; ..... ' ' lcuer dated Janum'y 6, 1993, concerning the above-referenced project. Review of this action regarding natural re;oarce concerns mad sanitary concerns will take place as part of the SEQRA impact statement process. The applicant reust coreply with the requhements of fire Suffolk County Sanitary Code and relevant construction standa.rds for water supply and sewage disposal. Design and flow specification~ subsurface soil conditions and complete site plim details am essenti.'d to the review of this project. These considerations are reviewed compl,tely at the tine of SCDHS application, Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. If you have any questions, ple:~se feel to contact the Office of Ecology at 852-2078. Sincerely Yom's, Mark J. Reuscble Environmental Planner Office of Ecology MJR/amf cc: Vito Minei, P.E. Stephen Costa, P.E. Charles Lind, SC Planning TRUSTEES ' J~hn M. Bredemeyer, II[, President Albert J. Kmpski, Jr., Vice President Henry E Smith John B. Tuthill William G. Albertson Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUPERVISOR SCOTT L. HARRIS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 TO: FROM: RE: Southold Town Planning Bgard Southold Town Trustee~ Beachcomber Motel 'Expansion SCTM $1000-83-2-1 DATE: January 21, 1993 The Southold Town Trustees will be unable to attend the scoping session in this matter tomorrow 1/22/93. This Board issued an emergency repair authorization for this facility on December 21, 1992 under the Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard and Wetland Ordinances. The owner is authorized to perform emergency repairs to the foundation of the existing motel undermined by the December 11, 1992 storm and must submit a full permit application to the Trustees for this work. The Board specifically limited the repair to the foundation and recommended that the owner submit an application for an erosion protection structure (bulkhead/revetment) capable of withstanding severe storms over a 30 year period. In light of the recent storm of December 11, 1992, this office suggests that this facility should consider a selective retreat at this time in order to property fortify the shoreline with such a structure noted above. . The Coastal Erosion Hazard area line should be placed on the site plan by the project engineer or architect so that in future applications or permit discussions its' location is readily apparent. · TRUSTEES John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Albert J. K_rupski, Jr., Vice President Henry P. Smith John B, Tuthill William G. Albertson Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA AND TOWN WETLAND EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION(S) Appllca~lon No. SCTM..%1000- Name: Date: December 21, 1992 SUPERVISOR SCO'I~r L. HARRIS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RESOLVED that pursuant to the Town Code in relation to Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, Chapter 37, Section 20, 21 and Town Code Chapter 97, Wetlands, the Southold Town Trustees, as Administrator, have determined that the activities proposed by your emergency activity request are necessary to protect property and important coastal natural resources. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: l Lx,,3 :" ;:/ "- ..._., ....f,l .,C..;...4 .. ,..>" ..' .,;~ .. Reasons'-/" supporting this determination: 1. An on site inspection has been conducted by the board Trustees or their authorized representative. 2. The Trustees have considered the emergency request and find that if the work is not completed as authorized and measurable loss of property and important coastal natural resources is likely to occur. This authorization is not a permit. You must complete the Coastal Erosion and wetland permit process where applicable for all authorizations given under this section. This authorization should not be considered a determination made for any other department or agency. - PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman 'George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone I516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 11, 19993 SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Beachcomber Motel SCTM%1000-83-2-1 Dear Mr. Raynor: As per our conversation earlier today, the purpose of this letter is to advise you on the procedure we will follow with the Beachcomber Motel scoping session. The fee for the scoping session is $250.00 payable the day of the session. The check should be made out to the Town of Southold. The procedure we usually follow at scoping sessions is to provide each attendee with a packet which will include the scoping session outline, and a copy of any written comments that we may have received from any of the coordinating agencies. Representatives of the coordinating agencies may be present. The public is allowed to attend and to contribute information. The purpose of the scoping session is to outline all the information that must be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in order to facilitate an adequate environmental review. After the session, a synopsis of the session will be sent to you and all the coordinating agencies for your records. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Valerie Scopaz. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward ' Chairman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone I516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P,O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: FROM: RE: All Involved Agencies Richard G. Ward~ Chairman_~/~ Scoping Session for Beachcomber Motel SCTM~1000-83-1-2 & 17 DATE: January 6, 1993 A Scoping Session has been set for 2 P.M., Friday, January 22, 1993, for the above mentioned site plan application. The meeting will be held in the conference room of the Town Hall which is located at 53095 Maln Road in Southold. A copy of the Positive Declaration may have been sent to you on November 4, 1992. Another copy is enclosed with this letter for your convenience. If you are unable to attend the Scoping Session, please send any comments you may have as to items you wish addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, to the Planning Board office. The Board's facsimile number is 765-1823. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Board office at 765-1938. Encl. cc: John M. Bredemeyer, III, President, Board of Town Trustees Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Raymond Jacobs, Superintendent Highway Department, Southold James Richter, Engineering Inspector Suffolk County Department of Health Services - Steven Costa, Vito Minei, Paul P0nturo Frank Dowling, Suffolk County Department of Planning Michael LoGrande, Ed Rosovitch - SC Water Authority David Morrell, NYSDEC, SUNY Stony Brook Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Henry Raynor, Agent for Applicant Planning and Zoning Committee, Southold PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bonnet[ Orlowski. Jr., Chairman · George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQ POSITIVE DEt'.LARA'I Noticc of Intent to Pt parc a Draft EIS Dctcrmlnation o' Significance SCO2r-I' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax 1516) 765-1823 Lead.4gency: 'Address: Plann ng Board of the Town of Southold Town Ha!l, 53095 Main Road P.O. l;ox 1179 South )Id, N.'ew York 11971 Da~e: November 2, 1992 ' ' ' , ' of the ~m~tement!ngre~;o~,at:ons p~rtamln$ This not:ce ~s ~ssued pursuant to Part 67 ' ' ' ' ' ' · to ~tlcle 8 (State Environmental Guality ~e~,~¢ x') of the Environmenta[ Cmue~,'at~on ~xff, ~e lead a~en~ _ I,~. determined that, ,th~ proposed actton described ~elocv may have · ' ~ ' - ~ D~aft Environmental Tn:pact Statement a s~gmficant .:flout oi1 the environment uno mat will be prepared. Tille o1' Act..'o n: SEQR Statu:;:' Project Description: Beachcomber Motel Type I'action The nrofcct, *hieh is the subject of this Long EAF/nvolves a request fo, site plan appro~,,l to cons,mot 80. mo,el unk£on a 14,1 acre parcel. T'r;,e proposed project calls· for construel on of 86 motel units accessed from a ClrCal' ~ ar part rn driv,'waywhich.. , . .surr°unds the recreation com~qex. A ot:d of mght ou[ldmgs are ~roposed of . wh[& five wi [1 contain 12-units, two will contain 9-untts, and one will :ontain 3-unlrs. Seven of the bui!dlngs have a footprint o 30 .,i~,, and one bulldmg wall ,laxe a footnr'int of: 0'x,~0'.,-!t is noted that the 9-unk buiidings (build!ngs 1 .:nd 2) nave 6-units which appear to be 2. stor~/, and co dd function 03 aVartments .f~.ving floor areas of 1,2C ) square, feet. All other umts appear to have · floor areas o; apFroxlmately 600 square feet. · Beachcomber M'otet II SEQR Determination $CTM Number:' Location: District 100( - Section 083 - Block 01 -Lots 1, :2 & 17 The site of t ~e subje'ct application is located on the east side of Duck Per ~ L~n~ and the Long Island Sound in ~tcho~e, ~few York. Reasons Sul:~port!ng This Determination: This determination is issued in fall coast leration of the crt:erin for determination of significance contained in. 6 NYC,R.R Part 617.11 the Long Em-ironmenta! 'Assessment Form Parts I; II and the fol!owmg specific reasons: The l:roposed project represents a m~or increase in intensity of ::ge of :he parcel. The Fart TI Long EAF provides an oudir e of severa~ areas of slznificant en~nromental ~mpact exper:ed as a resu t of thepr.aject, B~e0 on revmw, ~ has been determined that an Env~.'onmen~al ~inp~c~ o~Iement ~s ,~ppropnate :n order ~o ~s~s., ~mp~ct:, pro~de a n.~an~ ut re.e..g=n~ c0,~r~mat,on, =nd ~.p.or~ m~t~g~.ton me.utes and alternatives. 20-25 feet ~..e have l~rade transmons of 10-!5 fo, et c-ere. consi¢!ered to be sensitive due to coarse, rodabI: z-oils. The area must be avoided or developed in,an extremely s, ens!tive man :er..~..~ proposed significant excavation and associated S¢',I da-stabilizat:on ts expecte ], and development would requi,re extensive structure ret.~.,'.rr:,.-n, or oth~, mea.>.r..s t ) a.,.,x, .on.,tcu &or; r.~ p,o~ ~.,. ~., Ti,,~ ..re,~ ts somewhat prox~ra,.te to ramlf:.cations ~n terms of tra~,~spor! of sod meat to the existing site ~d potenda!l7 to the Sound, Additional c,on~iderat;on she ~Id be given to design in this area to minin'&e loss of ve:..etauon, and reduce t russell and sedimentation. Desi~:n alternattves should~oe conotdered... The Project involves construction of $6-u ~its on 14.1 acres. SCDIIS indicates that moteI units in excess of 400 square feet 1'~ r~e a design flow of !50 g~ilons per (d), Tins would ,e,,ult ,n aflo~ of 1,.,. ~0~ oallon~..P~r d.y x~.,,~h. , ,"x~e~us. ~h~ ~>wable flow for 14.1. a,cres (4,230 gpd), ,k prehmma~ r.por~ suc~r, attted by the acplicant addresses this tssue through ter ~?ora,'y sterilization of adjacent lands of the o'vne/ untd such t:me as pubbc ~:a~er su~ e~y is av,.lab,e, hox~.,~ver, tlua should oe incorf.~orated in*o. the site plan review pr'c cess. in terms of acreaoe. ~:p. pro used for u~'e In adthtion, the allowabl_e, flow would eff[ ct~vely be dou?!¢d ~f pubi~c water supply is available, therefore, the oesiga flow v;ou:j s~,ill exceed tae allowable flow basedoa . 14.1 acres, therefore, some portion of the adjacent lands must remah~ undcveloeed in perpetuity. Coordination with SCDH$ tt rough the szte plan rev:ow and ElS would be beneficial. - - -~ - In addition to design flow and density, o ! )raft E~'S she:eld consider sanitary system design should be considered in lerms of c ispersal of sanitar7 waste, depth to water Page 2 of 3 and design constraints t~r un[ts in 15 ~oo~ elevation ~rc~, ~nd n~trcg~n l~d with tra~ort of contaminants to Lena Iskmd Sound. Wa~et use ~ssues are crkkal ~n the Town ~f Southo~d. A pre!imma~w~ter use repo:t submitted by the applicant ~rovides ins~g' :t into fntendcd water ~m~p~y. ~e report ~oweyer i~ no~ consistent with the site pk n, depicting al:erna~e ac(~es~ :oad~ av7d well field v~catmn which do not correspond w~h the ske plan. In add{tfov, due to the anticipated ~jgniflc~at ~ater u~e, potenm I movement of the salt water interface, need for web pump3ng control and distri~ orion, water auaEr~', and integration Mth the' Beachcomber I p~oj~ct, discussion of wet :r supply ~3su~s ~h6~Id be incorporated into . the ElSprocess for mter-agen~, review a ~d more detailed analTs~s by the lead and ~nvolved agencies. ~e project will resuIt ~n the removal ogr erha~s un to 2 acres of ye=elation ~n a senmive slop~ area. In add~tion, depen~ ~g u~on t%e locati?n e~ th% water supply ~ystem, addmoa~ acreage, possibly ~n th~ steep slope heavi,v wooded m. ez may al~o be rez~oved. Proper d~s~gn, and cie~dn~ ~mkations should be considered s~gm,t.ance oz the small man-mace pon~ should be com~deree and approunate setbac~ obsea'ed. ~e impact on infr~tructure and ccmmu ally se~.ices should be determined. proiect w~lt produce aoprox'mately 65 ve'.:ic[e tr{~: ncr hou. dur;n~, oeak traffc hours on ~ ura~v. ~e ~b.fitz o. &, .s.nouae. ,g ,.a~ ~:s ...... o -cc.n.,,oaa~e .,crewed traffic sho{ld be determmed~ ~ e area r.,ads are local/rural in character, ~d there are constraints noted m terms o~ horizon: a! a~m vertical a!~gnmeat and traffic control ilgnate on Duck Pond Road. Other dcm md for communi~y.e~ic;~, · "~,,o=,d '~' ',~ be determined in connection with a motel u~ eo. ~ thb" m,cn.,,,..' ' ' *"v For Further ]!nformation: Contact Person: Addr¢:ss: Phone No.: Bennett Orlc~vski, Jr. .C. hairman, pt annlng Board '"/own of Sou hold Town Hall, 5309.7, Main Road P.O. Box 117 ) Town Hail, } lain Road, Southold (5!6) 765-19:.8 Copies of tht~ Notlce Sent to: Com. mls_qoa?-Det>artment of Environmenlal C msen, atlon Regmnal Office-~ew York St.ate the Depvxtme: t of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Applicant ,. . Suffolk County Department of Heahh ..ser','~ces. Suff. olk County De~artmer, t of PlanpJng · N'~ S Lcgisla':ive Commission ?n Water Resourr ~ Needs for Long Islnnd SoutholdTo,vn Doard of Zoning Appeals Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Building Department Page 3 of 3 ,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40--SUNY; Stony Brook. New York 11790-2356 (516) 751-1389 FAX (516) 751-3839 Thomas C. Jorling Commissioner December 7, 1992 Mary and Henry Raynor 275 Cardinal Drive Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: NYSDEC Permit Application '~1-4738-00511/00001-0 Raynor Motel - Addendum to Notice of Incomplete Application Dated 11/9/92 Dear Mr. and Ms. Raynor: The'Department has made an initial review of your application for a motel. The Department has jurisdiction over portions of the project. Please address the following items: The Department will require a cross section showing the proposed condominium unit installation. How will they be built? (By adding fill or by building them on pilings, by excavating the slope to provide a level base?) The Department does not plan to approve any project that will alter the bluff or slope without a plan for stabilization of the existing naked and eroding bluff face (preferably by plantings). Drywells should be shown on the cross section that can retain a 2 inch rainfall. Will you want access catwalks from building #1 to the beach? If so, this should be shown on plans (and cross section). Revised plans must show how you will cause all fill and exposed faces to be vegetated to prevent erosion, as this will be a special condition of any permit issued. Revised plans must show a permanent vegetated buffer zone with no disturbance to the natural vegetation or topography within an area extending 70 linear feet landward of the tidal wetland boundary. If development exceeds 20% of the adjacent area, parking areas and roads must be pervious. The Department will require roof runoff to be directed to drywells a minimum of 100 feet landward of the tidal wetland boundary for immediate on-site recharge. 10. Ail fill must be "clean" gravel and soil (not asphalt, slag, flyash or broken concrete or demolition debris. 11. The Department does not plan to approve bulkheads or hard stabilization structures at this site. 12. The Department will require vegetation of fill in front of the restaurant with beach grass. Please direct a response to each item to my attention. Plans must be submitted in triplicate. By copy of this letter I am notifying the Town of Southold Planning Board, the Lead Agency for the purpose of the State Environmental Quality Review, of the Department's concerns. This letter may serve as an initial scoping comment letter. · Very truly yours, Karen Munze ~'~ Sr. Environmental Analyst KM/rw cc: B. Orlowski, Jr. file · CRAMER, VOORHIS &!~(SSOCIATES ENVlRONMENTA.L,:~KA~.ND Ph/~lbl bIG CONSULTANTS Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board 'Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, NY 11971 Re: Review of Beachcomber Motel Long EAF SCTM No. 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue Dear Mr. Orlowski: October 29, 1992 As per t.he y.our request, we have completed a preliminary review of the above referenced project In accordance with your request. Tasks and completed activities are identified as follows: Review Part I LEAF The parcel has been field inspected by CVA, and the LEAF has been reviewed and amended as necessary. A copy of same is attached. Prepare Part H LEAF The Part II LEAF checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional information concerning our findings is included below. 3. Environmental and Planning ConsMerations The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site and area have been consulted. The project involves site plan approval to construct 86 units on a 14.1 acre parcel on the east side of Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, New York. The proposed site plan is included with the application and was prepared by Barrett, Lanzisera, Beckman and Hyman, project no. 8630, last revision 5-1-92. The subject site is primarily vacant with the exception of an existing pool, cabana, bocci court, miniature golf, and basketball area which is present in connection with adjacent lands operated as the Beachcomber Motel. All but the bocci court are proposed to remain. The site contains a flat meadow area surrounding the recreation complex. Southwest of this area is a deciduous woodlot which includes slopes well in excess of 35 percent. East of the recreation area is a slope including deciduous woodlands and xeric-oriented flora, with unstable soils and slopes in excess of 25 percent. There is a small apparently man-made pond located in the western part of the site, which includes surface water and is surrounded primarily by common reed. The proposed project calls for construction of 86 motel units accessed from a circular pattern driveway which surrounds the recreation complex. A total of eight buildings are proposed of which five will contain 12-units, two will con!,ain 97units, and one will contain 8-units. Seven of the buildings have a footprint of 30 x120 and one building will have a footprint of 30'x80'. It is noted that the 9-unit buildings (buildings 1 and 2) have 6-units, which appear to be 2-story, and could function as apartments having 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Page 1 of 3 Beachcomber Motel Long EAF Review floor areas of 1,200 square feet. All other units appear to have floor areas of approximately 600 square feet. The proposed project represents a major increase in intensity of use of the. pa. rcel. The Part II Long EAF (attached) Provides an outline of several areas of stgmficant environmental impact expected as a result of the project, and should be used in connection with this letter as a guide in addressing significant environmental issues. Based on our review, we believe that an Environmental Impact Statement is appropriate in order to assess impacts, provide a means of rater-agency coordination, and explore mitigation measures and alternatives. A brief discussion of anticipated irnpacts follows: 1. Buildings 1, 2 and 3 are located in a steep slope area ( > 25%). Grade transitions of 211-25 feet are apparent across the length of buildings 2 and 3, and buildings i and 4 have grade transitions of 10-15 feet across the length of the buildings. This area is considered to be sensitive due to coarse erodable soils. The area must be avoided or developed in an extremely sensitive manner. As proposed significant excavation and associated soil de-stabilization is expected, and development would require extensive structure retalnment or other measures to allow construction as proposed. The area is somewhat proximate to Long Island Sound, and de- stabili?ntion could have ramifications in terms of transport of sediment to the existing site and potentially to the Sound. Additional consideration should be given to design in this area to minimize loss of vegetation, and reduce erosion and sedimentation. Design alternatives should be considered. The project involves construction of 86-units on 14.1 acres. SCDHS indicates that motel units in excess of 400 square feet have a design flow of 150 gallons per day (gl>d). This would result in a flow of 12,900 gallons per day which exceeds the allowable flow for 14.1 acres (4,230 gpd). The H2M report addresses this issue through temporary sterilization of adjacent lands of the owner until such time as public water supply is available, however, this should be incorporated into the site plan review process in terms of acreage proposed for use. In addition, the ullowable flow would effectively be doubled if public water supply is available, therefore, the design flow would still exceed the allowable flow based on 14.1 acres, therefore, some portion of the adjacent lands must remain undeveloped in perpetuity. As indicated, the H2M provides some insight into these issues; however, coordination with SCDHS through the site plan review and EIS process would be beneficial. The applicant may indicate that use is seasonal and therefore sanitary flow and water use is less than design flow;, however, once constructed the use pattern may change and the Town and SCDHS should address potential use based on design flow. In addition to design flow and density, sanitary system design should be considered in terms of dispersal of sanitary waste, depth to water and design constraints for units in 15 foot elevation area, and nitrogen load with transport of contaminants to Long Island Sound. Water use issues are critical in the Town of Southold. The H2M report provides insight into intended water supply. The report however is not consistent with the site plan, depicting alternate access roads and well field location which do not correspond with the site plan. In addition, due to the anticipated significant water use, potential movement of the salt water interface, need for well pumping control and distribution, water quality, and integration with the Beachcomber I project, discussion of water supply issues should be incorporated into the EIS CRAMER, V~IS, &¢%SOCIATES E NVIRO N M ENT;~L.k~A~D?I~t(qG CONSULTANTS Page 2 of 3 Beachcomber Motel Long EAF Review process for inter-agency review and more detailed analysis by the lead and involved agencies. The project 'Mil result in the removal of perhaps up to 2 acres of vegetation in a sensitive slope area. In addition, depending upon the location of the water supply system, additional acreage, possibly in the steep slope heavily wooded area may also be removed. Proper design, and clearing limitations should be considered. The significance of the small man-made pond should be considered and appropriate setbacks observed. The impact on infrastructure and community services should be determined. The project will produce approximately 65 vehicle trips per hour during peak traffic hours on Saturday. The ability of the surrounding road system to accommodate increased traffic should be determined. The area roads are local/rural in character, and there are constraints noted in terms of horizontal and vertical alignment and traffic control signage on Duck Pond Road. Other demand for community services should be determined in colmection with a motel use of this intensity. In summary, the above paragraphs provide greater insight into environmental issues, and in connection with the Long EAF Parts I and II, form the basis for a Determination of Sigrfificance. It is our recommendation that a Positive Declaration be issued in order to assess impacts, provide a means of inter-agency coordination, and explore mitigation measures and alternatives. If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this matter, please · do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours~ CRAMER, V~?RHI~ ~'SSOClATES . E N VI R O N M E N T;~'~ AJ~D~! ,~,~tN 6 CONSUETANTS Page 3 of 3 I4-10-L /2, bi J--/c Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review · FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT "~ pLANNING BOAR Purpose: Th~ full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an on Ferly'manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureabie. It is also understood that those who determine · significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affectin§ the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can De assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given proiect ~nd its site By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3." Part :2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Purl 3: If any impact in Part 2. is id;ntified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. Identify DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions the Portions of EAF completed for,his project: t~Partl X Part2 ]-lPart3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF {Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* ~ C. The proiect result in one or more large and that have a significant may important impacts may impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaralion will be prepared. ' A Conditioned Negative D~claration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Ti~J.e of Respg. nsib[e Officer Signa u"I~re of Prep~r (If different from responsible officer) Date PART 1--PROJECT INFORM... iON Prepared by Project NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant eff~ on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be consider as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additior information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not invol new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and speci each instance· !P~r-h~nmh~r Mo~.~l Si~e Plan LOCATION OF ACTION (include Street Address, Municipality and County) r~,~- Pnnd P~d. Cu~cho_cn/e, Town of Southold NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR I N~nr~v E. Ra_~nor, Jr. (Ac]ent for Aliano) BUSINESS TELEPHONE §16 ) 298-8420 ADDRESS M~t it, nck Nicholas g~l. iano STATE ZIP CODE NY 11952 t8US[NESS TELEPHONE ( ADDRESS A~hl ey T,aqo CITY/PO DESCRIPTION OF ACTION STATE } ZIP CODE NY I 11786 Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: i-lUrban E]lndustrial UICommercial ~Residential (suburban) E]Forest ~Agriculture [~Other 2. Total acreage of project area: 14.1 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or 8rushland ~Non-agricukural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.1 Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (indicate type) /.-A'~'t P-,,A'~O'~ 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? ural (non-farn PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION  acres O.~J~ acres acres ::~".'~ acres  acres acres acres _ acres acres_ ~"~ acres ~opsoil, sand~ qravel ~)/~ l I~:iI~1 /'~ ~ a. Soil drainage: K]Well drained 100 % of site [~Moderately well drained __ % of site f'-Ipoorly drained , % of site b.Landlf anYClassificationagricultural landsystem?iS involved,~hOWacres.manY(seeaCresl NYCRR°t soil are370).classified ~within soil group 1 through 4 of the NY{ 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ~Yes ~No a.'What is depth to bedrock? · ~i~OO (in feet) 2 $. Approxlmate percentage of pro % o~ational 6.,Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State Registers of Historic·Places? FqYes :);[]No '" Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? []Yes ~lNo + 10 ft 'cO 4- 35 ft 8. What is th'e depth of the water table? (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ~es ~]No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? I-lYes [~:No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? r-lyes [~No According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) I-lYes I]~.No Describe 13. 15 the project site presently used'.by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? I-lyes [~:No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? FqYes []~qo 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: · a. Name r~/a. ._'~,I~.,,~"'~/~ 17. Ks the site served by existing public utilities? ~]Yes ~l~o ~4~1'~'~ ~ ~"~' a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? [~Yes []]No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? [~Yes []]No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? ~Yes ~No 19. Ks the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 BYes J;~]No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? I-lYes l~No ,/ Y B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) + 45 14 a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor b. Project acreage to be developed: 14 _acres initially; c. Proj~'ct acreage to remain undeveloped ?q acres. d. Length of project, in miles: (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing '~ ; proposed acres ultimately. %; per town Code g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour . 60 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: MO~'"~' U~/'I/-~ One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominiu m"' -' 7 Initially Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure ~ height; ~ width; ~ length. Der ecx:]e j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare proiect will occupy is? ~ ft..,,~., . to exceed · - 125 ft rock. earth, c. tc.) wd[ be removed fro le site? __ 0 ', 3. Will distuc:bed areas be recl,~ ed? ~:Yes fi'No fi`N/A ~ '~O ]g'~:' ~4:~ff~ a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? lawn & Landscapin~ b. Will topsdil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~]Yes E]No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclam~ation? [Yes I~No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? /' ~ '~ 0 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? · tons/cubic yard. s. OYes ~o 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 18 7. If multi-phased: . a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 6 month 1993 c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase I functional'ly de,per, dent on subsequent phases? I-lyes ~No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? fi`Yes [~o 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 50 ; after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? [~Yes []No If yes, explain months, (including demolition). year, (including demolition). 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ~Yes /];~o a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged n/a 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? /~es :~No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing.water body. increase or decrease by proposal? Explain domestic sewerage 15. 16. 17. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? F21Yes ~}No Will the project generate solid waste? ~es t~No a. If yes, what is the amoun't per month ~ tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? ,j~es E3No C. If yes, give name ~'~O7~/)/J~ ~'~ ~1/"~" ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? [~Yes [~No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? .. tons/month. b. If yes, what i~ the anticipated site life? years. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ~]Yes fqNo ~Yes ,~o l& 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? [Z]Yes 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ~]Yes ~No electricity If yes , indicate type(s) 22. 23. 24. 13tNo ~Yes If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity ~ gallons/minute. Total anticipated water usage per day ~ gallons~da3'. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ~Yes ~]No If Yes, explain , per SCDOHS +t ,City, Town, Village Board []Yes Y~]No City, Town, Village Planning Board ~[~}Yes [-1No ~TTE PT,AN City, Town'Zoning Board E}Yes ~]No City, County Health Department ~]Yes [No Other Local Agencies ~]Yes I-INo SCPC Other Regional Agencies State Agencies ~]Yes I-1No nys Federal Agencies [Yes :[~No Submittal Dale C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? []Yes I-'lNo If Yes, indicate decision required: f-lzoning amendment I-Izoning variance E]spe~:ial use permit E]subdivision ~]site plan [~]new]revision of master p]an l-tresource management plan [other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? RR 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? [~Yes 7. What are the predominant land u~e(s) and zoning classifications within a ¼ mile radius of proposed action? R-80 RR R-40 AC 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a % mile? 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ~Yes E]No ,,~es ~]No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? [~Yes a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle proiected demand? [Yes I-INo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ~]ye~,~V~E~aN° a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ::~3Yes I-]No D: Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your proiect. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify tha: the information provided above is true to the best'~of my knowledge. Applicant/S~opsor Name --~ Henry E. Ray'nort Jr. Date July 13, 1992 ~--~ ' ~-~ ~'~ ~t~/~- - Agent for Al iano & Krupski If Ihe action is in lhe/Coastal Area,.and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding wilh Ibis assessment. 5 Part 2--:PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR_ ~AGNITUDE ~ Respondblilty of Lead Age~c~ ~e~eral Information. (Read Carefully) · In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and ,~eterminatio~s be rea~onablel The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. · Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does ~ot mean that it is also necessarily i~Snlfica~ Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 sim; asks that it be looked at further.. · The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible tl~e threshold magnitude that would triter a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State a for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other e~amples and/or lower thresholds may be appropr~. for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. · The impacts of each p~oject on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative a have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhausth~ list of impacts and thresholds to answe~ each quest~ · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. · In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if the~e will be am/impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column I o~ 2) to indicate the potential size of ' impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but thresh~ is lower than example, ch~ck column 1. d. If r~viewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider' the impact as potent/ally large and procee~ to PA£1 e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to mocker impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not poss~le. T · must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Moderate Large Mitigated - ' ~.~"{ Impact Project Oha~ X I-lYes 0 [] OYes 0 [] OYes ~[~ [~]Yes I-')~ [] ~ nYes [] [] ['lyes J-'J) l--) [~] [~yes [-)! I-) ~, ['-lYes f-J! ~' Fl ~ I-)yes l-Il IMPACT ON LAND ...... 1. Will the proposed action result in a physk:al change to the project~,~te~ nNO ~i~ES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise pe~ 100 foot of length}, or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. · Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feel · Construction of paved parking area for 1,0OO or more vehicles. · Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally wffhin 3 feet of existing ground surface. · . Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,0OO tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. · Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. · Construction in a designated floodway. · Other impacts 2. Will there be an effect ti..,y umque or unusual land forms fo~.on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geoiogicat formations, etc.)l-lNO /I~ES · Specific land forms: 6 r IMPACT ON WATER '3 Will proposed action affect any wate~ body designated as protected~ (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the £nviro~mental Conservation La~, E.CL) aND Ez·mples that would apply to column 2 · Developable ·re· of site contains a protected water body. · Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. · Extension of utility dis~l:~tkm facilities through a protected water body. · Construction in · designated freshwater or tidal wetland. · Other impacts: ,ON~3'Y~U~,r~OA/ W/rA~A/ ~.O--~) ~--'~, 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existir~r new body of water · ,,,E~O E3YES Exampl~ that would apply to column 2 · A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 ochre increase or decrease. · Construction of a'body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. · Ot~er impactS: 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? /-1NO ,J~ES that would apply t~ colurrm 2 · Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. Proposed Act[on requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to. serve proposed.(proiect) action. · Proposc-d Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping ~:apacity. · Constructiort o~ operatio~ causing zny contamination of a water supply system. · Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. · Liquid effluent will be conveyec: off ~ site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. · Proposed ^ction would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. · Proposed Action will likel" cause silLation or other discharge into an * existing body of wat¢~ ~,~ ti',*. ~.x~cnt that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. · Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/'or sewer services. · Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/'or storage facilities. · Other impactS: - J. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or su~dlce water runoff? [-INO ,~ES E~z.mple~ that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would change flood water flows. 7 I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact E! Moderate Large Mitigated Impact impact Project Chan( I"l I-I DYes [] I-I DYes ON, n O DYes I-IN, /~ D OYes ON, O O DYes ON 0 ~ DYes  - [::::) DYes X OYes [] DYes [] [] l-lYes ['-TI [] []' DYes [] [] [:)Yes [] [] []Yes · Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. · Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. · Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? ,,~O OYES Eumple~ that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given · Proposed Action will result in the incinerati°n of more than'l ton of refuse per hour. · Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. · ~r impact.~: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened cx endangered ~/ species~ ~NO~ES Example~ that Would apply to column ~ ~ · Reduc/Jo~ of one or more species listed on the New Yo~ cx Federal list. using the site, over or near site or found on the site. 'e Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. · Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. · Other impacts: ~..~-~S O~ ,,~lz.t..~'/~e' //~"~'~@~ 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threate~r~ or n'on-endangered species? /~O OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. · Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land re~so~urces? - OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, o~chard, etc.) ~mall to Potential :Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact !Project Change I-I ~ r'lYes C::] No [] [-I I-lYes E]No i"1 I-I E:]Yes' I-]No [] F'I I'-~Yes [-]No iD [] nyes. •No [] [] l-~yes []No O [] DYes F"INo [] [] f-lYes I--INo I-I D []Yes •No [] D DYes l-'lNo D [] [] I--I I-lyes •No 0 0 I-lYes ONo [] /~ I-lYes ' I-]No [] I-I DYes I--1No D D OYes •No [] C] DYes l'-lNo 8 · Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. · The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. ' · The p~olx~d actio~ would disrupt o~ prevent installation of airicuttural land management systems Ce.i. subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); (x create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resourcesi' ONO ' (if necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section'617.~1. Appendix B.) ' E~amples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp conUast to current surrounding land use patterns, whet~r' man-made or natural. · Proposed land uses. or project components visible'to us~s of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their · enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to t~ area. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? I~NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. · Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunitiesi'~ ~, - Examples that would apply to column 2 .~i~NO DYES )The permanent foreclosure of a f. uture recreational opportun['ty. "~'A major reduction of an o~en space important to the conu'nunity. · Other impacts: II to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change O ~ OYes ONo O I-] OYes I"lNo O O OYes r'1No 0 [] OYes E]No I-1 [] []Yes ONo I-1 OYes ONo [] O OYes E3No E3 [] []Yes O 1:3 []Yes' []Nc [] [] DYes rotc X [] []Yes linc [] O I-lYes r-lNc [] [] []Yes l-]Nc I-I O r-lyes linc IMPACT ON~ TRANSP~. RTATION 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems~ On• ,,~ES Examples that would apply to column 2 * Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or gocds. · Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sou~.e~ of fuel or energy supply~ ~ OYES Examples that Would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. · Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than .50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. · Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there b~ objectionable odors, noise, or vibrati~>O, as a result of the Proposed Act~ ~ ICIYES" E~mples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. · Odors will occur routi~ly (more than o~e hour per day). · Proposed Action will produce operating Noise exceeding t~-'l'oc~l- ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. · Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safe~,,~c~ OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic Iow.level discharge or emission. · Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating. infectious, etc.) · Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. · Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. · Oth~r impacts: I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Moderate Large Mitigated Impact Impact Project Char O I"1 OYes 1-11  I~1 OYes O OYes O O [-]Yes O O OYes I-I~ [] [] OYes C]! O O OYes .0 . O OYes O O DYes [] [] OYes [] O O OYes [] [] [~] OYes [] 0 Oyes C IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing comm~n~ty~ ON• Examples that would apply to column 2 · The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to ~row by more than 5%. · The. municipal buds~et for capital expenditures m operatin~ services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. · Proposed acticm will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. · Proposed action will cause a chan;e in the density of land use. · Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. · Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.~. schools, police and fire, etc.) · Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. · Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. · Other impacts: ~ 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact B~ Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact impact Project Ch&ng~ O I-] OYes OHo D O DYes [] 0 OYes ' ON• [] ~ I-lYes []-]Nc [-] [] OYes linc [] [] DYes linc [] [] OYes I-]Nc [] [] I-lYes I-1Nc 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public contrBv~y related to potential adverse environmental impacts~' ,~5~O [:]YES If Any Action in Pad 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3--EVALUATION OF '[HE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may miti~,ated. Instructlon~ Discuss the followin~ for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to mederate impact by project chan~( 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: · The probability of the impact occurring · The duration of the impact · Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value · Whether the impact can or will be controlled · The regional consequence of the impact · Its potential divergence from local needs and 8•als · Whether known obiections to the project relate to th~s impact. (Continue on attachments) " PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orl0wski. Jr,, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone 1516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L, HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax {516) 765-18~3 u~phember 28/. 1992 MEMORANDUM TO ALL COORDINATING AGENCIES: RE: Beachcomber Motel Expansion SCTM 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue, New York Dear Coordinating Agency Reviewer: Please add the attached Clarification of Project Description, which is dated September 28, 1992, to the Lead Agency Coordination letter that was sent to you on August 18, 1992. The clarification includes additional information about the proposal which will provide a better understanding about the relationship of the existing motel complex to the proposed expansion. This application involves three separately owned parcels. The owners of two of the parcels are part of a single application to develop their land as one unit. Although no additional development is proposed for the smallest parcel with the existing motel and restaurant, it is being included in the environmental review. Also enclosed is a copy of additional material that has been submitted by the applicant as part of the environmental assessment submission: a report entitled "Water Resource/System BEACHCOMBER II, Cutchogue, Town of Southold" July 1991. H2M Group. Data on existing water usage at the site is still forthcoming. It will be sent to you under separate cover. The Planning Board tentatively plans on making an environmental determination at its October 19, 1992 meeting. Accordingly, we would appreciate receiving your responses by the 13th of October in order to give ourselves adequate time to review them. Questions about this project should be directed to Valerie Scopaz at 765-1938. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Chairman cc: Board of Trustees, Southold ~ Zoning Board of Appeals, Southold * Building Department, Southold Highway Department, Southold Department of Health Services, Suffolk County - S. Costa, V. Minei ~, P. Ponturo Department of Planning, Suffolk County - F. Dowling Department of Environmental Conservation, New York Albany, Commissioner Jorling and Stony Brook, R. Evans 5- Suffolk County Water Authority - M. LoGrande, E. Rosavitch *_- Groundwater Resources Committee, Southold * Planning And Zoning Committee, Southold * * Person to whom copy of Water Report was sent. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latharn. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supermsor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 September 28, 1992 CLARIFICATION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR: Project Name: Description of Requested Action: Beachcomber Motel - Expansion of: S/E/c Long Island Sound & Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue, New York SCTM 9 1000 - 083 - 1 - 1, 2, 17. To expand an existing motel that consists of thirty six motel units, three apartments, an office, a fifty seat restaurant and a swimming pool with a large cabana that holds five units, which the motel owner says are not rented out as motel units but have the potential to be used as such. The 1991 Water Resource System study includes water demands of these five units. A sign on the restaurant notes that it is not open to the public, but is for motel patrons only. The existing motel and restaurant are on a separate parcel of 2.1 acres in area (~ 1000-83-2-1) that is zoned Resort Residential (RR). The swimming pool and cabana with five units is located on an adjoining parcel of about 12.3 acres (~1000-083-2-2). The proposed expansion of 86 new rooms will be located on part of bot~his 12.3 acre parcel and another, adjoining parcel of about 33.8 acres (~ 1000-83-17), each of which is in different ownership. These units will be placed on 14.1 acres of RR-zoned land. The total amount of RR-zoned land is about 16.2 acres, of which part is developed with the aforementioned motel containing thirty-six units and three apartments, a fifty seat restaurant, a swimming pool and a five unit cabana. The Town,s Zoning Code allows motel units in this district by Special Exception of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Code permits a density of one unit per each 6,000 square feet of land area where there is no public water or sewer. A density of one unit per each 4,000 square feet of 'land is permitted where there public water and sewer. The Planning Board has not endorsed the proposed density of new units in this proposal because we do not know how the current impact's of the groundwater resource demand by the well(s?) and septic system(s?) for the existing motel, apartments, restaurant and poolside cabana units will be viewed by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services in conjunction with the anticipated demand for water and septic disposal for the expansion. The Health Department's position will be distributed to all coordinating agencies when it is received. " The remainder of the land involved in this project (about 29.42 acres) is zoned Agricultural-Conservation (AC). There is a residence at its southern end. Thus, the total amount of land under review in this application includes all three properties, which incorporate approximately 45.622 acres of land in two zoning districts. WHEREAS, a petition was heretofore filed with the Town Board of the Town of Southold by ..N.-.i.c.h...~..~...a..s....A...~..i..a...n..~.....&.....P..a...t..r...i.-c...i.a.....K.~.~R~.~.- requesting a change, modification and amendment of the Building Zone the Ordinance including Building Zone Maps made a port th:ereof by, chang- "A" Residential Genera£ , lng from ...a..n..d.....A. cj.r...i..c...u..1..t..u..r...a...1.... District to ...~].M...-..1..'.'.....M..u. -1..t..i.R.l.-e...~.e.s idence District the property described in said petition, and WHEREAS said petition was duly referred to the Flonning Board for its investigation, recommendation and report, and its' report having been filed with the Town Bobrd, end thereafter, o public hearing in relation to said petition having been duly held by the Town Board on the ...... ..1..1..t...h.....day of ................. .A. ip.r...i..1. ................... , 19.7..8....., and due deliberation having been had thereon W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the relief demanded in said petition be, and it hereby is GRANTED, SUBJECT, HOWEVER, TO THE FOLLOWTNG CONDITIONS: That no buildings shall be permitted to be constructed in the area embraced within 200 feet measured perpendicular to the western boundary, line of the premises described in the applica- tion. DATED: MAY 23, 1978 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD JT3DITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK JOHN~CKHAM, Cha~ma# FRA~$.COYLE HENRY E. R&YNOR. J~. FREDERICK E. GORDON ;~ME$ WALL $0uthold, N.Y. 11971 March 15., 1978 TELEPHONE 765- 1938 Southold Town Board Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board at a regular meeting held January 30, 1978. RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board approval of the petition of Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski, Case #238, for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District on · property located at Cutchogue, New York, in view of the fact that it is apparent that the petitioner must move the motel arid facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion. ,The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance with the development plan of the Town of Southold for this location. Yours truly, Mur~el Brush/, Secretary ~OHN WICKHAM. Chairman FRANK $. COYL£ lt£NR¥ E. RAYNO~ ,Ir, FR£D£RICK ~. GORDON JAMES WALL SOuthold, N.Y. 11.-;7'1 TELEPHONE 7~5- l~3g Mr. Nicholas Aliano Box 263 Shoreham, New York 11786 Dear Mr. Aliano: The following is the action taken by the Southold Plam~ing Board at a regular meeting held January 1978. RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board approval of the petition of Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Xrupski, Case #238, for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District on property located at Cutchogue, New York, in view of the fact that it is apparent that the petitioner must move the motel and facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion, The t~e of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance with the development plan of the Town of Southold for this location. Yours truly, Mu~iel Brush,~ Secretary Southold Town Planning Board Suffolk County Department of PlanninF H. Lee Dennison E:mcetive Office B~!~img ~terans ~moria! ]!i~hway ~auppauce~ ~!a~ York !!7~7 Town of Southold Planning Board Petitionmr Nicholas Aliano& Patricia Krupsk ?oni~~ ^ction~ "A" Residential & Agricultural to '"M-i" General Multiple Residence 238 District, C~nt la.an: Please be advised that pursnant to Sections 1323 to 1332 of the Suffol!~ County Charter, the above captiomeH application will mot be reviewed because of noncompliance with ~equire~ents for notice an~ maps as stipulateH in Informational Bulletin ~]o. 8 of the Suffolk Coonty Ptannin? Commission. ~e following information ~11 only be accepted upon subr~ssion through the of- fices of the municipal referrin~ a%ency~ Please provide the following: (1) Recommendations of the Town Planning Bd. including any and all cond~tio~ established; (2) Preliminary site plan indicating intended use of the premises; (3) Map of adjoining premises of Beachcomber Motel indicatiJg: 'acreage; number of m6tel guest units; seat- ing capacity of restaurant; number of parking spaces and available recre- ational facilities; and (4) explanJtory information as to "...plan tor future growth as required...". Thank you. Very truly yours~ Lee ~. Xoppelman Director of Plannin~ 'Chief Planner C-G?I: Jk Tel. 734.6370 744-1448 Resort ?vlotel ~ Restaurant P. O. BOX 917, DEPOT LANE CUTCHOGUE, N. Y. 11935 Re: File #238 Questions by Mr. Newman 1. 2. 3. Has been forwarded to Mr. Newman A preliminary site plan not prepared (a) current M-1 Zoning is 6 Acres (b) Current number of Motel Gues Units is 36 (c) Seating Capacity of restaurant is 50 (d) Number of parking spaces is TO (e) Current recreational Facilities are: a 26' x 58' outdoor pool with diving board (9~' deep) a childrens wading pool 16' wide x 3' deep a chlldrens swings & sand box area a basketball court 22' x 2~' 5 dressing rooms and utility room 22' x 70' We have outgrown our present facilities we turn away hundreds of people every summer - We are highly rated by Mobil Travel Guide, we accomodate people who are sent to us by the Greenport Chamber of Commerce - also Local peoples Friends and Relatives, Church Groups and retirement Groups in addition to our regular following of family vacationers. This need for expansion is compounded by the erosion of our beach front. Motel units are thereby in eminent danger of being wiped out. (CONT. NEXT PAGE) Tel, 734-$370 744-1448 C Resort Motel ~ Restaurant P. O, BOX 917, DEPOT LANE CUTCHOGUE~ N. Y, 11935 Cont, from Page #1 We are a summer resort open May 1st to Oct. 1st ~nd immediate plans are to Landscape, seed an~ build a golf course in the center of the planned new construction which units would compliment tennis courts, playgrounds etc. Time is of the essense if I am to ~t least grade and landscape for May 1st opening and to sensibly plan for new units for necessary expansion to handle current business in addition to the immediate erosion crisis - Action is required NOW time is running out. Respectively, February 23, 1978 ~,~. Gerald G. Newman, Chief Planner Suffolk County Dept. of Planning Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 Dear Mr. Newman: In reference to your file #238 in the matter of the petition oC~u~i'cholas Aliano and Pat~cia Kruoski, I supply ..... the ~ollowing information as per your request. · 1. Th~m~e'commendations of the To~cn Planning Board hav~-~'~'~ been submitted previously. There were no condition~ established. Anything permitted in the Code of the To~cn of Southold for that zoning section is recommended to be allowed by the Board. 2. 'The Town bf'Southold does not req,'~ire a site plan until such time ~'~e changeof zone is granted.'~and the petitio~er~ ready to'oroceed with the project. The site plan is also governed by the Code. ~'' ', '~ ~. and 4. These items have been supplied by Mr. Allano and are attached hereto. ~.~ ,~ Yours truly, Muriel Brush; Secretary Southold Town Planning Board February 15, 1978 Mr. Nicholas Aliano Eox 263, Ashley Lane Shoreham, Mew York 11786 Dear ~,~. Aliano: I am enclosing correspondence which I received from the Suffolk County Department of Planning.· I telephoned Mr. New. nan about this and he indicated that there was not necessarily a problem but that they would like the additional information. .. . i't~m's'~ and 2'will be taken· care of, from this office. '~ You shouid' ~repa~e items 3 and 4 and Submit ito this office. will in turn submit same to' the County. · '~ " '~ .... '~":'~'' Yours truly ~ '~'.~ '"~' MurielBrush,'Secretary Southold Town Planning Board February 10, 1978 :,ir. Gerald Ne~rman Suffolk County Planning Deoartment Veterans Memorial Highway Hauopauge, New York .11787 Dear Mr. Ne~nnan: Pursuant to conversation this morning with Mr. Aliano, the following is the resolution passed by the Southold To%~n Planning Board as regards his change of zone petition. RESOLVED to ~ecommend to the Southold Town Board approval of the petition of Nicholas Alianb and Patricia Krupski, Case #238, for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District"~ to "M-i" General ~,~ltiple Residence District on property located at' Cutchogue, New York,.in view of the fact that.it is apparent that ~; the petitioner must move the motel and facflltles back from the Sound as a result of substantial,loss of beach ~hrough erosion..~,.:;. The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance with the development plan of the Tow~ of'Southold for this location. ~ ..'~ %~: "~' ~" '" .Yours truly, Muriel Brush, Secretary Southold To,~ Planning Board Februarv 2, 1978 Mr. Gerald Newman Suffolk County Planning Department · Veterans Memorial Highway Hauopauge, I~ew York 11787 Dear Mr.- Newman: ': ' Pursuant to Sections 1325 to 1532 o£ the Suffolk County Charter, the Planning Board of the'Town of Southold hereby refers the following proposed zoning action to the Suffolk County Planning Commission: ~ ', .... -,.. · Amendment of zoning Map i'~'h'~e Of zone) '' Location of.affected land - Duck Po d Road '- utcho ue 500 f '~' ~ g I ............ within eef of Lon sland So,md · .::~,, ...................... l.:.. £.iA.f/.'...j Comments - the Planning Board recommends approval of-the--petition tn'view-of ~he--fact--T21at .it.is apparent that the petitioner must move the motel and facilities back from the'Sound-as a result _of "substantial-loss-of. beach, through. ~Fosion. The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance"with"the-development plan of the Town of Southold for this ·location, . Mr. Aliano has requested as early a decision as possible because of the approaching resort season..,- , Yours truly, Muriel Brush, Secretary Southol~ Town Planning Board APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM SCOTI' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Southold Town Planning Board (Attn: Board of Appeals.~/~~______ September 14, '1992 Your SEQRA Coordination of 8-18-92 Site Plan - Aliano, Krupski & Others at Cutoho4JU~;~~''~'~ CTM Parcels 2, 17 (& 1) of Section 83, Block 2 This letter is in response to your coordination letter dated August 18, 1992 and to confirm that we have no objection to your assuming lead agency status. At this time, however, we feel it is important to furnish the following as part of the record for your information and update, particularly in light of information received from the applicant that a preliminary conference has not been held before the Planning Board, or with the Building Inspector, as of this stage of the project: MOTEL UNIT DENSITY: The properties under which the site plan is being requested involves three parcels which have not as yet been combined as one parcel under zoning. The parcels which are distinctly separate at this time are: Parcel 91, Section 83, Block 2 is shown to be in the 'ownership of Pond Enterprises, Inc. and is improved by motel units. This parcel consists of approximately two (2) acres in size. The normal allowable density without public water and sewer per Art. VI (100-61) is 14.5 motel units. Parcel #2, Section 83, Block 2 is shown to be in the ownership of Patricia Krupski and is improved with a one-story main structure with porch and accessory swimming pools. Pag~ 2 - September~~ 5, 1992 ~_~ To: Planning Boarh~ Lead Agency Re: SEQRA Coordination, etc. - Aliano & Krupski The area of this parcel is 11.8+- acres of which approximately 10 acres may be in the RR Zone. The normal allowable density without public water and sewer per 100-61 is 72.7 motel units. Parcel #3, Section 83, Block 2 is shown to be in the ownership of Nicholas Aliano and is improved by a principal structure and accessory buildings. The area of this parcel is: 31.6+- acres as per survey furnished to the Assessors Office, of which 4+- acres may be in the RR Zone. The normal allowable motel unit density for this parcel would be a maximum of 29+- motel units. ***The total areas noted above for Parcels 1, 2 & 3 should total 45.5+- acres, although approximately 14.1 acres is located in the RR Zone and the remaining 31+- acres in the A-C Zone. The normal allowable motel unit density if Parcels 1', 2 and 3 are merged under zoning into one tract would be not more than 116.22 units for the RR Zone District land areas. The total number of units for is proposed at 122 which exceeds the above figures. Please note that the density calculations will be applicable to each parcel, as exists and the limitations are noted above. The total density in excess of that as authorized for each parcel will not be authorized under the Special Exception until such time as either a merger by deed and/or town covenants in legal form recorded with the Suffolk County Clerk are accepted by our office (and as may be required by the County) and submitted by the applicants, Patricia Krupski and Nicholas Aliano as individual property owners for the land areas which are under the proposed expansion. In the interim, the following questions are raised at this time and our office shall reserve further comment until responses to these items are confirmed in writing: a) what is the intent of use for that land area labeled "C-2" owned by P. Krupski and land area labeled "B-2" owned by N. Aliano - particularly since it is located in the A-C Zone District. b) If dwelling uses are proposed for the land area in the A-C Zone District, please confirm number of units for dwelling use and whether it will be by cluster subdivision or major subdivision. If none, please confirm. Covenants will be required by the Town for these land areas as well. Pa~ ~ - September/ 5, 1992 ~,, To: Planning BoarA, Lead Agency Re: SEQ~A Coordination, etc. - Aliano & Krupski c) Copies of Certificates of Occupancy for all principal buildings and all accessory structures and buildings is requested at this time as part of this project review. Please furnish our office with copies of same. d) Questions may be forthcoming concerning the existing and proposed future uses of the buildings within the A-C Zone. Please furnish map to show the buildings in this land area and confirming the acreage of land in each ownership and in each zone district for each owner. SUFFOLK COU,NT VATER AUTHORITY Edward J. Rosavitch, P.E. Chief Engineer Administrative O~l~ces: 4060 Sunrise Highway, Oakdale, NY 11769-0901 (516) 563-0202 Fax No.: (516) 589-5277 September 3, 1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Lead Agency Coordination Expansion of Beachcomber Motel SCTM 1000-83-02-01, 02 & 17 Dear Mr. Orlowski: The Suffolk County Water Authority has no objection to the Planning Board of the Town of Southold assuming lead agency status in the above- captioned matter. However, given the magnitude of this expansion, the Authority would request that Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment Form be completed and corrected where necessary. The total anticipated daily water usage should be estimated based on the past experience of 36 motel units and 3 apartments. The impact on groundwater during the construction phase should be reviewed and restrictions should be put on landscaped areas. Very truly yours, E. J. Rosavitch, P.E. Chief Engineer EJR:dmc CC: M. A. LoGrande W. C. Hazlitt S. R. Dassler PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone 1516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOFF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York tl971 Fax (516) 765-1823 September 9, 1992 Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Expansion of Beachcomber Motel E/s Duck Pond Lane, on Long Island Sound Cutchogue, N.Y. SCTM ~ 1000-83-1-2 & 17 Dear Mr. Raynor: The enclosed response from the Suffolk County Water Authority is being sent to you for your information. If you have documentation about the actual daily water usage of the existing motel and apartment complex, it would be appreciated if you would send a copy of same. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Valerie Scopaz of this office. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encl. cc: E.J. Rosavitch, P.E., Suffolk County Water Authority Charles Voorhis, Cramer, Vorrhis & Associates DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ROBERT L GAFFI~EY SUFFOLK COUNT~ E~ECUT]VE January 13, 1992 MARY E. I~B B ERD, M.D.M.P.H. ACTI~G COMMISSIONER Dennis Kelleher, P.E. H2M Group 575 Broadhollow Road Melville, NY 11746-5076 RE: Beachcomber II Report Dear Mr. Kelleher: ~ ~OUTHOLD TO~IN ' This will confirm our past conversations and those with Mr. McLendon regarding the referenced 7/91 Water Resource/System Report. The Bureau cannot respond in an authoritative sense to proposals and alternatives from the standpoint af density-related Issues. The best way to determine the merits of your selected alternative would be to make application to the Wastewater Management Section. However, 300 gpd/acre is the sewage design allowance with an on-site water source. The central Issue for this Bureau at this point Is the conceptual basis for the non- community well system modifications. Conceptually, the well capacity needs were adequately addressed In this report. We concur with your recommendation that proposed Well -~-3 should be developed In such a way as to profile nitrate levels throughout the available aquifer segment. I do wish to point out, however, that In order to conform to our Private Water Systems Standards, the final well depth must have at least 40 feet of submergence Into the water table measured to the top of the screen. Mr. McLendon's proposal for a period of 6 hours pumpage and analysis at 2, 4 and 6 hours Is acceptable and should be presented as part of the formal appllcatlon. Since the proposed well exceeds 45 gpm a Long Island Well permit from NYSDEC will be needed. Data from other wefts In the area confirms the likelihood that carbon filtration will be needed. Although your report doesn't address trocJtment sizing, the prelimina~ layout (Plate II) accompanying the report suggests an intent to provide a GAC unit sized to 15 minutes EBCT at the anticipated peak flow. Mr. Kelleher January 13, 1992 . Page 2 Detailed plans and specifications will be needed prior to any construction, and the specifics of design will, In part depend upon the test well I \ Bureau ~g Water PJP/cls ~// cc: S.C. McLendon, H2M Group Bennet Orlowskt, Jr., (Southold Planning Board) D. Moran VG ISi, AND SOU,VD ZONE B CRAMER, VOORHIS &ASSOCIATES ENV RONMENTAE AND PL/~_NNtNG CONSULTANTS Mr. Nicholas Aliano Aliano and Krupski Ashley Lane, Shoreham 11786 Re' Beachcomber II Motel Site Plan Required Scope, Content and Format for Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) January 22, 1993 FOR USE AND DISTRIBUTION AT SCOPING MEETING OF J~NUARY 22, 1990 - TOWN HALL Dear Mr. Aliano: The Town of Southold Planning Board is providing this scoping information in order to ensure that the Draft EIS which isprepared for this project pursuant to the Positive Declaration will provide a baseline of information which is necessary to consider in the decision-making process. Please review the attached information which reflects the Town's concerns as expressed through the consultants review of the project and contact with the Town on this matter. Attachment I includes the Positive Declaration which provides insight into the reasons for requiring a Draft EIS. Attachment II is the Long EAF which provides information on the expected impacts of the project and their magnitude. Attachment III is an outline which has been compiled specifically for thisproject using the NYSDEC SEQR Scopin~ Checklist. This outline should be followed for format as well as content. The depth of detad required should be commensurate with the magnitude of the impact. Key impact areas identified in the documentation herein should be analyzed in great detail. The Draft EIS should be accurate, concise, and consistent, and information contained within should be referenced and supported. The Draft EIS should be prepared using. accept.ed practice and literature for such documents, and analysis and conclusions must be objecnve. Impacts should be quantified where possible; however, qualitative discussions are appropriate where quantification is not appropriate or feasible. As consultants to the Town, our firm will review the Draft EIS. Therefore, if you have any questions during the course of preparation of the document, please feel free to call our office. Very tru~o~.ours, . 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Beachcomber 11 Motel Scoping Documentation ATTACHMENT I POSITIVE DECLARATION CRAMER, V?~Rt H IS~ &;?~.'SSOC lATE S E N VI RO N M E NT,t~AI~ID~/~,~IG CONSULTANTS ~ ~/I/11 ~?,\\ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 · :..',v .- PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD , POSIT~E DEC. LA~TION ' Not[ce of Intent to Pt ·pare a Drai't EIS Determination o' SignificanCe SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall· 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Lead Agency: Mddre~s: Plann ng Board of the Town of $outhcld Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 $out~ )ld, New York 11971 Da~e: November 2, 1992 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 61.7 of the ~n:~L-m:'nting reT,~latlons po. training · '. to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality R¢:,~¢ x') of the Em-ironmentarConser.'at~on Law. The lead agency h~ de. terra,ned th,at t~e pro¢osed action described below may ~ave a significant .:fleet on the environment ano that ~ D~aft En:,'~ronmental In:pact Statement will be prepared. ° .oO Title ot'Action: SEQR Statu:;:' Beachcemb¢r Motel II _Type I ' action Project Description: The t>ro[ect, ~hich is the. subject o£ this Long E/,,_F involves a renuest fox s,te olan approval to construct $u mo~el umt.~ on a 14,1 acre parcel. 'l"h¢ proposed project cahs. for comtruct on of 8.5 motel units accessed from a ckcular patt~ rn driveway which surrounds the recreation com~qex. A ot:d of.elght buildings arepropos, ed of . whic'h five will contain 12-unlts, two wil[contaln 9-umts, and o~e w/Il :ontain ,a,-unks. $eve..n of the. buildings have a footorint o '30'x120 and one bmldi,qg will have a footen"nt ofi 0'xS0'; It is noted that :he 9-unit buildl-ngs (buildings 1 .:nd 2) nave 6-units which appear to be 2- ~torj/, and co tld functien a~ aeartmenta.fi~ving floor areas ut' 1,20' ) square feet. Ail other umts appear to have · floor areas e :ap.~roxlmately 600 square feet. "- ( Beachcomber Motel II ' .qEQR Dd~rmlnatton SCTM Number:' Location: District 100( -Secdon 083 - Block 01 -Lots 1, 2 -2,: 17 The site of t ~e subject application is located on the east side of Duck Pot J Lane ,',,nd the Long Island Sound in · ,ow York. Cutchogue, ' ' Reasons Supporting This Determinat,.'on: This determination is issued in fall consi !oration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11 the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I; II and the following specific reasons: The It.reposed project represents a m~jor thc?ese in intensi¢' of u;e of the parcel. The. Part !I Long EAF provides an oudir e or several areas of s,.'gni£icant env;ronment? impact expected as a resu t of theprojeet. B:'uecl on review., it has been determined that an Envi:'omnental [mp-':ct Statement :s appropriate m order to ~ses.,; impacts, provide a means Of inter- ~.genq' coordination, and explore mitigation measures and alternatives. Buildrngs I, 2 and 3 ar¢ iocated in a stee:; slop? a.rea (>25%). Grade =ansidons of 20-25 feet ,-.e ,p,.,~rent ,.cro..a .... I~not.. of ,~a.ldm_s 2 and .,, eno bu~,o,n~a 1 ~d . have grade transmons of 10-~5 feet acre: ~ the lengt~ of me bm!drags. Tn:s area considered to be sensitive due to coarse, rodable ~oila. The area must be avoided or developed m aa extremely sensmve man :er. gs vrovosed s~gmficant excavatmn and * s., o .' ,~ v ~ ~ I ~ '., t~ ~soc~a.efl ~c.l d,.-stab:hz~t.~n ts e,.p~ct~., ~nd o~ve.o,ment x~ou, ~ r~q~.~,.~ extens,ve structure reta~r~en[ or other measures t ) allow ¢onst~ctJon e~ prooos~d. The area :s somewhat prox~raate to ~ng Island or ,nd, and dc-stab:hzat:on could nave ram~f:.cat;ons .n terms of tramscort of sod ment to the ex~stmg s~te ~d ¢otenually to the Sound. Addmcnal co<:deratmn abc :Id be Dven to design m th~s area to mmmuze loss of vegetatmn, and reduce { ro~on and sed~mentatmn. alternatives shouldbe considered..· - The Pro.[oct }nvolve$ constroctlon of $6-u ~its on 11..1 acres. SCDH$ indicates that motel units m excess of 4.00 sqaare feet h ~v¢ a design flow of !50 gallons per (~pd). This would result :n allow of 12,9)0 gallons per day which exceeds the allowable flow for 14.1 a.cre$ (4,230 ,,pd). A prelimina~ report submitted by the applkant addresses this ~ssue through ter ~porary sl. erilization of adjac, ent lands of the owner until such dine a.s public water su[ ply is ava,lable, however, th~s should be incorporated into the s,te plan review pre cess in terms of acreage proposed for use. In addmon, the allowable flow would elf, ct, rely se doubled ~,f pub~.c wac. er su~pl7 available, therefore, the design .flow v;ou; :I s[ill exceed the alloOable flow base'd o'n . 14.1 acres, therefo.re, some portmn of the adjacent lands must remain undeveloped in perpetuity. Coordination wlth £CDH$ Il rough the site plan review and ElS process would be beneficial. - .- in addition to design flow and density, a Draft EIS should consider sanitary system desigr, shouId be considered in ierms of Cispersal of sanltary',v~te, depth to ~,vater ( Beacbcom~r .Mo;~I Il ' ' ' ' ' ' foo~ ~]evntlon~ -- and.Lrc~,-nI~ad Water use issues are critical in fha Town ff Southnld a ~-, :m no~ water u~e subm~teq, by the, apphcant _pr°v~des ini~g' ;t into .intended. water sm>vi._y. ~e re~ort. howex er I~ no. consistent wlt~ the s~te pit n deo c*m.- -.l'~rnate aeces~ road~ ~na field Iocat.on which do not correspond w~,a the s~te p an. In addmov, due to the ant~c~l?ated ~}gmficqnt water use, potpn~: l mavement of me stat water interhce, ~eed for weh pump}rig control ~nd dislrit ution, water oualkv, and integration t~th the Beachcomber I project, discussmn of wet :r supvlv i3su~s shduld be incUr,orated into . ~he [IS~roces~ for mter-agenp, review a ~d m~r~ detailed analysis by th~ lead and mvoive~ agencies. ~e p:roject will result in th~ removal off erhaps up to 2 acres of vegeta:ica in a sensmve sI?p~ ar~a. la ad&:ion, depend ag u~on the !oration cf the water ~ystem, adomona acreage, possibly m th, ~teep slope heavily wooded a-ex ma-J ~1~o be rez:oved..Proper design and cieari ~g hmirations should be considered ~a s~gnmcance o~ the sm.all m~a-maee pono should be cem~dered and a~aroeriate setbac~ obse~'ed. "' ~e irnpact on infr~tructure and cemmu :itv sec'ices should ke determ;-ed. ~n~ pro[eot will proouce aoprex~mately 6> ye;: cie rr os '~er hour during, ,oak traff;c hours a ~a ..... ura~7. ~e ~b.fity o, ,h,..s~rroua¢..e ,~ae ~.st.m..o .cc~n~,,~caa;e.. ,ncre-.~ed trafnc should be determined.. ~e area r,,aas are local/rural in character, ~d lhere are constraints noted m terms o~ horizon' al a~m vcmcal a,gnmeat and traffic control slgnate on Duck Pond Road. Other dcm md for community semices sl~ould be de:ermined ia connection with a motel u: e of this intensit;.'. For Further l!nformafion: Contact Person: Address: Phone No.: Bennett Orlc ',;,ski, Jr. Chairman, P:anning Board " Town of Sou hold - Town.Hall, 5 3095 Main Road P.O. Box 117) Town Hall, } Lain Road, Southold (516) 765-19.;8 Copies of thl s Notice Sent to: · Com. mls.qo~er.-Departme,t of Environmental C >nservatlon Regmnal Of.qce-~ew York SI.ate the Dep~-.'tme: t o,' Enviromncnta! Conserve:ion $outhold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Applicant , . Sut'folk County Department of Health Semces . Suffolk Cour,.0 Department of PlanpJng · . NYS Legisla':ive Commission pn Water Resourc ~ ,"leeds for Long Island Southolcl Town 13oard of Zoning Appeals Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Building Department Page3 o1'3 Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Documentation ATYACHMENT II LONG EAF I= N Vi RO N M I: NTJ~~IG CONSULTANTS ENVIRON M ENT,~=~ '~G CONSULTANTS October 29, 1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re' Review of Beachcomber Motel Long EAF SCTM No. 1000-83-1-1, 2 & 17 Duck Pond Lane, Cutchogue Dear Mr. Orlowski: As per the your request, we have completed a preliminary review of the above referenced project in accordance with your request. Tasks and completed activities are identified as follows: Review Part I LEAF The parcel has been field inspected by CVA, and the LEAF has been reviewed and amended as necessary. A copy of same is attached. Prepare Part H LEAF The Part II LEAF checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional information concerning our findings is included below. Environmental and Planning Considerations The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site and area have been consulted. The project involves siteplan approval to construct 86 units on a 14.1 acre parcel on the east side of Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, New York. The proposed site plan is included with the application and was prepared by Barrett, Lanzisera, Beckman and Hyman, project no. 8630, last revision 5-1-92. The subject site is primarily vacant with the exception of an existing pool, cabana, bocci court, miniature golf, and basketball area which is present in connection with adjacent lands operated as the Beachcomber Motel. All but the bocci court are proposed to remain. The site conmin~ a flat meadow area surrounding the recreation complex. Southwest of this area is a deciduous woodlot which includes slopes well in excess of 35 percent. East of the recreation area is a slope including deciduous woodlands and xeric-oriented flora, with unstable soils and slopes in excess of 25 percent. There is a small apparently man-made pond located in the western part of the site, which includes surface water and is surrounded primarily by common reed. The proposed project calls for construction of 86 motel units accessed from a circular pattern driveway which surrounds the recreation complex. A total of eight buildings are proposed of which five will contain 12-units, two will contain 97units, and one will contain 8-units. Seven of the buildings have a footprint of 30.'x120 and one building will have a footprint of 30'x80'. It is noted that the 9-unit bmldings (buildings 1 and2) have 6-units, which appear to be 2-story, and could function as apartments having 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Page 1 of 3 Beachcomber Motel Long EAF Review floor areas of 1,200 square feet. All other units appear to have floor areas of approximately 600 square feet. The proposed project represents a major increase in intensity of use of the parcel. The Part II Long EAF (attached) provides an outline of several areas of sigrfificant environmental impact expected as a result of th.e project, and sho.uld be used in connection with this letter as a guide in addresstng significant enwronmental issues. Based on our review, we believe that an Environmental Impact Statement is . . appropriate in order to assess impacts, provide a means of mter-a~ency coordtnat~on, and explore mitigation measures and alternatives. A brief discusston of anticipated impacts follows: Buildings 1, 2 and 3 are located ia a steep slope area (>25%). Grade transitions of 20-25 feet are apparent across the length of bulldln~ 2 and 3, and buildings 1 and 4 have g~ade transitions of 10-15 feet across the length of the bulldln~. This area is considered to be sensitive due to coarse erodable soils. The area must be avoided or developed in an extremely sensitive manner. As proposed si~nificant excavation and associated soil de-stabiliTation is expected, and development would require extensive structure retalnment or other measures to allow construction as proposed. The area is somewhat proximate to Long Island Sound, and de- stabiliTation could have ramifications ia terms of transport of sediment to the existing site and potentially to the Sound. Additional consideration should be given to disign ia this area to minimize loss of vegetation, and reduce erosion and sedimentation. Design alternatives should be considered. The project involves construction of 86-anits on 14.1 acres. SCDHS indicates that motel units ia excess of 400 square feet have a design flow of 150 gallons per day (gpd). This would result ia a flow of 12,900 gallons per day which exceeds the allowable flow for 14.1 acres (4,230 gpd). The H2M report addresses this issue through temporary steriliTation of adjacent lands of the owner until such time as public water supply is available, however, this should be incorporated into the site plan review process ia terms of acreage proposed for uae. In addition, the allowable flow would effectively be doubled if public water supply is available, therefore, the design flow would still exceed the allowable flow based on 14.1 acres, therefore, some portion of the adjacent lands must remain undeveloped in perpetuity. As indicated, the H2M provides some insight into these issues; however, coordination with SCDHS through the site plan review and EIS process would be beneficial. The applicant may indicate that uae is seasonal and therefore sanitary flow and water uae ia lcss than design flow;, however, once constructed the use pattern may change and the Town and SCDHS should address potential uae based on design flow. In addition to design flow and density, sanitary system design should be considered ia terms of dispersal of sanitary waste, depth to water and design constraints for units ia 15 foot elevation area, and nitrogen load with transport of contaminants to Long Island Sound. Water uae issues are critical ia the Town of Southold. The H2M report provides insight into intended water supply. The report however is not consistent with the site plan, depicting alternate access roads and well field location which do not correspond with the site plan. In addition, due to the anfidpated slgnificaat water use, potential movement of the salt water interface, need for well pumping control and distribution, water quality, and integration with the Beachcomber I project, dlscu~ion of water supply issues should be incorporated into the EIS Page 2 of 3 (' Beachcomber Motel Long EAF Review proeess for inter-agency review and more detailed analysis by the lead and involved agencies. The project will result in the removal of perhaps up to 2 acres of vegetation in a sensitive slope area. In addition, depending upon the location of the water supply system, additional acreage, possibly in the steep slope heavily wooded area may also be removed. Proper design, and clearing limitations should be considered. The significance of the small man-made pond should be considered and appropriate setbacks observed. The impact on infrastructure and community services should be determined. The project will produce approximately 65 vehicle trips per hour during l~ak traffic hours on Saturday. The ability of the surrounding road system to accommodate increased traffic should be determined. The area roads are local/rural in character, and there are constraints noted in terms of horizontal and vertical ali?,~ent and traffic control signage on Duck Pond Road. Other demand for community services should be determined in connection with a motel usc of this intensity. In summary, the above paragraphs provide greater insight into environmental issues, and in connection with the Long EAFParts I and II, form the basis for a Determination of Significance. It is our recommendation that a Positive Declaration be issued in order to assess impacts, provide a means of inter-agency coordination, and explore mitigation measures and alternatives. If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours~ Page 3 of 3 Appendix A , ._ ~] i ~ State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOF S0U~U0LD~0WN " ' '"~' P~NNING BOARD Purpose: Thb full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an or, er y manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is no~ alway~ easy to answer. Frequent- ly, ~here are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environmen~ or may be technically expert in environmental analysis, In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the quesdon of Cgnificance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can ~e assured tha~ the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project ~nd its site. By identifying basic proiect data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3." Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur froma project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions 'dentifythePortionsofEAFcompleted'orthisproiect: l~Partl X Part2 I-IPart3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and an,/other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: [] A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant imPact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. [] [3. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there w/il not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* ~' may one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact c, The project result in on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative D~claration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency _ Ti_g~ of Respgnsib/e Officer ' Signa ure of Prep~er (If different from responsible officer) Date PART 1--PROJECT INFORIV,....~ION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a signiticant effec', on the environment Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considere~ as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any addition~, information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Aommhr~nmb~r Ho~-.el Site Plan LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) ~t~ pn~d ~n~d, ~]tch _ogue, Town of Southold NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR ~nrv E. Raynor, Jr- (Aqent for Aliano) AODR~SS q?~ T~xrp T,~lq~ .., CITY/PO Haf-t ~ t',uc~' NAME OF OWNER(lldifferenl) N~ cholas ~l~ano ADDRESS A~h~ey Lane BUSINESS TELEPHONE §16 ) 298-8420 STATE I ZIP CODE NY 11952 BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( CITY/PO Shoreham DESCRIPTION OF ACTION STATE I ZIP CODE NY I 11786 Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. · 1. Present land use: [-]Urban fi]Industrial fi]Commercial [3Residential (suburban) fi]Forest [:]Agriculture I-IOther 2. Total acreage of project area: 14.1 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or 8rushland (Non-agricukural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) . Roads. buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? ~[ural (non-farml PRESENTLY AFTER cOMPLETION _l.D_a. , acres acres &.& acres acres ~j~~acres . acres lacres acres acres O.! acres acres acres O'.4~ acres ----~-~---~-,--~acres topsoil, sand, qravel acres a. Soil drainage: ~]Well drained 100 % of ~te [~Moderately well drained % of site l-Ipoorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the LaRd Classification System~ ~ acres. [See 1 NYCRR 370}. 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? [-1yes a. t. Vhat is depth to bedrock? ~:~OO (in feet) 2 6. Is prolect substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State o ional Registers of Historic Places? I-lYes :X~No (~'' Is project substantial]y contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? E]Yes + 10 ft to + 35 ft 8. VChat is t~e depth of the water table? (in feet) -- 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? :~es ::~No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? [:]Yes [~.No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? I-lyes [~LNo According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) ~lyes [2~No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used'-by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? []Yes [~No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? I'-IYes 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: · a. Name n/a _.:~I',~,'/.Z. U~/.,~J~.~/~"'~ ~}',~'A/~/J~. ~res) O. l ~ ~. 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ~Yes ~o a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ~Yes ~No ~FI~ ~ ~ b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ 18. I~ the site Ioca(ed in an agricultural district certified pursuant to A8riculture and Marke~s Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304~ ~Yes ~No 19. Is the si~e located in or substantially contiguous ~o a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article of ~he ICL, and 6 NYCRR 617~ ~Ye~ ~No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of ~olid or hazardous wastes~ ~Yes ~No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor b. Project acreage to be developed: 14 acres initially; c. Project acreage to remain undeve!oped ?9 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed f. + 45 acres. 14 acres ultimately. per to~n Code Number of off-street parking spaces existing '~ ; proposed 8. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour ,~3 (upon completion of project}? ~ ,..~'~"~.,,VP.~ _~' h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominiu Initially Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet} of largest proposed structure ~ height; ~ width; ~ length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? ,'~ ft. ~'x~_,,. - 3 per code n to exceed 125 fb 2.,How much natural materm , rock, earth, etc ) ~sdl be removed fro, 3. Will disturbed areas be redat' d? [~Yes ~,No I~NIA a. If yes, for what intenduC purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? BYes DNo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? E~Yes .,~e s~te? 0 tons/cubic yar~Js. lawn & Landscapin9 (~No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? /' ~ ~' 0 acres, 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other Iocallyqmportant vegetation be removed by this proiect? DYes [~o 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: 1 a. Total number of phases anticipated b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during cons"tr~ction? DYes 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 50 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? 18 (number). fi months, (including demolition). month 1993 month E3Yes E]No ; after project is complete year, (including demolition). DYes []No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? [~Yes ~.~o a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged n/a 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ~es :[~}No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain domestic sewerage DYes ~No ./ 75. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? []Yes [~No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ~es [~No a. If yes, what is the amount per month ~ tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? Res rnNo c. If yes, give name ~"~,,l~/./,~/J} ~'fal.~ ~11'~' ; location d. will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill.;' e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? l-lYes ~No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what i~ the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? [~Yes I-INo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DYes ~No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ~]Yes E3No elec%ricity If yes , indicate type(s) 22. I[ water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity ~ gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day ~ gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? E}Yes ~]No If Yes, explain DYes :~No per SCI)OHS 4 City, Town, Village Board I~Yes Y~]No City, Town, Village Planning Board ;i~3Yes ~No STq~E PLAN City, Town-Zoning Board ~lyes City, County Health Department :~]Yes [:]No Other Local Agencies :~Yes i-lNo Other Regional Agencies [~Yes State Agencies ]~]Yes f-iNo Federal Agencies I-lYes ~]No WATER & SEWER SCPC Submittal Dale ' C. Zoning and Planning Information 1, Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? I~Yes I'-INo If Yes, indicate decision required: [~zoning amendment Ozoning variance Ospecial use permit ~subdivision Ir)site plan [-Inew/revision of master plan I-'Jresource management plan E~]other 2. what is the zoning classification(s)of the site? 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning.~ 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted 'by the proposed zoning? 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? [~Yes 7. What are the predominant land use[s) and zoning classifications within a ¼ mile radius of proposed action? R-80 RR R-40 AC ONo 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ¼ mile? :~:]Yes [:]No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorization[s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ~,~'es :~]No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services {recreation, education, police, fire protection)? I~Yes [:]No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ~Yes F~No 7~" 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? []Ye~ffAl~No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic~ X3Yes ~]No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification ;~V/~l"'eO) zl)' ; ~~be~t o~/ C~c~i ,9-~C, ~ certify that the information provided above is true to the { my knowledge. Applicant~/$~o/~sor Name ~ Henry E. Ra~or~ Jr. Date July 13, 1992 S~gnature ~ ~ Title A~ent for ~iano & KmpsKi I[ Ihe action is in the/Coastal Area,?nd you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding wilh Ihls assessment. 5 Part oROJECT IMPACTS AND THEI/ MAGNITUDE Req>o~lblUt~ of Lead General Informatlo~ (Read Carefully) · In completin8 the form the revie~ver should be guided by the question: Have my responses and '~'.terminatio~s bee~ rea~omtble! The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. · Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) ~foes ~ot mean that it is also necessarily Any larle impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simpl asks that it be looked at further. , · The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showine ty~s of impacts and wherever possible the threshold c magnitude that would b'i~er a response in column 2. The examples are ~enerally applicable th~oushout the State an for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other e~ampte~ and/o~ lower thresholds may be appropriat fo~ a Potential Larle Impact response, thus requirin$ evaluatk~ in Part 3. · The tmpacts of each I~OjeCt, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefor, the examples are illustrative an have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaust~e list o~ impacts a~d thr~holds to answe~ each questio~ · The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. · In identifyin8 impacts, consider IonS term, short term and cumlative effects. In~truction~ (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be a~y impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answerine Ye~ to a question then ch~ck the appropriate box (column 1 ~ 2) to indicate the potential size of th impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provicl~l, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshol is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of th~ impact then consider' the impact as potent~lly large and proceed to PART e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by chanse(s) in the p~oject to a small to moderal impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that s~ch a reduction is not poss~'ble. Th must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND ..... 1. Will the proposed acUon ~ul~ i~ a pby~ical chan~e to the p~-oiect~l, ite? ONO Example~ that woold apply to ~lumn 2 · ~y c~st~ction f~t of length), or w~re t~ ~eneral slo~s in the project area ~c~ 10%. · Construction on la~ where the depth to the water table is Ires than 3 · Construction of pav~ parking area for 1,~ or more vehicle. · Construction on la~ w~re ~r~k is ex~ or ~enerally ~hin 3 f~t of existing ~r~nd ~dace. · . Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or invol~ more than one phase or s~ge. · Excavation for mining pur~ses that would remove more than 1,~ tons of natural material {i.e., rock or soil) ~r year. · Construction or expansion of a sanita~ landfill. · Construction in a designat~ flyway. · Other impac~ ~~/u~ 2. will ~ere ~ an effect t,. _.~y umque or unusual land forms f~on t~ site~ (i.e., cliffs, dun~, ~lo~ical fo~ati~s, etc.)E]NO ~[S · S~cific land fo~s: 1 Small to Moderate ' r~.t' [] 0 [] 0 [] 0 [] [] 2 3 Potential Can Impact large Mitigated By Impact Project Chang~ X OYes ON• 0 OYes ON• [] OYes E3]Nc O OYes Il)Nc X OYes •Nc ~ OYes ONc [] OYes []Nc [] OYes ]~ []Yes ON( IMPAOT ON WATER 3 Will proposed action affect any w·te~ body designated as protected? (Under Articles 1S. 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation La~_E~CL) ONO Examples that would apply to column 2 · Oevelopable ·re· of site contains a protected water body. · Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from ch·noel of a protected stream. · Extensio~ of utility dist~butkm facilities through · protected water body. · Construction in · desisnated freshwater or tidal wetland. · Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existi~g ~t new b~x~¥ of water? ,,~O OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · A '10% increase or decrease in the surface ·re· of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. · Construction of ·'body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface are·. · Other impacts: 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? t"iNO £~amples that would apply t~ colurr~ 2 · Proposed Action will require a discEarie permit. · Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to; serve projx~cLLomject) action. · Proposed Action requires water suppiy from wells with greater than 45 8allons per minute pumping Capacity. · Construction ot operatio~ causing ~ny contamination of · water Sul~ly system.' · Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. · Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presenUy do not exist or have inadequate capacity. · Proposed Action would use water m excess of 20.000 gallons per day. · Proposed Action will ~ikel" cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of wate~ L,, the e,:t~'nt t~at there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. · Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater then 1,100 gallons. · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. · Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment ·nd/or storage facilities. · Other impacts: _.,~. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or sunice water runoff? [:3NO ~2~'E S Exz=nples that would apply to column 2 . o ..... ,-~ ~*;,~,~ .-,mHd cF-n~e fl water flO~s Small to Moderate Impect O D D D [] 2 Potential Large Impact [] D O 0 [] [] [] 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change [-~Yes [~No {-]Yes [-INo []Yes I-'lNo []Yes [~No OYes r']No J--lYes ~]No r-lYes I-1No I']Yes [~No ['-]Yes [-]Yes i--]Nc J-]Yes i'-iNc OYes linc [-],Yes l-lyes [~N~ ~--~ Yes [-]Yes ['-]Yes J--]Yes ~]Yes · Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. * Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. · Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? :~'O []YES Eumples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given · Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. · Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per ho~r. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. · Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. · Otl~r impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered speciesi' E3NO XES Examples that Wo~Id apply to column :~ ~ · Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York o¢ Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on t~ site. · Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. · Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. · Other impacts: ~ O~e. ~¢//..£5/~L~' 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threat,en>,~d or non-endangered species~ /~Lo []YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. · Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RE$OUROE5 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) ~ 2 3 ~1 to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] O I--lYes f-INo [] [] [~Yes' ONo [] [] QYes ONo ~ O OY~ D O ~Yes OHo ~ D ~Yes ~No D D ~Y~ D~o D D ~Y. DNo D D ~Y~ D~o D D ~Y& D D ~Y~ D~o ~ DY~ ONo ~ ~ ~Yes ~No · Co¢lstruction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. · The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural DistricL more than 2.5 acres of asricultural la,cl. · The pcof:~ed action wo~ld disrupt o~ pre~ent installaficm of agricult-ral land manalement systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, o~tlet ditches, strip cropping); o~ create a ne~l for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) · Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources~' ONO {If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section'61?.'21, Appendix B.) ' E~amples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from o~ in sharp contrast to current surrounding Jand use patterns, whet~r' man-made or natural. · Proposed land uses. or project components v~sible tO users of aesthetic resources which wilJ eliminate or significantly reduce their · enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant "screenin8 of scenic views known to be important to the area. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importnnce~ I"INO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Re~ister of historic places. · Any impact to an archaeolc~ical site or fossil bed located within the project site. · Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existin8 or future open spaces or recreational opportunities~ ,~ / _ Examples that would apply to column 2 v~O [:3YES }The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportun['ty. "-~"A major reduction of an o~en space important to the community. · Other impacts: -- Q ~'1 2 3 .~all tO Can Impact Be Potential Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Ch~ng~ [] I~ IDYes ["]No O l-1 l-lYes []No 1'-I n I-lYes []No ID [] OYes CJNo O ID []Yes DNo /~ [] OYes O [] [DYes ONo ID ID IDYes [DNo ID [] [DYes [DNo [--] ID O-lYes IDNo  [] F'lyes IDNo 0 ID DYes E]No 0 0 IDYes IDNo ID ID OYe~ 0~o [] ID IDYes ['-]No IMPACT O~ ,ANS .PORTATION 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems~ ON• /~ES E,amples that would apply to column 2 · Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. · Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. · Other impacts: ,ao~e,~7"//.PL :rJe',4~ ,~ru/?z)~t'A/ IMPACT ON ENEROY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sounr~ of fuel or energy supply1 ~ [3YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. · Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. · Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objecUonable odors, noise, or vibra ati(~ ~ a result of the Proposed Actk~? ~ -C)YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. * Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). · Proposed Ac~>n will produce operating noise exceeding the-'l'oc~l- ambient noise levels for noise outside of structure~. · Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safe~n (:]YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic Iow.level discharge or emission. · Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating. infectious, etc.) · Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. · Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous · Ot~er impacts: I~ I 2 ~mall to Potential Can Impact B Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Chang [] [] DYes •Nc  [] OYes l-I DYes r'lN [] I-'1 DYes ON, [] O []Yes ON, O i-I OYes DH, .O [] I-lyes O i--I OYes F-IN [] [] DYes ON [] [] DYes [-1 I-I DYes Dr I-I [] DYes [] [] DYes IMPACT ON QRO~I'H AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18 Will proposed action affect the character of the existing comrn~ty~ ONO ~ES Example~ that would apply to column 2 · The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. · The municipal budget for capital expenditures o~ operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. · Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or ioals. · Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. · Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. · Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) · Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. · Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. · Other impacts~ ~ 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [~ []Yes []No [] n OYes nNo 0 [~ OYes nNo [] ,~ []Yes []No dee 0 [] OYes [-]No ~ [] CDYes I-1No [] O []Yes []~o [] [] I-lyes n~o i-1 [] []Yes 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public contrBvrr~,,y related to potential adver~ environmental impacts? /J~O OYES If Any Action In Part 2 la Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is conslde~ed to be potentially L~rle, even if the impact(s) m~y b~ mltlpted. Instructiom Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: I. Briefly describe the impacL 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: · The probability of the impact occurring · The duration of the impact · Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value · Whether the impact can or will be controlled · The regional consequence of the impact · Its potential divergence from local needs and goals · Whether known obiections to the project relate to this impact. CContinue on attachmenL~) Beachcomber I1 Motel Scoping Documentation ATTACHMENT III SEQR SCOPING CHECKI,IST CRAMER, VO0 R HIS~ &;~S,SOCIATE S ENVlRONMENTA~Di~[~]~N[~IG CONSULTANTS ~ '¢/1# ~,~\\\ SEQR SCOPING CHECKLIST APPLICATION OF BEACHCOMBER II MOTEL Beachcomber I1 Motel Scoping Documentation This outline is based upon 6 NYCRR Part 617.21 as prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to provide a format and guidelines for the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The subject Draft EIS should conform to this outline in terms of format as well as content. Cover Sheet All EIS's (Draft or Final) shall begin with a cover sheet that includes: A. Whether it is a draft or final statement B. Name or other descriptive title of the project C. Location (county and town, village or city) of the project D. Name and address of the lead agency which required preparation of the statement and the name and telephone number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further information E. Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and a contact name and telephone number F. Date of acceptance of the Draft EIS G. In the case ora Draft EIS, the deadline date by which comments are due should be indicated II. Table of Contents and Summary A table of contents and a brief summary are required for Draft EIS and Final EIS's. The summary should include: A. Brief description of the action B. Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts, (issues of controversy must be specified) C. Mitigation measures proposed D. Alternative considered E. Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, funding) II1. Description of the Proposed Action PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED AND BENEFITS 1. Background and history 2. Public need for the project, and municipality objectives based on adopted community developments plans 3. Objectives of the project sponsor 4. Benefits of the proposed action ~/ social economic Bo LOCATION 1. Establish ge. ographic boundaries of the project (use of regional and local scale maps is recommended) 2. Description of access to site - Provide detailed discussion of adjacent roads. CRAMER, VOORHIS, &.~?ASSOCIATES Page I Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Documentation 3. Description of existing zoning of proposed site DESIGN AND LAYOUT - A detailed table of anticipated site coverage quantities is recommended. 1. Total site area a) proposed impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots, roads) b) amount of land to be cleared c) open space - wetlands/water areas, natural and/or covenanted areas. Discuss non-use of land in order to meet SCSC Article 6. 2. Structures } total building area layout of buildings (attached, enclosed, separate) site plans d) drainage plans 3. Parking a) pavement area b) number of spaces and layout 4. Sanitary System Design a) location and setbacks b) system design, leaching capability, depth to water c) Health Department compliance 5. Water Supply Design ~/ depth of well potential salt-water intrusion c) Health Department compliance Do CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 1. Construction a) total construction period anticipated b) schedule of construction c) future potential development, on site or on adjoining properties 2. Operation a) type of operation b) schedule of operation c) fertilization of landscaped areas d) seasonal use and maintenance Eo APPROVALS 1. Required changes or variances to the zoning regulations 2. Other permit approval or funding requirements and status of required permits cb}TOwn planning and/or ZBA if applicable Health Department permits State well and discharge permits IV. Environmental Setting Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) composition and thickness of subsurface material CRAMER, VOORHIS, &~(,~S,SOCIATES Page 2 Beachcomber II Motel Scoping Documentation b) test hole in accord with SCDHS requirements Surface a) List of soil types b) discussion of soil characteristics - physical properties (indication of soils hydrological (infiltration) capabihties) - engineering properties (soil bearing capacity) c) distribution of soil types at project site d) suitability for use Topography a) description of topography at project site - slopes, particularly on east side of site - pron~nent or unique features - beach, dune and bluff type environment WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) location and description of aquifers and recharge ares - depth of water table - seasonal variation - potential malfunction of sanitary system - quality - suitability for consumptive use - quantity flow b) identification of present uses and level of use of groundwater - existing water supply for Beachcomber I Surface water a) location and description of surface waters located on project site those that may be influenced by the project - classification according to New York State Department of Health and/or NYSDEC b) identification of uses and level of use of all surface waters - recreational, shellfish, etc. c) description of existing drainage areas, patterns and channels d) discussion of potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and eutrophication of surface water or TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a) list vegetation types on the project site and within the surrounding area b) discussion of site vegetation characteristics - species presence and abundance ~ age - size - distribution ~ dominance - community types - unique, rare and endangered species - value as habitat for wildlife - productivity CRAME., VOO.H'S *SSOC'ATES ENVIRONMENTA D /)/ !. IG CONSULTANTS Page 3 Beachcomber 11 Motel Scoping Documentation Wildlife a) list of wildlife species on theproject site and within surrounding area, including migratory andresident species b) discussion of wildlife population characteristics - species presence and abundance distribution - dominance - unique, rare and endangered species - productivity Wetlands a) list wetland areas within or contiguous to the project site b) discuss wetland characteristics - acreage - vegetative cover classification - benefits of wetland such as flood and erosion control, recreation Human Resources mo TRANSPORTATION 1. Transporting services a) description of the size, capacity and condition of services - access/egress from site b) descriptmn of current level of use of services - source of existing traffic - seasonal influence and use Co LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) description of the erdsting land use of the project site and the surroundin area - residential - vacant, open space b) description of existing zoning of site and surrounding area 2. Land use plans a) description of any land use plans or master plans which include project site and surrounding area b) discussion of future development trends or pressures c) 208 Study recommendations and Article 6 implementation d) NURPS Study recommendations for surface water protection COMMUNITY SERVICES (for this section include a list of existing facilities and a discussion of existing levels of usage and projected future needs) 1. Educational facilities 2. Police protection 3. Fire protection 4. Health care facilities 5. Social services 6. Recreational facilities 7. Utilities CRAMER, VOOR-FilS & ~SOCIATES ENVIRONMENTA~D .~=, ~, CONSULTANTS Page 4 Beachcomber Il Motel Scoping Documentation 8. Public water supply 9. Solid waste disposal CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) description of the physical character of the community - views of area resources associated with site - visibility of site from waterways and surrounding areas b) description of natural areas of significance 2. Historic and archaeological resources a) location and description of historic areas or structures listed on State or National Register or designated by the community, or included on Statewide Inventory identification of sites having potential significant archaeological value based on contact with State Parks b) Noise a) identification of existing level of noise in the community - use published references SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Identify those aspects of the environmental setting in Section IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action and require discussion. Areas of primary concern are listed as follows: Ao Potential for erosion and/or siltation to the site waterway as a result of site construction. Topographic and sedimentation due to slope destabilization of erodable soils. Bo Alteration of ground or surface water quality from inadequate sanitary setbacks and/or unsaturated depth and potential water quality impacts due to water supply pumping. Nitrogen budget in consideration of recharge zones and groundwater flow. Co Ecological impacts resulting from use and occupation of the site for motel purposes, as related to identified species. Loss of unique wooded areas of site for water supply and grading envelopes. Conformance of proposed project to land use plans, with particular regard to Town zoning and Article 6 requirements for density/discharge requirements. VI. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in Section V. The following is a brief listing of typical measures used for some of the major areas of impact. Natural Resource A. GEOLOGY 1. Subsurface a) use excavated material for land reclamation 2. Surface CRAMER, VOORH~S &"A'SSOC~ATES ENVIRONMENTAI~AND ,P,~INING CONSULTANTS '~ ~.,7/// ~,\\ Page 5 Beachcomber 11 Motel Scoping Documentation use topsoil stockpiled during construction for restoration and landscapin minimize disturbance of non-construction sites - propose covenants design and implement soil erosion control plan WATER RESOURCES 1. Groundwater a) modify system of treatment for stormwater runoff of wastewater prior to recharge of groundwater b) maintain permeable areas on the site 2. Surface water a) ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during construction and operation to avoid siltation - hay bales - temporary restoration of vegetation to disturbed areas - landscaping b) design adequate stormwater control system c) modify sewage treatment facilities d) avoid direct discharges to surface water resources Co TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 1. Vegetation a) restrict clearing to only those areas necessary b) preserve part of site as a natural area c) after construction, landscape site with naturally occurring vegetation 2. Wildlife a) provide adequate habitat (shelter and food) for remaining wildlife speci b) schedule construction to avoid sensitive periods of fish, shellfish and wildlife cycles Human Resources Ao TRANSPORTATION 1. Provide adequate horizontal and vertical road geometrics for anticipated traffic 2. Provide mitigation for traffic impacts as identified through traffic evaluation mo LAND USE AND ZONING 1. Existing land use and zoning a) des!gn project to comply with existing land use plans b) design functional and visually appealing facility to set standard and precedent for future surrounding land use COMMUNITY SERVICES 1. Fire protection a) use construction materials that minimize fire hazards b) incorporate sprinkler and alarm systems into building design c) provide equipment, funds or services directly to the community 2. Utilities a) install utility services underground b) incorporate water saving fixtures into facility design CRAMER, VO~RHIS, & ~SSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTA~'~D?:LA~[''IING~ v/// -,,,\\ CONSULTANTS Page 6 Beachcomber 11 Motel Scoping Documentation c) incorporate energy-saving measures into facility design CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual resources a) design exterior of structure to physically blend with existing surrounding b) mimmize visual impact through thoughtful and innovative design (consider: height, size) design landscaping to be visually pleasing and to serve as a buffer between surrounding land uses, parking areas, operational equipment and facilities c) Noise a) b) schedule construction/operation to occur during "normal business" hours minimizing noise impact during sensitive times (early morning, night) assure adherence to construction noise standards VII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Identify those adverse environmental effects is Section V that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered in Section VI. VII. ALTERNATIVES This section contains categories of alternatives with examples. Discussion of each alternative should be at a level sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. It ~s not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is or is not feasible. Ao ALTERNATIVE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGIES 1. Site layout a) location of structures b) location of access routes, parking and utility routes Co ALTERNATIVES SIZE 1. Increase or decrease project size to minimize possible impacts NO ACTION 1. Impacts of no action a) effect on public need b) effect on private developers' need c) beneficial or adverse enviromnental impacts IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. X. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS (if applicable) Describe in this section the potential growth aspects the proposed project may have. XI. APPENDICES Following is a list of materials typically used in support of the EIS. CRAMER, VOORHIS &i::ASSOCIATES E N VI RO N M E N TA~.~A[~I~D, PI,,,~iN G CONSULTANTS '<~-~ V////- ~,\\\ Page 7 Beachcomber il Motel Scoping Documentation B. C. D. List of underlying studies, reports and information considered and relied on in preparing statement List all federal, state, regional, or local agencies, organizations, consultants and private persons consulted in preparing the statement Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale Relevant correspondence regarding the projects may be included (required in the Final EIS) CRAMER, vOORHIS, &:)~'$SOCIATES ENVlRONMENTAI~.~..~_~A? ~iNG CONSULTANTS Page 8 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT STATEMENT OF FINDINGS Town of Southold, N.Y. October 1998 NAME OF ACTION: LEAD AGENCY: AGENCY JURISDICTION: Beachcomber Motel (II) Expansion of the Beachcomber Motel Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Contact: Valeric Scopaz, Town Planner, 516-765-1938 Special Exception under Town Code PROJECT LOCATION: SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX PARCELS: DATE FINAL ElS FILED: Between Oregon Road and Long Island Sound, East of Duck Pond Road Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk 1000-083-2-1, 2, and 17 October 1998 FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT THE DECISION: Introduction A Dram Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Final EIS have been prepared for the Beachcomber Motel (II) Expansion which address the potential environmental impacts and available mitigation measures associated with the proposed project. The subject application involves construction of 46 additional units on a property which contains an existing motel with 36 units, three apartments and a restaurant. During preparation of the Final EIS, it was determined that the maximum yield of the parcel under existing conditions should be only 42 additional units. The project site consists of three tax parcels totaling 48.2 acres. The northern portion of the property is zoned for Resort Residential Development, while the southern portion, which will remain undeveloped, is zoned for Agricultural Conservation. The EIS record assumes as a worst case scenario that the proposed motel would be operated on a year-round basis, and these findings are based on this assumption. In fact, the motel is likely to be operated on a Beachcomber Motel (II) Statement of Findings seasonal basis, which would provide additional mitigation for many of the impacts discussed in the Draft EIS. Although the project sponsor has made previous applications to expand the motel, the current application was submitted on January 23, 1992, however, the application was not complete until July 31, 1992. The Southold Town Planning Board assumed Lead Agency status on October 20, 1992, and issued a positive declaration on November 2, 1992. The Draft EIS was then submitted to the Town of Southold on March 28, 1995. After several revisions and a reduction in the requested number of units, the Draft EIS was accepted by the Planning Board on March 18, 1996, and a Notice Of Completion was issued. The Draft EIS was then circulated for comment, and a Public Hearing was held by the Town Plaiming Board on April 8, 1996. The hearing was continued until April 29, 1996, and the minimum 30 day public comment period was held open until May 9, 1996. The applicant submitted a response to the comments on September 7, 1996, which was then utilized by the Town to prepare a draft of a Final EIS completed in February, 1997. The Final EIS addressed all of the substantive concerns raised during the comment period. Issues regarding water use remained, and the applicant was asked to provide further documentation on water quality and availability. Once the necessary information was obtained from the applicant, a final version of the Final EIS was completed and filed in October 1998. These findings use the SEQR record to weigh social, economic, and environmental issues as a basis for a decision on the project. Geologic Resources The project site is located within a swale located on the bluffs overlooking Long Island Sound, with many areas of steep slopes in excess of 15 percent and high potential for erosion. The existing motel and proposed development area are located on a relatively flat plateau approximately 10 to 13 feet above the beach, with a slight bluff along the shoreline. To the east, west, and south, the bluffs rise to an elevation of approximately 50 feet. The proposed plan has been designed to minimize disturbance in areas of steep slopes. The new units must be located at least 100 feet from the coastal zone hazard area boundary, as is shown on the site plan. The boundary approximates the edge of the bluff, and a 100 foot setback from the bluff as required by Town Code. Construction within 100 feet of the bluff would require a variance, and there is no compelling reason to consider such a variance as there is ample area to locate the development in a manner which is consistent with Town land use goals. The existing motel and restaurant have been subject to damage from past storms, and are located partially within the Coastal Zone Hazard Area as determined by the Town. Relocation of the structures which are currently within the Coastal Zone Hazard Area is likely to be necessary in the future, and should be outlined within the Covenants and Restrictions with regard to the proposed project. The applicant has agreed to relocate any unsafe units once the new units are providing sufficient income. The relocated units should be situated at least 100 feet from the bluff, and their locations should be clearly delineated on the final site plan. As the appropriate density of the parcel has been determined to be 42 new 2 Beachcomber Motel (II) Statement of Findings units rather than 46, four of the relocated units could be located within the building footprints shown on the current site plan. It should be possible to alter the site plan slightly to locate the additional two units landward of the 100 foot setback. Relocation of the restaurant beyond the 100' setback would be more difficult, and the location proposed on the current site plan is acceptable. The covenant requiring removal of damaged structures should be clearly worded, setting a time limit for such relocation. 4. Both the existing motel and the new units are also within the 100 year flood zone as outlined on the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map. The base elevation shown is 11 feet, and thus the first floor of the proposed structures must be located at least 11 feet above mean sea level. The proposed site plan shows all structures at an elevation of more than 14 feet, and thus confom~s to this design standard. 5. The Carver and Plymouth soils found within the proposed development area have a moderate to severe potential for erosion. The proposed site plan avoids construction in areas of steep slopes, however, use of erosion control measures will be necessary during construction to minimize loss of soils. A sediment and erosion control plan should be required by the Town as part of the site plan review process. Disturbance to existing vegetation should be minimized, particularly at the base of the slopes, and cleared areas should be revegetated as soon as possible after disturbance. The erosion control plan should include mitigation measures for installation of the water supply line, which will occur in an area of extreme slopes. Hydrogeologic Resources 6. Water quality information obtained during preparation of the Final EIS shows elevated levels of fertilizers and nitrates in groundwater beneath the site. Based on water quality information from the project site, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services has indicated that an area must be shown on the final site plan to allow for water treatment should it become necessary in the future. The proposed treatment area should be large enough for storage of water treatment chemicals and to install an ion exchange unit for nitrate removal and granular activated carbon units (GAC) for the removal of pesticides. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has also determined that groundwater on site is not suitable for use as a community public water supply. Thus, the use of the site for cooperative units or condominiums would not be permitted unless public water is supplied, and the proposed project should be covenanted remain a motel until public water is extended to the site. Such a use would require a change in zoning designation, and therefore is not currently feasible. Due the existing high levels of nitrogen and pesticides on site, the existing agricultural land on site should be covenanted to either remain fallow or be used for agricultural crops which require limited application of fertilizers. This could be accomplished through a requirement 3 Beachcomber Motel (II) Statement of Findings of a Soil Conservation Management Plan for any agricultural use of the property in the future. The covenant should stipulate that the plan be developed in consultation with the US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, which regularly prepares agricultural management plans to minimize soil loss as well as to limit the use of nitrogen and pesticides. 10. It is estimated within the Draft EIS that the saltwater interface is approximately 120 feet below sea level beneath the proposed well site. Prior to 1990, saltwater intrusion was a problem at an existing well near the southeast comer of the existing motel. This may have been due to excessive well pumpage due to a leak in the piping for the swimming pool. The well was replaced, and screened to a depth of approximately 50 feet. Subsequent water quality tests reported in the Draft EIS do not suggest any reoccurrence of saltwater contamination at the well. The proposed well will be located to the south of the existing developed area at the top of the bluff in order to minimize the likelihood of further saltwater intrusion. 11.The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has indicted that at least two wells will be necessary to provide water for the proposed expansion, which is expected to have a peak demand of 100 gallons per minute (gpm). Two wells will provide the ability to conduct intermittent pumping to reduce excessive drawdown in a specific location. Additional wells could be necessary if salt water intrusion occurs. As the water demand will exceed 45 gpm, a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Well Permit will be necessary for the proposed project prior to final approval. 12. The project site is located on Long Island Sound, in an area in which water quality is generally good. Impacts to the water quality of the Sound can be minimized by reduction of nitrogen input to groundwater, as was discussed above, as well as containment of mn-off on site. The proposed project would direct runoff from the site to a drainage area in the southeastern comer of the site, with no direct outlet to the sound except under extreme flood conditions. Ecological Resources 13. The project site currently contains a mix of habitat types which have been impacted by past disturbance, including a large agricultural field on the southern portion of the property. The area near the existing motel is mown turf, and successional woodland and a xeric habitat dominated by bayberry, sumac and cedar are present on the bluffs above. These habitats support plant and wildlife species which are relatively common on Long Island, and no rare, threatened or endangered species were observed on or near the site. 14. Most of the proposed development area is mown field, and only a small area of woodlm~d will be removed. Thus, impacts to ecological resources are expected to be minimal. Cleating limits should be clearly delineated on the grading and erosion control plans, as well as in the field prior to construction, in order to protect vegetation and minimize disturbance to slopes. 4 Beachcomber Motel (II) Statement of Findings 15. There is a small vernal pool which serves as a drainage area in the southwestern portion of the proposed development area. This area was the historic location of a pond, which was filled in the late 1950's. It has minimal value as a wetland, and is vegetated by non-native species. The applicant intends to expand and regrade this area, which should be revegetated using native wetland species such as rashes, sedges, bayberry and sweet pepperbush. This would result in a net improvement to this habitat at minimal cost to the applicant, and a pond landscaping plan should be required for final approval. Transportation 16. The Draft EIS concluded that the proposed project will not result in a significant impact on local traffic. The maximum number of additional cars generated during a one hour period by the proposed project would be 33, or approximately two per minute. This maximum traffic generation would occur only seasonally during the peak weekend period, and would not be expected to impact the capacity of area roads. It is noted, however, that mitigation is necessary to ensure safe operation of the local access road, as is discussed below. 17. Whether or not the proposed project is approved, installation of a stop sign is recommended to control northbound traffic at the intersection of Duck Pond Road, Vista Place and Birch Lane. In addition, trimming of the brushy vegetation at the southeast comer of the intersection and pruning of the large evergreen on the northeast comer of Duck Pond Road and Oregon Road should also be required within the Town right-of-way. If trimming beyond the Town right-of-way, would add sight distance and increase the level of safety, the applicant shall seek to obtain the permission of the adjacent property owner in order to perform such mitigation. The existing basic road configuration should remain in order to maintain the existing rural character of the roads; however, striping may be necessary to promote driver awareness and pedestrian safety. The applicant shall consider this and propose a balance of mitigation measures for this intersection in the submission of a revised site plan. Land Use 18. The subject application is for the expansion of a preexisting motel on a large property which also contains an agricultural field. The southern portion of the site is zoned Agricultural Conservation District (AC), and the northern developed portion is zoned for Resort Residential (RR) development.. The surrounding land uses include single family homes and agricultural fields. The zoning of the adjacent properties to the south is AC, while along Long Island Sound, the zoning to the east of the site is Residential-80 and the zoning to the east of the site is Residential-40. 19. The proposed project is an allowed, special exception use within the existing Resort Residential zoning district, and as such is a contemplated use within the RR zone consistent with Town land use goals. In addition, a large area on the southern portion of the site would 5 Beachcomber Motel (II) Statement of Findings be preserved as open space or in low intensity agricultural use. This is also consistent with municipal land use goals. 20. The three properties involved in the subject application are under separate ownership, and the impact analysis presented in the Draft EIS and Final EIS record address development on the combined parcels. The project sponsor is willing to merge the properties, but would like them to remain in separate ownership if the project is not approved. The merger of these properties should be made a condition of final approval of the proposed project. 21. The proposed yield of the property presented in the Draft EIS was determined to be too intense given the site attributes, sensitivity and constraints, and that the yield of the parcel would be only 42 additional units. Thus four units should be removed from the final site plan. This assumes that public water and sanitary waste treatment are not available as under existing conditions. The determination of yield involves consideration of reasonable density, Town Code and Suffolk County Health Department Standards, and the most restrictive regulations apply on any particular property. The determination of yield on the subject parcel was made as follows,: The subject application involves three tax parcels, and all three are necessary to obtain the desired yield. The existing units have been included in the calculation of the yield of the combined parcels. County Health Department standards are generally more restrictive than zoning regulations in unsewered areas, however, this is not true for the subject site due to the presence of environmentally sensitive land. The maximum yield should be based on the overall acreage of the site, in consideration of the area of sensitive environmental land. The 16.5 acre RR zoned portion of the site contains both waterfront property and areas of steep slopes. These areas total 4.8 acres, and thus, the total non-steep area zoned for RR development is 11.7 acres. Zoning regulations limit development within RR zoned districts to one unit per 6,000 s.f. if the site is unsewered, and one unit per 4,000 s.f. if the site is sewered and has public water. This would result in a yield of 85 hotel units on a vacant property based on the balance on non-environmentally sensitive land. However, the yield calculations must also consider the existing development on site, including 36 motel units, three apartment and the restaurant. The apartments and existing units can be directly subtracted from the overall yield, however, the restaurant is a preexisting, non-conforming use which is not discussed under the zoning code. The minimum lot size on which a restaurant would be allowed is 20,000 s.f in a Hamlet Business district. Thus, it is reasonable to subtract 20,000 s.f. from the buildable land to allow .for the restaurant, which would result in a total of 11.3 acres of buildable land on site. Based on this figure, the total number of units allowed on site would be 81. As there are currently 36 units and three apartments on site, the total number of additional units which should be permitted is 42. Beachcomber Motel (II) Statement of Findings The preceding density determination discusses only the 16.5 acre RR zoned portion of the site. The remaining 31.7 acres of the site is zoned AC, which would allow subdivision of the property into 80,000 s.f., or approximately 12 new homes with roads and a recharge basin. Although this yield would be permitted under the Zoning Code, County Health Department standards are more restrictive. County Health Department standards limit the total wastewater discharge on a site to 300 gallons per day (gpd) per acre in areas without public water and sewage treatment, Thus, the total flow permitted on the 48.2 acre combined parcel would be 14,460 gallons per day (gpd) under existing conditions. As calculated in the Draft EIS, the proposed project would result in a total flow of 14,425 gpd, which would not allow development of the remaining AC portion of the site, however, subtraction of four units as discussed above would reduce this flow by 150 gpd per unit, or 600 gpd. This would allow construction of two single family homes on the AC portion of the site. Thus, under these conditions, the appropriate density on the overall site should be 42 additional motel units and two new single family homes. The existing motel currently includes six units which are in located within the Coastal Zone Hazard Area, and are in danger of potential storm damage. A reduction in yield to an appropriate density of 42 additional units would allow these units to be relocated with a setback of at least lOO feet to the Coastal Zone Hazard Area Boundary. Four of the relocated units could be located within the building footprints shown on the site plan, taking the place of the four units which were subtracted from the original yield. The remaining two units could be added to on of the proposed buildings with only minor alteration of the site plan. The development potential of the property would increase if public water and/or sewage treatment were available on site. Under Count3, Health Department Standards the maximum sanitary ftow allowed would increase to 600 gpd per acre if public water were provided. County Health Department Standards do not limit sanitary flow if both sewage treatment and public water ate provided. Town zoning regulations require that both public water and sewage treatment be provided before the yield is increased within the RR zoning district, allowing one unit per 4, 000 sv( of buildable land rather than one unit per 6,000 s.f Within the AC zoning district, the development potential is the same whether or not sewage treatment or public water are provided. Thus, if only public water were provided on site, the yield on the RR portion of the site would not change. The yield of the AC portion of the site would increase, as the combined acreage of the three parcels would no longer be necessary to meet County Health Department standards. Thus, in the event that public water is provided at the site, the appropriate density on site would be 42 additional units and 12 single family homes. If both public water and sewage treatment were provided, the yield on the RR zoned portion of the 7 Beachcomber Motel (II) Statement of Findings property would increase to one unit per 4,000 s.f, which would allow a total of 83 additional units. Thus, the maximum development potential on the subject property under any conditions is 83 additional motel units and 12 ,single family homes. This would require that the applicant construct a sewage treatment plant, as it is unlikely that public sewers would be extended to the area. Such a plan would require site plan approval. In addition, location of additional units in an appropriate and environmentally sensitive manner would be of concern and would warrant additional detailed environmental review. A supplemental EIS would most likely be necessary to address these issues. 22. The proposed units will be 600 s.f. in size, which is the maximum permitted under Town Code. Multifamily development, including condominiums, are not allowed within the RR zoning district, however, local residents have expressed concern that the property owner may seek a change of zone in the future in order to convert the motel to a condominium use. A covenant prohibiting a future change of zone to allow multifamily use could be made a condition of final approval of the project. Community Services 23. The proposed project is expected to generate significant tax revenues, which should offset any additional demand for community services generated by the expansion. A significant increase in taxes will be generated for the local school district, with no associated increase in the number of school aged children. 24. A fire well is indicated on the site plan, and should be installed according to Cutchogue Fire Department specifications outlined in a letter appended to the Draft EIS. The Department requested that the well be located on the west side of the proposed development area, just south of the existing basketball court. The following specifications were outlined: 20 H.P., 3 phase, submersible pump capable to deliver 400 gpm at 10 PSI discharge at center of tee at top of well. Pump shah be of submersible turbine type, equipped with grease packed bearings in bowl assemblies. The bowls shall be of a smooth finish design to guide the water from one stage to the next with a minimum of turbulence. Top of the well is to be finished off with a 8" x 4" well seal, 4" galvanized tee and plug, and 4"x4~ " solid brass ferrule and cap. The hose threads and hydrant wrench nut shah conform to the standards of the Cutchogue Fire District. Cultural Resources 25. The project site is located in a low point along the bluffs which characterize much of Long Island's North Shore. Thus, the project site is visible only from Long Island Sound and from Beachcomber Motel (II) Statement of Findings the properties immediately adjacent to the site, although vegetation provides partial screening. 26. As the adjacent properties are at a significantly higher elevation, perimeter plantings are not likely to be useful in providing visual mitigation. Foundation plantings, appropriate building design, and other landscaping should be utilized to create an attractive overall site design. A landscaping plan and building elevations should be required as part of the site plan review process, with particular attention to the impact to perspectives from the adjacent residential properties. 27. A Stage IA and IB Archaeological Study were performed on the subject site, and based on these reports, no significant historic or prehistoric resources are expected on site. Alternatives 28. Alternatives investigated included the no-action alternative, as well as two alternate site lay- outs of 46 additional units. The current site plan was selected as the preferred alternative, as it minimizes disturbance to steep slopes and other impacts of the proposed project. Growth Inducing Impacts 29. Tourism is a major industry within the Town of Southold, and the proposed project is expected to result in generation of significant revenues to local taxing jurisdictions. Generation of employment opportunities will also occur as a result of the project, although most of the jobs would be expected to be relatively low paying, seasonal jobs. Short term construction employment is also expected to occur as a result of the proposed project Summary of Mitigation Measures Not Incorporated in Submitted Design a.) The new units will be located at least 100 feet from the coastal zone hazard area boundary. The six units currently located within the Coastal Zone Hazard Area are in potential danger due to erosion and storm damage, and should be relocated outside of the Hazard Area, with a setback of at least 100 feet. b.) A sediment and erosion control plan should be required by the Town as part of the site plan review process to minimize disturbance to the areas of steep slopes. The erosion control plan should include mitigation measures for installation of the water supply line, which will occur in an area of extreme slopes, and clearly delineate the proposed limit of clearing. c.) A Covenant and Restriction on the proposed project site should preclude the conversion of the motel into time-share units or condominiums in the future. 9 Beachcomber Motel (II) Statement of Findings d.) The Covenant and Restrictions on the project should stipulate that the a Soil Conservation Management Plan be developed in consultation with the US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service for any future agricultural use of the property. e.) As recommended by the SCDHS, an area must be set aside on the final site plan for a water treatment facility should it become necessary in the future. The proposed treatment area should be large enough for storage of water treatment chemicals and to install an ion exchange unit for nitrate removal and granular activated carbon units (GAC) for the removal of pesticides. f.) A landscaping plan should be submitted which considers overall landscape design as well as mitigation of potential visual impacts and planting of the proposed drainage area with wetland shrubs and other suitable species. Attention will be given to supplemental plantings on the west side of the proposed development area as screen plantings along Duck Pond Road. g.) A stop sign should be installed (with the consent of the Highway Superintendent) to control northbound traffic at the intersection of Duck Pond Road, Vista Place and Birch Lane as a condition of site plan approval. Trimming of the brushy vegetation at the southeast comer of the intersection and pruning of the large evergreen on the northeast comer of Duck Pond Road and Oregon Road should also be required within the Town right-of-way. If trimming beyond the Town right-of-way, would add sight distance and increase the level of safety, the applicant shall seek to obtain the permission of the adjacent property owner in order to perform such mitigation. The existing basic road configuration should remain in order to maintain the existing rural character of the roads; however, striping may be necessary to promote driver awareness and pedestrian safety. The applicant shall consider this and propose a balance of mitigation measures for this intersection in the submission of a revised site plan. h.) The appropriate density of the project site has been determined to be 42 additional units, due to the presence of environmentally sensitive land on site. Thus, the total yield should be reduced by four units on the final site plan. i). A Supplemental EIS or other further environmental review will be necessary in the event that public water and sewer connection become available in the area and a further increase in density is proposed. 10 Beachcomber Motel (II) Statement of Findings CERTIFICATION OF FINDINGS TO APPROVE/UNDERTAKE Having considered the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement, and having considered the preceding written facts and conclusions relied upon to meet the requirements of the State Environmental Review Act, the Town of Southold Planning Board as lead agency certifies through this Statement of Findings that: 1. The requirements Part 617, Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations have been met, and; Consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives thereto, the action approved is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized by incorporation as conditions to the decision those mitigation measures which were identified as practicable and listed in these Findings. Town qf SouthoM Planning Board Name of Agency Signature of Responsible Official Name of Responsible Official Title of Responsible Official Date Town Hall, 53095Main Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, N.Y, 11971 Address of Agency 11 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) BEACHCOMBER MOTEL (II) Hamlet of Cutchogue Town of Southold New York Prepared by: Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC Town of Southold Planning Board Glen Spetta Associates October 1998 Final Environmental Impact Statement for BEACHCOMBER MOTEL (II) Hamlet of Cutchogue Town of Southold, New York Bcack~comber Motel (ti) Final EIS Lead Agency: Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Contact: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner, 516-765-1938 Applicant: Nicholas Aliano Ashley Lane Shoreham, N.Y. 11786 DraREIS prepared by: Glen SpettaAssociates 1050 SmithtownAvenue Bohemia, N.Y. 11716 516-567-5859 Final EIS prepared by: Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC. Consultants to the Planning Board 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 516-427-5665 Town of Southold Planning Board Glen Spetta Associates Availability of Document This document, together with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement concerning this proposal, represents a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Copies are available for public review and comment at the office of the Lead Agency. Comments on the FEIS should be submitted to the Lead Agency listed above by to be included in the public record. Date FEIS Accepted: Page 1 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS Final Environmental Impact Statement fol' BEACHCOMBER MOTEL (II) Hamlet of Cutchogue Town of Southold, New York TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT EIS (Incorporated by Reference) INTRODUCTION Page 3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ElS Page 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION WATER RESOURCES TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY TRAFFIC LAND USE COMMUNITY SERVICES CULTURAL RESOURCES GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS Page 7 Page 17 ' Page 19 Page 20 Page 23 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 REFERENCES ATTACHMENTS Page 31 Page 32 Page 2 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS Final Environmental Impact Statement for BEACHCOMBER MOTEL (II) Hamlet of Cutchogue Town of Southold, New York INTRODUCTION This document is a Final Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) for a proposed project involving three single and separate tax parcels totaling 48.2 acres located north of Oregon Road and east of Duck Pond Road in Cutchogue, Town of Southold. The proposed project involves expansion of an existing 36 unit motel by an additional 46 units to a total of 82 units. The proposed expansion will occur on the northern portion of the property, which contains the existing motel. This area is currently zoned Resort/Residential (RR) and includes 16.2 acres. The 32 remaining acres of the property are zoned Agricultural Conservation district (AC), and would remain undeveloped at this time. The Town Planning Board of the Town of Southold became the lead agency with responsibility to review the project as the decision making agency on the proposed site plan. As required by law, the Town conducted a coordinated review with involved agencies, and stfnsequently issued a Positive Declaration on October 30, 1992. A Draft EIS was prepared by Glenn Spetta Associates, consultants to the applicant. After several revisions and a reduction in the requested number of units, the Draft EIS was accepted by the Planning Board on March 18, 1996, and a Notice Of Completion was issued. The Draft EIS was then circulated for comment, and a Public Hearing was held by the Town Planning Board to hear comments on April 8, 1996. The hearing was continued until April 29, 1996, and the 30 day public comment period was held open until May 9, 1996. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final ElS) was prepared by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis (NP&V) as consultant to the Planning Board in accordance with SEQRA [6 NYCRR Part 616.14(i)]. This document addresses all of the substantive comments received by the lead agency during the comment period on the Draft EIS, which were forwarded to the applicant's consultant on May 21, 1996 for response. The Town Planning Board then directed their consultants, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, to prepare a preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Beachcomber II project. The document went through several drafts and revisions, and required certain input from the applicant fi)r completion. As a result, and adequate period of time was needed to prepare the Final Page 3 Beachcomber Motel (Il) Final EIS ElS. As lead agency, the Town Planing Board is responsible for the contents of the Final EIS and has reviewed and participated in the preparation of this document. Nelson, Pope & Voorhis. (NP&V) is a professional cnvirorrmental and planning consulting firm with offices at 572 Walt Whitman Road, Melville, N.Y. 11747. NP&V has sought to provide the Planning Board with an independent, objective response to each of the comments raised through review of the Draft EIS. All substantive comments are included in the text of the revised Final EIS, and are followed by an appropriate response. Comments are organized within the same general outline as was used in the Draft EIS according to the section which they most closely address. Several of the comments are redundant, and in these cases only one comment is directly quoted, with similar comments noted in parentheses. An appropriate response is provided in the document and cross-referencing is used to direct the reader in cases of redundant comments. This document fulfills the obligation of the Planning Board in completing a Final EIS based upon Final EIS content requirements as outlined in 6 NYCRR Part 617.14. The Draft EIS is a part of the EIS record and is incorporated by reference such that the combination of these documents constitutes the Final EIS. The following section provides the Response to Comments on the Draft EIS. Page 4 Beachcomber Motel (11) Final EIS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ElS Tiae following documentation provides a response to each comment received on the Draft ElS for the Beachcomber II project. Each comment is stated or paraphrased and is followed by the soume of the comment which corresponds to the annotated letters reviewed in preparation of the Final EIS. Several comments were redundant, and in such cases, only one of the sources is quoted, with sources of similar comments in parentheses. Each comment is followed by a response which is intended to provide the information requested in the comment, as related to the required information necessary for the lead agency and involved agencies to make informed decisions of specific impacts of the project. A total of eleven (11) sources of comments were received by the Town Planning Board. Of these, there were three lettem fi.om private citizens, a petition fi.om local residents and two letters fi.om the Planning Board. The remaining comments were made at the two public heatings, which included comments by local residents, the North Fork Environmental Council and the Planning Board Chairman. All of the letter writers also spoke at one or both of the public hearings. Public comments received on the Draft ElS included oral testimony fi.om the two public hearings as well as three letters and a petition fi.om a group of local residents. In addition to these individual comments, Gerald Waltz of the North Fork Environmental Council read a statement into the record at the April 8, 1996 hearing, and the Planning Board has offered both oral and written conm~ents. These comments are enumerated herein, and have been identified in the text with the appropriate abbreviation. None of the comments were made to specific pages of the Draft EIS, thus the comments have been discussed according to the general section of the Draft EIS to which they refer. The comment letters and hearing transcripts are attached (Attachment A), and individual cormnents fi.om each source are numbered in the margin. Planning Board Letters (PB1) (PB2) Letter fi'om the Planning Board to Glen Spetta of May 29,1996 (Note: This letter was written in response to a May 17,1996 letter fi.om Mr. Spetta to the Planning Board, which discussed two issues raised by the Planning Board at the Public Hearing of April 29, 1996.) Letter fi.om the Planning Board to Charles Voorhis and Associates of May 21,1996. Letters fi.om Private Citizens (BR1) (KrMO (PET) Barbara Ripel, 295 Vista Place, Cutchogue (May 3, 1996). Richard and Palricia Spellman, 2600 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue (May 7, 1996). Kathy and Tom Mangramele, 3180 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue (May 8, 1996). Petition fi-om Local Citizens (May 9, 1996). Page 5 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS April 29. 1996 Plarmint Board Meetin~ (PB3) O (KTM2) (BR2) Planning Board Comments - Richard Ward, Chairman. Kip Bidell, 2420 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue. Tom Mangramele, 3180 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue. Barbara Ripel, 295 Vista Place, Cutchogue. April 8, 1996 Planning Board Meeting (BR3) (FS) (NFEC) (KTM3) (r~2) (RPS2) Barbara Ripel, 295 Vista Place, Cutchogue. Fran Slezak, Alvah Lane, Cutchogue. North Fork Environmental Council - Gerald Waltz representative. Tom Mangramele, 3180 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue. Kip Bidell, 2420 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue. Richard Spellman, 2600 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue. Page 6 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final ElS PROJECT DESCRIPTION Colllttteltt ]: "77~e Board cannot understand how this project can be done as three separate holdings...! don't believe we can really approve a project without kv~owing that it's under one ownership or one common ownership." (PB3-2, see also PB2-O "The Board cannot agree to issue a negative declaration in return for agreement to merge properties." (PBI-1). Response: The subject property consists of three single and separate tax parcels, and the Town has indicated that these parcels should be merged before the proposed project is approved. This issue has been raised by the Town as well as in other public comments. The su~ect property consists of the following parcels: Suffolk County Tax Parcel (SCTP) 1000-083-2-1: Owned by Pond Enterprises, which operates the existing motel and restaurant, which are located on the parcel. Mr. Nicholas Aliano is President of the corporation. Total Area: 2.1 acres. SCTP 1000-083-2-2: Owned by Patricia Krupski, Mr. Aliano's daughter. Existing pool and cabana are located on the property, and the remaining area is wooded. Most of the proposed units will be located on the parcel. Total Area: 12.3 acres. SCTP 100-083-2-17: Owned by Mr. Nicholas Aliano. The parcel is currently rented as farmland. One of the proposed buildings will be located on the parcel, as will the proposed wells and drainage area. According to the Draft EIS, it is unknown at this time whether the existing agricultural use will be discontinued. Total Area: 33.8 acres. In a May 17 letter, Mr. Spetta indicated that the applicant felt that a Negative Declaration on the proposed project was necessary b~fore he could proceed with consolidation of the three properties. The applicant has agreed that the merger of the three properties will be necessary; however, if the proposed project is not approved, the applicant wishes that the three parcels remain in separate ownership. In a more recent letter to the Board (September 7, 1996), the applicant stated that he is willing to agree to a merger of the properties in Covenants and Restrictions pending the approval of the proposed project. As long as the merger is required as a condition of final approval, the current separate status of the parcels should not present an obstacle to the conclusion of the SEQRA process, as long as the Environmental Impact Statement evaluates the impacts to the combined parcels. It is reasonable to allow the applicant to wait until the SEQRA process is complete before merging the parcels. The Board should require consolidation of the parcels before final approval is granted through use of Covenants and Restrictions on the proposed project. This will result in the parcels being treated as a single parcel for the purposes of SEQRA review without limiting the applicant if the proposed project is not approved. Page 7 Comntent 2: Response: Comment 3: Response: Beachcomber Motel (II) Final ElS 2~i~: SEQRA process will be concluded with a statement of Facts and Findings on the EIS rather than a Negative Declaration. The Findings will balance environmental, social and economic issues and will provide the basis for a decision on the project. The Findings may contain mitigation measures and conditions which must be implemented in order for the project to be approved. It would be appropriate to include the merger of the three subject parcels as a condition within the Findings. The "DEIS evaluates 3 separately owned parcels of land rather than one merged tract of lam~..how will this impact future development of these parcels? W'hat are the implications beyond this project if the separate parcels are later sold oJ~" (NFEC-I) Although the subject parcels are currently separate, the Draft EIS examines the impact of the proposed project on the overall property. As was discussed above, the merger of the three parcels can and should be required as a condition of f'mal approval of the project, however, it is not necessary at the current stage of the SEQRA process. Under existing conditions, the combined acreage of the three parcels is necessary to meet County Health Department requirements for sanitary flow for the proposed project, and no further development would be permitted on any of the three parcels whether or not they are merged. If public water or sewage treatment was provided, the southern portions of the site could be further developed as a residential subdivision provided that Planning Board and Health Department approval were obtained. Such a residential subdivision would require approval of all other appropriate agencies and would require complete review of water supply, sewage disposal and zoning requirements. The potential for further development will be discussed in more detail in the Land Use section of this document, however, it has been determined that the appropriate density of the site based on environmental constraints would allow construction only 42 additional units, rather that the 46 shown on the proposed site plan. Additional development would not be allowed unless public water and/or sanitary treatment were available on site. The FEIS should address "future use of the residential parcel to the south. [The] DEIS indicated that this area will be left fallow to provide the project with an adequate water supply." (PB2-4) The Draft EIS is unclear about the applicants' future plans for the southern portion of the site, which is zoned as an Agricultural Conservation District (AC). Although the document suggests that the land remain fallow to minimize impacts to groundwater, the applicant does not commit to this elsewhere in the document. The northern portion of the site is zoned Resort Residential (RR). The proposed expansion will be located on the RR zoned portion of the property with the exception of two wells, which will be located in the northernmost portion of the AC land. As was discussed Page 8 Comment 4: Response: Beachcomber Molel (I1) Final ElS in the Draft ElS, the impact of the proposed project on g:-oundwater will be significantly reduced if the parcel remains fallow. The Town may wish to covenant that the land either remain fallow or be used for specific types of agricultural crops which require limited application of fertilizers. Such a restriction would minimize the ~oundwater impacts which would result from the proposed project in combination with unrestricted agricultural use. This could be accomplished through a covenant requiring the applicant to utilize a Soil Conservation Management Plan for any agricultural use of the property in the future. The covenant should stipulate that the plan be developed in consultation US Department of Agriculture's the Soil Conservation Service, which regularly prepares agricultural management plans to minimize soil loss as well as to limit the use of nitrogen and pesticides. Mr. Al O'Connell of the Soil Conservation Service was contacted during preparation of this document, and indicated that his office would be able to formulate a site specific plan to limit use of nitrogen on the agricultural portion of the subject property. "The record of the original zone change, copy attached, clearly shows it was Mr. Aliano's and the Town Board's intention to relocate the motel away from the beach due to the severe beach erosion taking place." (PB1-3) Mr. Aliano applied for a change of zoning on a portion of the subject property in the spring of 1978. At that time, it appeared that the existing building was in imminent danger due to erosion of the beach face, and erosion had been particularly severe in the winter of 1977-78. Since that time, erosion has been less severe and the buildings are still in operable condition, although repairs to the foundation were necessary following a severe storm in December of 1992. The storm undermined the seaward foundation of the motel, and the owner made an application for emergency repairs which were completed in May of 1993. The applican~ applied for and received an emergency permit for a new seawall from the NYSDEC at that time. It was suggested at that time by the Southold Town Trustees that the applicant consider a "selective retreat" in order to properly fortify the shoreline. They indicated that a storm of similar magnitude has the potential to create the loss of nine or more units along with the restaurant fi'onting the Long Island Sound. The applicant intends to operate the existing units as long as they are safe, and feels that a requirement to remove or relocate the units at this time would present an economic hardship. The applicant has indicated that he will not operate unsafe units, and is willing to move the units once they can no longer generate income; however, he does not feel that this can be accomplished without additional rental income fi'om the new units. Although Mr. Aliano did state the need to move the units as one reason for the original change of zone, the record from the April 11, 1978 hearing indicates that he wished to expand whether or not the move was necessary (Attachment B). The Page 9 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final ElS applicant believed at the time that the proposed construction would be a replacement of the threatened units, but did not rule out an expansion. The Planning Board's stated rationale for approving the change of zone was the ongoing erosion, however, they were fully aware of the applicant's overall plan to expand the motel (see Attachment B). In a letter of February 1978, the applicant wrote the following to the Town Planning Board to be forwarded to the Suffolk County Department of Planning. "We have outgrown our present facilities. We turn away hundreds of people every summer - We are highly rated by Mobil Travel Guide, we accommodate people who are sent to us by the Greenport Chamber of Commerce - also Local peoples Friends and Relatives, Church Groups and retirement Groups in addition to our regular following of family vacationers...This need for expansion is compounded by the erosion of our beach front. Motel units are thereby in eminent danger of being wiped out... We are a summer resort open May 1st to Oct. Jst and immediate plans are to Landscape, seed and build a golf course in the center of the planned new construction which units would compliment tennis courts, playgrounds etc." In a February 23, 1978 letter to the County Planning Department, Muriel Brush, Planning Board Secretary, wrote: "The recommendations of the Planning Board {to approve the change of zone] have been submitted previously. There were no conditions established. Anything permitted in the Code of the Town of Southold for that zoning section is recommended to be allowed by the Board." On March 13 of 1978 the Town Planning Board recommended an approval of the petition of Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski, Case #238 for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural Dish-ict to "M-I'; General Multiple Residence District, "in view of the fact that it is apparent that the petitioner must move the motel and facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion. The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance with the development plan of the Town of Southold for this location." The only condition of the approval was that no buildings be constructed within 200 feet of the western boundary line of the property. Thus, although the Board did state the potential loss of units in support of the change of zone, relocation of the existing motel was never required as a condition of approval of the change of zone. Relocation cannot be required retroactively, and there was no previous commitment from the applicant to move the un/ts. Furthermore, the original change of zone did not place any limit on the total number of units, and additional units are allowed under current zoning regulations. The Town can require relocation of any units which become unsafe due to erosion of the beachfront, and potential locations for these units are discussed in the response to Page 10 Comment Response: Comment 6: Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS Commem 6. In his written response to comments on the Draft EIS, the Applicant has stated that he is willing to a~ee to relocation of unsafe units in the Covenants and Restrictions with regard to the proposed project. Once the units are removed, they could be replaced by new units, as long as the total number of units does not exceed the maximum recommended density. "[We] would like to cite Chapter 37 of Town Law, which gives the Southold [Town Board] the responsibiliO, to 'regulate. in coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and erosion, land use and development activities so as to minimize and prevent damage and destruction to property'. In 1978 the Planning Board supported a change of zone on Parcel 2 so that Mr. Aliano could 'move the motel and facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion'... As recently as 4/23/92, the trustees have also advised that the existing motel should be moved at least 50feet back. As per Chapter 37 of Town Law, shouldn't Southold see to it that this move of the existing motel be included in the Beachcomber project and thus accounted for in the DEIS?" (NFEC-5, see also PB3-1, BR1-6, BRI-IO, PET-6, RPS1-4, RPS2-2) The bluffs along Long Island's North Shore are subject to ongoing erosion, and location of new structures in areas which are subject to flooding and erosion may accelerate this process. Because of this ongoing sediment loss, greater setbacks would probably be required for construction of a new motel under current regulations, however, the motel is an ongoing, preexisting use. Although the Town does have the responsibility to regulate land use in coastal areas, this is carried out through restrictions on new development rather than through regulation of preexisting development. Relocation of the existing units was not made a condition of the original change of zone by the Board. Thus, although it would be preferable to move the entire motel landward and restore the beachfi'ont, as seems to be implied in Comment 5, this cannot be made a condition of the current application. The cost of moving the entire existing motel is likely to be prohibitive, and the Town has no legislative basis to require relocation. A selected removal of unsafe units could be required, and the applicant should be required through a covenant to remove and relocate out of the hazard area any units which become unsafe. The applicant can be required to consider the potential location of any relocated units at this time so that an optimal design for the future motel can be considered, and SEQRA law requires that all phases of a multiphased project be evaluated. This issue is further discussed in the response to Comment 6 below. The FEIS should address "delineation of an area reserved for the future placement or relocation of the existing motel back from the shoreline. This move was indicated as the reason for the original zone change. The current location is in the flood plain and subject to severe beach erosion." (PB2-2, See also PB3-1, PB1-2) Page 11 Response: Beachcomber Motel (II) Final ElS The applicant has submitted an alternative site plan which presents a conceptual layout for relocation of six units which are seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area boundary (Figure 1). The Hazard Area is determined by the Town in compliance with NYS Environmental Conservation Law Article 34, and represents the area in which erosion is likely to occur over a 45 year period based on shoreline recession analysis and other relevant studies. The applicant believes that six units may potentially become unsafe due to erosion of the beachfront and are likely to require relocation. The alternative plan shows these reconstructed un/ts abutting the eastern wall of the existing motel building. In addition, the existing restaurant is moved approximately 45 feet to the south. The relocated units would have a 6 fool setback from the Hazard Area boundary, and the restaurant would have a 20 foot setback. This altemative would remove the units from the Hazard Area with minimal impacts to the remainder of the site; however, ongoing erosion of the shoreline may endanger the units and restaurant in the future. Town Code requires a 100 foot setback to the edge of a bluff for new construction. Although the existing Beachcomber Motel is located within a flat area between bluff areas to the east and west, and the beachfi-ont would not be considered a bluff, there are slopes over 15 percent along much of the shoreline in front of the motel. As the beachfront is expected to continue to recede (Figure 2),, the Town may wish require that the applicant consider a greater setback for the six reconstructed units than is presented on the alternative plan. A method to achieve this would be to locate a portion of the six units within the footprint of the new buildings as shown on the original site plan. The proposed site plan shows 46 units. As will be discussed, the appropriate density of the site would recommend construction of only an additional 42 units. Thus, four of the units shown on the current site plan should be eliminated, and these units could be used as new locations for the endangered units. The remaining two r~located units could be added to the southernmost proposed building with minimal changes to the current site plan. This alternative would be preferable to the alternative layout suggested by the applicant, and would allow the units to be setback from the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Impact to the remainder of the site would be similar to those of the originally proposed plan, and the units would not be endangered by ongoing erosion. Construction of these additional six units should not be allowed by the Town until the existing units are removed and the restaurant is relocated. In addition, the location of the units to the south of the existing motel should be covenanted as a condition of the proposed project and clearly shown on the final site plan. Page 12 FIGURE 1 Site Plan Showing Relocated Units Beachcomber Motel (I1) Final ElS Scale: Source: Not to Scale Site Plan prepared by Barret, Bonacci, Hyman and Van Weele, 7/29/93 Page 13 FIGURE 2 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final ElS Steep Slope Areas on the Subject Site Coastal Zone Hazard Area Boundary Legend: D Areas of Steep Slopes Scale: Not to Scale Base Map: Site Plan prepared by Barmt, Bonacci, Hyman and Van Weele, 7/29/93 Page 14 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final ElS Comment 7: Response: The restaurant location shown on the plan is not ideal; however, potential locations for this building are more constrained than for the six motel units. One of the attractions of the establishment is the waterfront location, and moving the building to the interior of the site would eliminate these views and require relocation of other facilities. The waterfront location seems appropriate as the restaurant is an existing use and is enhanced by its location. The restaurant shown on the alternative plan is 20 feet from the hazard area boundary, which should provide adequate protection in the near future. Other siting of the restaurant is constrained as noted above, and the 45 foot relocation represents a significant improvement. In view of economic considerations, siting constraints and the lack of significant erosion over the nearly 20-year period since the original application, there is no compelling reason to further ~relocate the restaurant beyond the recommended site 20 feet south of the coastal erosion hazard area boundary. The applicant has agreed to a covenant requiring relocation of the endangered units once the new units are providing sufficient income. Relocation of these six units as well as the restaurant could be included as a condition of the current project. The covenant should be clearly worded, setting a time limit for the relocation of the units and specifying where the units will be located. It is suggested that these units be demohshed within one year of completion of the new units. Construction of replacement units could then follow as desired by the applicant. As was discussed above, removal of four of the units would be required before construction if all 46 new units are to be built. The covenants and restrictions should clearly delineate locations for relocation of any units which become unsafe. "The Draft EIS mitigates a number of SEQRA issues (traffic, burden on community services, etc.) by highlighting the 'seasonal' nature of the Beachcomber complex. What safeguards are there ensuring that Beachcomber ~ill remain seasonal? [What is] the Town's definition of'seasonal'?" (NFEC-4) The applicant has indicated that he intends to continue to operate the motel as a seasonal business (May 1st to October lst); however, year round operation would be permitted under Town Code. The Town's zoning code does not define "seasonal", and does not provide any restrictions on seasonal operations. The Draft EIS indicates that impacts such as increased traffic and contribution of nitrogen to groundwater will be seasonal, which will help to mitigate the projected impacts. Tour/sm on Long Island is highly seasonal, and thus it is likely that the motel will continue as a seasonal use, but the projected impacts of the proposed project should be evaluated as potentially occurring year round. The Planning Board will consider the potential impacts of year round use in making a determination on the proposed project, as has been done in analysis contained in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS concludes that the impacts of year-round use of the expanded motel will not be significant, although the document states that seasonal use will offer further mitigation. Page 15 Response: Comment 9: Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS "We canno; tmdcrsta~d w/z~ [thc a??l/cantJ would want to expand the motel when it does veo; little business during the summer." (KTM1-2, see also KTM2-1, PET-5, RPS2-], RPS3-]) The scoping letter for the Draft EIS did not require the applicant to perform a market analysis for the proposed project; however, the applicant feels there is a demonstrated need for additional motel units within the Town. According to the applicant, the motel has recently picked up in business and the owner would like to further improve the customer base of the business. The applicant indicates that the motel has been selectively utilized during peak holidays, including Memorial Day, July 4th and Labor Day. The applicant has the right to expand the motel under current zoning and believes that the proposed expansion will make the existing facility more attractive to tourists. The completion of up-to-date units in a pleasant beach-fi'ont area with a seasonal tourist base seems to be conducive to a successful business. Recreational opportunities, a convenient restaurant and enhanced on-site amenities all add to the potential success of the business. SEQRA law requires that the Planning Board as lead agency weigh the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project against the public need and potential benefits of the project. If the Board finds that the proposed motel expansion will result in significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated and feels that public need for the project has not been justified, they should deny the project based on SEQRA law. "We are also concerned that in the future, the motel property may be sold and converted into condominiums, time shares, or possibly a rehabilitation center. (We are aware the zoning would have to be changed.)" (PET-4, see also RPS1-2). As was discussed above, the applicant believes that ther~ is an increasing demand for motel accommodations in the area. If the motel were to fail, any uses allowed within the Resort Residential (RR) zoning category could be constructed or retrofitted without a change of zoning, although site plan review for the change of use could be required. An application for a change of zoning would have to be made to the Town Board for any uses which do not conform to existing zoning, and the application would be subject to the SEQRA process. An application for a change of zone could be made whether or not the proposed expansion is approved, and would be determined based on the merits of the application. Uses which are permitted within the RR zoning district include motels and all uses allowed within the Agricultural Conservation District zoning designation. These uses are enumerated in Attachment C. Facilities for treatment of drag addiction are specifically excluded within the AC zone, and therefore would not be permitted on site, although other health care and religious institutions would be allowed. Multifamily development, including condominiums, are not permitted within the zone as indicated in the Zoning Code included in Attachment C. Page 16 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final ElS Commellt ]0: We request that at the time the plans are considered by' the Board "protection be built into those plans against a possible change from a Motel [use] to a Time share or Condominium use." (RPSI-5). Response: Although it would be possible to include this stipulation as a covenant on the subject property, this protection already appears to be in effect under the Town zoning code. The code defines a resort motel as a facility available to "transients on a daily rental basis or to vacationers or other persons on a weekly rental basis." Thus, a condominium or time share, where units are owned by individual guests, does not conform to the definition of a motel. As other multifamily units are not permitted within the zone, a condominium use would not appear to be permitted. This could be stated explicitly in the Covenants and Restriction associated with the proposed project. Comment ll:"Given that the existing motel is under utilized, what is the justification for the proposed expansion? Mr. Aliano has stated (at the 4/29~96public hearing) that his reasons for expanding the motel are no one else's business, however, we strongly disagree. "We believe that it is our business as adjacent property owners, if his intentions are other than he espouses to." (RPS1-2, see also RPS2-3) Response: The Applicant has stated that the Beachcomber Motel has been successful in the past, and that he would like to cont'mue with this success, realizing the full development potential of the property and eventually passing this on to his family. The location is conducive to a water enhanced motel and restaurant, and the proposed expansion is allowed under zoning. If the applicant has plans other than those he has stated, such plans would be regulated under zoning code, as was discussed above. The Planning Board must evaluate the project based on the current application. Also refer to response to Comment 8. WATER RESOURCES Comment 12 "The fragile water supply will be affected... [there has been] a new discovery of water pollution leading north from Oregon Road affecting the Sound front properties. Who will pay to protect local residents from pollution caused by an increased number of visitors from other areas?" (BR1-5) Response: The proposed expansion has been designed to meet Suffolk County Department of Health Standards for protecting groundwater. Water usage is regulated based on year- round usage, and the proposed motel will not exceed these limits in the event that the facility were to be utilized year round. Page 17 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS Comment 13: Response: The Draft EIS fully discusses the projected impact of the proposed project upon water supply quality in the area. The projected level of nitrogen in groundwater is 5.6 mg/1 while the motel is in operation, assuming the cultivation of the southern parcel is discontinued. This is less than the 10.0 mg/1 NYS drinking water standard, and should not result in significant impacts even if the motel were to be operated on a year round basis as considered in the analysis. If the applicant wishes to return the southern portion of the property to cultivation, a management plan can be required to reduce fertilizer use as was discussed previously. Groundwater flow in the area of the site is toward Long Island Sound. Thus, sanitary waste recharged at the site will move away from, not toward, neighboring wells. Groundwater contamination has occurred along Oregon Road to the north of the Town of Southold landfill, and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services has begun testing and restriction of water use downgradient from the landfill. The site and surrounding residences are outside of the area of potential contamination as defined by the Town, although testing of wells in the area, including the applicant's, may be advisable. Based on currently available information, the proposed project is not expected to be affected by this pollution source, nor is it expected to contribute to it. "..One of our major concerns is the possible negative impact on the limited water supply. It appears that the intended wells will draw from the same aquifer as the adjacent properties. We would like to know how the logistical location of the wells is determined? Is [the location] bused upon expected usage? If so, what happens if the usage were to change to... a Time Share or Condominium [useJ in the future? How are property owners in the area protected?" (RPS1-0 The location of the wells was determined in conformance to both Suffolk County Department of Health requirements and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation water supply and well permit regulations, which are designed to protect wells on adjacent properties. The Dratt EIS discusses water quantity issues in detail, including the potential for drawdown at the property, and no significant impact is expected. Groundwater quality is also discussed fully in the Draft EIS. Health Department standards are based on daily use throughout the year, and thus no significant impact to adjacent wells would be expected if the property were to change to year round occupation. Suffolk County Health Department regulatox'y standards limit the water usage on a site on a per acre basis regardless of the use. Any future uses would have to conform the same standards for overall water use and sanitary flow. The location of wells is evaluated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in addition to the SCDHS, and considers both water quality and potential drawdown and saltwater intrusion to adjacent properties. Once the SEQRA process is complete each agency is in a position to complete review of the water supply design for conformance Page 18 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS with work permi{ requirements. SuC~ltt County Department of Health Services and New York State Department of Enviromnental Conservation review must ensure that adequate potable water supply can be supplied to the site. Design review may include additional water quality testing, pump tests, drawdown projections and complete design and permitting of the water supply system. Water supply and wastewater disposal systems must be sized properly for the density of proposed development. The Town can assist by requiring and reviewing floor plans to ensure that unit size is consistent with the bedroom count and therefore the design flow used for impact analysis in the Drafi EIS. The zoning and additional covenants and restrictions to motel use will assist in this regard. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY Comment 14: "The Planning Board or previous approval bureau did great damage to the area by allowing the natural habitat of the birds to be damaged. They should now amend this error by protecting both the natural environment and local population by refusing to allow the expansion of the motel." (BR1-9) Response: The existing motel is a pre-existing use which was constructed in the late 1960's. The pond on site was filled in the 1950's, before wetlands were regulated in the State, and a permit was not required. Although current land use regulations would not allow a similar motel to be constructed today, the Planning Board must assess the impacts of the current project. The fact that the site is already developed and was partially cleared prior to implementation of restrictive zoning does decrease the sensitivity of the site to the proposed expansion. The Planning Board is responsible for determining if the projected impacts are significant, and, if so, that any impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent possible. The Planning Board cannot deny a project based on past impacts. Approval must be granted if a project complies with local zoning and is not shown to have significant environmental impacts. The purpose of the Drafi and Final EIS is to assess potential impacts of the proposed project and to provide mitigation of potential impacts. The Drafi and Final EIS fulfill this requirement. Comment 15: The area was known as Duck Pond Point and was home to many birds. "Someone... stupidly filled in the Duck Pond and put the motel there and now we're faced with increased [destruction] of the environment". (BR2-1) Response: The history of the pond on site is discussed in detail in the archaeological report attached to the Drafi EIS. The pond appears to have been undergoing natural succession through the early 1900's, and was nearly dry due to filling by blown sand and growth of woody species by the 1950%. It is unlikely that waterfowl utilized the pond at that time, although they may have been present during the 1800%. Page 19 Beachcomber Motel (Il) Final EIS The pond was filled by a previous owner in the late 1950's, and now is the site of a small drainage area. It was not filled by the current owner or in conjunction with the motel construction as suggested in the comment. The drainage area now has minimal value as a wetland, and is vegetated by non-native species. The proposed expansion will continue to utilize this area for drainage. Regarding will be necessary enlarge the drainage area to receive additional run-off from the new roofs and pavement. As was discussed in the Draft EIS, this will require removal of large area of common reed, which is an invasive species that will mcolonize readily. Thus the project does not represent a significant loss of vegetation. In fact, the proposed project provides an opportunity to improve the quality of the drainage area for local vegetation and wildlife. The Town may wish to require that the applicant revegetate this area with native wetland species such as rushes, sedges, bayberry and sweet pepperbush. This would result in an net improvement to this habitat at minimal cost to the applicant, as the area will already be regraded. This should be required as part of a site landscape plan as part of an amended site plan required to conform to EIS findings. As is discussed in the Draft EIS, it is not expected that the natural environment will be "destroyed" by the addition of motel units to the existing Beachcomber motel. Relatively little clearing is proposed, as the proposed buildings will be located in an area which is already cleared and partially developed Through this plan the steep slopes will be protected. The large agricultural property will also remain undeveloped through the zoning restrictions and use of covenants are restrictions to protect groundwater resources. Agricultural use may occur in consideration of a soil conservation management plan which minimizes use of nitrogen fertilizer. TRAFFIC Comment 16: [The FEIS should address] the "adequacy of existing roads to handle anticipated traffic." (PB2-3, see also KB1-D. Response: The traffic conditions expected as a result of the proposed action were analyzed in the DEIS and were reassessed for this Final EIS. Table 1 presents a more detailed calculation of the projected trip generation which is likely to result from the project as proposed, which was derived using "Trip Generation, 5th Edition, with February 1995 Update" which is published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Page 20 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS TABLE 1 Projected Trip Generation Time Period Existing Units Additional Units 36 46 Avg Wkdy 2-Way Vol 330 429 7-9 am Total Vol 21 27 4-6 pm Total Vol 22 27 Sat 2-Way Vol 301 387 Sat Pk Hr Vol 45 52 Sun 2-Way Vol 251 321 Sun Pk Hr Vol 27 33 As the motel facility is presently a seasonal business, operating fi.om Memorial Day to mid-October, and is consistent with the tourism industry intrinsic to the area, inspection of the above trip generation numbers suggest that there is not likely to be a significant adverse impact as a result of the proposed addition. The new trips will occur throughout the day, with minimal impact during peak hours. Although impacts are expected to be minimal, mitigation measures are recommended to facilitate traffic flow and to improve safety conditions. The Draft EIS suggested mitigation at the intersection of Duck Pond Road and Vista Place and Birch Lane. Duck Pond Lane makes a sharp right turn at this intersection, continuing down grade to the motel. A stop sign should be installed (with the consent of the Highway Superintendent) to control northbound traffic at the intersection of Duck Pond Road, Vista Place and Birch Lane as a condition of site plan approval. Trimming of the brushy vegetation at the southeast comer of the intersection and pruning of the large evergreen on the northeast comer of Duck Pond Road and Oregon Road should also be required within the Town right-of-way. If trimming beyond the Town right-of- way, would add sight distance and increase the level of safety, the applicant shall seek to obtain the permission of the adjacent property owner in order to perform such mitigation. The existing basic road configuration should remain in order to maintain the existing rural character of the roads; however, striping, pedestrian walks, resurfacing, etc. may be necessary to promote driver awareness and pedestrian safety. The applicant and Town shall consider this and propose a balance of mitigation measures for this intersection in the submission of a revised site plan. In summary, the proposed addition of 46 units to the Beachcomber Motel is not likely to have a significant impact to the surrounding community with the minor remediation measures recommended above. As has been discussed previously, the total number of additional units which are recommended on site is 42, which will Page 21 Comment ! 7: Response: Comment 18: Response: Comment 19: Response: Comment 20: Response: Beachcomber Motel (II) Final ElS result in a slight decrease in the projected number of ~rips generated by the proposed pro] ect. "Motel visitors speed through the narrow road and dangerous corner leading down to the motel. Pets have been killed and children have barely avoided being run down. An increased motel population could only explode these problems into tragedies." (BR1-3, see also BR2-2, KB1-2, PET-2). The proposed stop sign should help mitigate the problem of cars traveling at high speeds along the road, however, it is unlikely that the motel is the primary cause, as Duck Pond Road is also utilized by traffic to the beach at the road end. The proposed project is unlikely to generate significant traffic problems, as was discussed above. Use of pavement markers and other calming measures will further reduce potential impacts. "We use the beach by the motel quite frequently, and use the road leading to the Beachcomber to walk our 2 small children to the beach. That would no longer be possible Jif the motel is expanded] (KTMi-1, PET-3)" It is expected that local residents will continue to be able to be able to use the road leading to the Beachcomber motel to walk to the beach as this is a public road. With the added traffic improvements mentioned there should be no significant impact to the existing traffic in the area. Traffic will be slowed by the northbound proposed stop signs and other traffic calming measures, and sight distances at the comer of Duck Pond Road and Vista Lane will be improved. Are "there any other kind of alterations [in addition to the proposed stop signs], that are going to be made to the roads? There are no shoulders on the roads going down [to the beach/motel entrance].., and ifa car comes, thera is very little room." (KTM3- s) There are no plans at present to widen Duck Pond Road. Analysis in the Draft and Final EIS suggests that the proposed project does not warrant extensive road improvement except for mitigation at the intersection. If Duck Pond Road is widened, the existing topography would present constraints. There is no compelling reason to explore further mitigation at this time. "Local people can't get down [to the Town property at the end of Duck Pond Road] because [non-resident] cars are parked along the road, not in the motel... There's not even a sign there that says 'Town of Southold" sticker. Is that because the motel is there?" (FS-2). Extensive parking and illegal use of Town beaches and road ends by non-residents is a problem throughout the Town. It is unlikely that these problems are due to the presence of the motel, as guests park on the motel property, which has an adequate Page 22 Comment 21: Response: Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS parking area. The area should be posted for Town residents only, although the absence of a sign is not due to the motel. The colmuent should be directed to the Town of Southold Town Board and Highway Department. As the applicant owns proper~' to Oregon Road, if the project is to be considered by the Board, there shouM be a private road to the motel from Oregon Road. This wouM eliminate traffic problems on Duck Pond Road, which is a dead end street. (KB2~I) The Draft EIS concludes that traffic impacts will be minimal. Although any minimal traffic impacts would be reduced by this altemative, an access road fi.om Oregon Road would cause greater natural impacts. A large area of native vegetation would have to be cleared, as the road would cross an area of steep slopes. This would alter the existing drainage swale, creating potential erosion problems. The road would also create a significant impervious area which would generate stormwater and require recharge. Such an access would be more feasible if the southern parcel were developed, which would require that the site be provided with public water as will be discussed below. As this is unlikely to occur in the near future, access fi.om Oregon Road does not appear to be a viable option at this time. LAND USE Comment 22: Response: "The existing 36 motel units are presently located on Parcel 1 consisting of 2.1 acres. The normal allowable density for this parcel, however, would be 14.5 units. If the three parcels are not merged, is the Beachcomber complex, in effect, getting an extra 20 units? In other words, should public water later become available andYor further down the road yet another expansion is planned for parcel 2 or parcel 3, would parcel one's 36 units be factored into the whole picture?" (NFEC-3, see also KTM3- 2) Although the three subject parcels are not legally merged at this time, the Draft EIS addresses development on the combined parcels. All three parcels are necessary in order for the applicant to obtain the desired yield at this time, and the applicant has agreed to merge the parcels as a condition of final approval of the project. The existing units have been included in the calculation of the yield of the combined parcels. A clarification of the current and future development potential of the project site does appear to be necessary. The maximum development allowed on a parcel of land is regulated by both Town zoning regulations and County Health Department Standards, and the most restrictive regulations apply on any particular property. According to the Draft EIS, the maximum yield of the combined parcels is limited by the County Health Department standards, which are generally more restrictive than zoning regulations in unsewered areas. On the subject site, however, zoning regulations are more restrictive than County Health Department standards, however, Page 23 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS there are environmentally sensitive lands on the property. The maximum yield should be based on the overall acreage of the site, in consideration of the area of sensitive environmental land. The RR zoned portion of the site contains both waterfront property and areas of steep slopes, which would reduce the reasonable yield on the parcel. The following is a more appropriate determination of the development potential of the property. Zoning regulations limit development within RR zoned districts to one unit per 6,000 s.f. if the site is unsewered, and one unit per 4,000 s.f. if the site is sewered and has public water. Although the total area of RR zoned land on site is 16.5 acres, the areas with slopes over 15 percent and the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area cannot be considered buildable land under Town Code. Figure 2 shows these areas, which total 4.8 acres, and thus, the total unconstrained area of the site zoned for RR development is 11.7 acres. A buildable area of 11.7 acres would result in a yield of 85 hotel units if the site were vacant, however, the determination of reasonable density must also consider the existing development on site, including the three apartment units and restaurant. The apartments and existing units can be directly subtracted fi.om the overall yield, however, the restaurant is a preexisting, non-conforming use which is not discussed under the zoning code. The minimum lot size on which a restaurant would be allowed is 20,000 s.f. in a Hamlet Business district. Thus, it is reasonable to subtract 20,000 s.f. fi.om the buildable land to allow for the restaurant, which would result in a total of 11.3 acres ofbuildable land on site. Based on this figure, the reasonable density of the parcel would be 81 units. As there are currently 36 units and three apartments on site, the total number of additional units should be 42. There are 46 additional units proposed on the current site plan, and thus four (4) of the proposed units should be removed fi.om the site plan. The preceding discusses only the 16.5 acre RR zoned portion of the site. The remaining 31.7 acres of the site is zoned AC, which wquld allow subdivision of the property into 80,000 s.f. residential lots. This would permit approximately 12 new homes on the southern portion of the site, assuming 20 percent of the site is used for roads and a recharge basin. Although this yield would be permitted under the Zoning Code, County Health Department standards are more restrictive, as will be discussed in the following paragraph. County Health Department standards limit the total wastewater discharge on a site to 300 gallons per day (gpd) per acre in areas without public water and sewage treatment. As the site is 48.2 acres and has neither public water or sewers, the total flow permitted on the parcels at this time is 14,460 gallons per day (gpd). The combined acreage of all three parcels is necessary to obtain this total allowed flow. As calculated in the Draft EIS, the proposed project would result in a total flow of 14,425 gpd, which would not allow development of the remaining AC portion of the site, however, subtraction of four units as discussed above would reduce this flow by 150 gpd per unit, or 600 gpd. This would allow construction of two single family homes on the AC portion of the site. Thus, under existing conditions, the reasonable Page 24 Comment 23: Beachcomber Motel (Il) Final EIS yield on the overall properly would be 42 additional motel units and two new single family homes. The development potential of the overall properly would increase if public water and/or sewage treatment were available on site. County Health Department standards increase the maximum sanitary flow allowed on a property to 600 gpd per acre in an area with public water. Sanitary flow is not limited if both sewage treatment and public water are provided. Zoning regulations require that both public water and sewage treatment be provided before the yield is increased within the RR zoning district to allow one unit per 4,000 s.f. of buildable land rather than one unit per 6,000 s.f.. Within the AC zoning district, the development potential is the same whether or not sewage treatment or public water are provided. Thus, if only public water were provided on site, the yield on the RR portion of the site would not change, with a reasonable yield of 42 additional units. The yield of the AC portion of the site would change, as the combined acreage of the three parcels would no longer be necessary to meet County Health Department standards. Thus, in the event that public water is provided at the site, the appropriate density on site would be 42 additional units and 12 single family homes. If both public water and sewage treatment were provided, the yield on the RR zoned portion of the property would increase to one unit per 4,000 s.f, which would allow a total of 83 additional units. Thus, the maximum development potential on the subject property under any conditions is 83 additional motel units and 12 single family homes. This would require that the applicant construct a sewage treatment plant, as it is unlikely that public sewers would be extended to the area. Such a plan would require site plan approval. In addition, location of additional units in an appropriate and environmentally sensitive manner would be of concern and would warrant additional detailed environmental review. A supplemental EIS would most likely be necessary to address these issues. In summary, the appropriate density under existing conditions is 42 additional motel units and two single family homes, and thus four units must be removed from the site plan. If public water were available on site, 12 single family homes would be allowed, but there would be no increase in the number of motel units. If both public water and sewage treatment were provided, the maximum yield allowed under zoning would be 83 new motel units and 12 single family homes, although location of the units in an environmentally sound manner would be of concern. In the event that the proposed project is approved, the Board should incorporate this derivation of yield within the Findings establishing the basis for approval and providing a means to limit further development of the site. "Parcel #3 includes almost 30 acres presently zoned Agricultural Conservation. ~Vithout Covenants and Restrictions, does leaving this land dormant increase the likelihood of it being re-zoned for development at some future date?" (NFEC-2) Page 25 Response: Comment 24: Response: Comment 25: Response: Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS The AC zoned portion of the project site is currently farmed. It has been suggested that the Town require that the land lie fallow in order to reduce the groundwater impacts of the proposed project. The resulting loss in rental income to the project sponsor might provide some added incentive to develop the remainder of the site; however, development would provide a significant economic advantage even if the property is farmed. Although the applicant does not have plans to rezone the parcel, a request for a change of zone could be made in the future. Any change of zone application would require approval from the Town, and would a decision would be made based on the merits of the proposal and detailed environmental review. The existing AC zoning designation does not preclude development as is suggested in this comment, and rezoning would not be necessary before the site is developed. In fact, it is more likely that the AC land will be developed if the project is not approved, as the proposed project will limit the development potential of the AC lands to two single family homes unless public water is provided at the site, as was discussed above. "This is a residential setting and therefore no place for an expanded motel. "(PET-I) It is acknowledged that the location of the motel and restaurant within a residential area does present land use conflicts. Although this spot zoning would be unlikely to be approved under existing land use regulations, the facility has been located in the area since 1970 and constitutes a preexisting use. As the proposed project conforms to the zoning code, the Board has no basis to deny the application. "It is clear that the life styles and needs of the majority of the local residents would be adversely affected by the expansion of the motel. We have no confidence that our own investments in our homes wouM not be adversely affected by the expansion of the motel. "(BR1-7, see also BR3-1) , It is not expected that property values will decrease as a result of the proposed expansion, as the motel was present when most residents moved into the neighborhood. Although local residents will be aware of an increase in traffic and in the number of people using the shore during peak occupancy, the impact of the proposed project will be minimal throughout much of the year. The lifestyle of local residents is not expected to be significantly altered. Seasonal increase in human activity akeady occurs in the area, due to both the motel and the public beach at the end of Duck Pond Road. Although there are a few homes which currently have views of the motel in the winter, perspectives from most of the adjacent properties are screened as is discussed in the Draft EIS. The proposed construction will require minimal clearing, and will not remove the vegetation which currently screens views of the site. The applicant has indicated that the proposed motel will be designed to be an attractive, high quality business oriented toward families. The addition of traits to the site is not expected to Page 26 Comntent 26: Response: Comment 2 7: Response: Comment 28: Response: Comment 29: Response: Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS significantly change tile character o£ tile existing neighborhood, and use of landscape improvements, architectural control and site plan design can be exemised by the Town to minimize impacts. These measures can be ensured during the site plan review through the required resubmission of a site plan consistent with the statement of findings and facts on the Final EIS. "If such an expansion would be approved, we would seriously consider selling our home. [Ye bought in this area for privacy, quiet, serenity, and not to look at an expanded motel." (KTM1-3) As was discussed above, it is not expected that the proposed expansion will significantly alter the character of the neighborhood. The property has been used as a resort for tourists since at least 1970. The motel is a preexisting use and residents were aware of it when they made the decision to move into the area. Landscaping can be utilized where necessary and can be required as part of the revised site plan. "I think this is very damaging to our environment and where we live. It is a family community, and to open it up to 46 more units of a motel brings a lot of danger to all of us." (BR2-5) The comment does not support the contention that the proposed motel expansion will be dangerous to the community. No significant health or safety impact to local residents was identified during preparation of the Draft EIS. The Draf~ and Final EIS also suggest that the environmental impacts will be minimal. "The rezoning [of the property] might lead to other types of development in the area which would totally destroy its rural residential character." (BR1-8) The proposed project is not a request for a change of zone as suggested in the comment. The motel expansion is an allowed special exception use in an area zoned for this type of development, and the application is for the necessaxy site plan approval. Thus, the project is not expected to result in rezoning for non-residential uses on surrounding lands, which are currently zoned for residential development or agricultural conservation. The rural nature of the area will be protected by the existing surrounding zoning. Furthermore, any future request for zoning changes would require approval from the Town Board and other involved agencies, and would be subject to the SEQRA process and public comment. think it is a waste of everyone's effort to even consider the proposal" (BR3-3) The Planning Board does not have the option to refuse to entertain a proposal which is a reasonable request in accordance with existing zordng. Page 27 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS COMMUNITY SERVICES Comment 30: "A larger motel will strain local resources. Fire protection would have to be increased.., and more Police protection would have to be provided. Both these additions would mean local residents will have to pay more taxes which would benefit nonresidents." (BR1-4, see also BR2-3) The Draft EIS shows that there will be no strain on local police and fire departments. The Southold Police Department was contacted, and responded with a letter stating that they would be able to provide Police protection to accommodate the expansion (Appendix D-56 of the Draft EIS). The Cutchogue Fire Depathnent expressed some concerns concerning their capability to respond to fires (Appendix D-57 of the Draf~ EIS). The site plan was modified in response to these concems, and the applicant will install a 400 gpm fire well on the property. Even if there were an increase in demand for these community services, the comment is incorrect in the conclusion that taxes would be increased for local residents. As with almost all commercial development, the proposed project will result in an increase in local tax revenues. Commercial and industrial development are the major source of tax revenue for most municipalities, while residential development represents a net loss in tax revenues. This is because of the higher valuation of commercial and industrial properties as well as the generation of school children by residential development. Thus, the proposed project will increase tax revenues, allowing a decrease in the proportion of taxes paid by local residents. The Draft EIS did not calculate the tax revenue which will be generated by the proposed project. The applicant currently pays over $47,000 each year, of which approximately $27,000 goes to the local school district. ,The cost of the new building was estimated in the Draft EIS to be approximately $2,000,000, which will significantly increase both the assessed value of the property and the taxes generated on site. Comment 31: At present, the motel is not well utilized.., although even on that level, customers intrude on the privacy and safety of the residential communities of Birch Hills and Vista Bluff. Motel visitors roam the neighborhood, leaving litter, pet waste, and wander through private property (BR1-2, see also BR2-4, BR3-2). Response: While it is possible that at least some motel guests violate the property rights of local residents, the end of Duck Pond Road allows access to the general public. Day trippers and Town residents both use the road for access to the beach and Long Island Sound, and are probably partially responsible for the problems presented in this comment. Page 28 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final ElS Trespassers should be informed that they are on private property, and can be reported to the police by local residents. Littering should also be reported to the police. The Town could require that the applicant clearly mark the boundaries of the motel property and inform guests of the rights of local property owners, which might help to reduce any trespassing by motel guests. The applicant has stated that to his knowledge the motel guests are not inconsiderate. He has not been informed of any instance of guests leaving garbage or allowing their children or pets roam in the neighborhood. He asks that such instances be reported to himself or to the Police. If a motel guest is responsible, the applicant has indicated that he will be happy to remind them of their obligations to be considerate of the neighbors and to keep the Town of Southold clean. Comment 32: This is a lengthy comment discussing various concerns relating to public use of the beach at the end of Duck Pond Road and surrounding area. These concerns include beach erosion due to illegal launching of jet skis, illegal hunting on the motel property, extensive parking along the road and edge of the Beachcomber property by non-residents, littering and dumping of garbage and illegal use of motorcycles on the beach. The comment suggests that the motel attracts residents to the area, who then return, contributing to theseproblems. (FS-1). Response: Mr. Richard Ward, prior Chairman of the Town Planning Board, responded to this comment at the time it was made, stating that the Town had similar problems at other road ends throughout the Town during the wanner months. While it is possible that some motel guests contribute to these problems, the primary attraction is the public beach. Both residents and non-residents may be responsible for the illegal activities which occur in the area. The presence of the motel is likely to be a minor factor, as these activities also occur in areas without the presence of a motel. In particular, it is unlikely that motel guests park illegally along the road, as they can park at the motel. As was discussed above, these problems should be reported to the Town of Southold, and it is acknowledged that code enfomement could be improved to address these problems. The applicant has stated that he informs all motel guests to follow local regulations, and that he picks up garbage when it comes onto his property. To his knowledge none of the motel guests have launched jet skis at the beach. He does not allow hunting on the property and has posted signs warning that there is no hunting or trespassing allowed. CULTURAL Comment33: The existing motel "needs a paint job, the curtains are ripped, [andJ you can see it from the street". (KTM2-2, see also RPS2-4) Response: It is possible to view the motel from the end of Duck Pond Road, and the new units will be partially visible. The applicant argues that painting and maintenance is Page 29 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS typically perforated during thc winter and spring prior to opening. The Town may wish to require mitigation measures such as additional landscaping to improve the visual quality of the site, which would benefit fi'om aesthetic improvement as suggested in the comment. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS Comntent 34: The board needs to consider the benefits such an expansion would have on the community. The proposers would argue that a certain number of jobs and peripheral sales would result and that there would be low environmental impact. This argument is filled with weaknesses and deceptions (BR1-D. Response: It is tree that the Board must consider the potential benefits of the project as well as the potential negative impacts. The creation of jobs and peripheral sales are expected to be a real benefit of the proposed project, as with most commercial development. The Draft EIS discusses this issue in Section 9, Growth Inducing Aspects, and, while this section could be more clearly presented, it appears to be factual. The Draft EIS acknowledges some potential impacts, and the overall assessment of the significance of these impacts is the responsibility of the Board. Page 30 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS REFERENCES Spetta. Glen; 1996. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Beachcomber Motel II, Cutchogue, Suffolk County New York, Township of Southold. Glen Spetta Associates, Bohemia, N.Y. Page 31 ATTACHMENT A Written Comments and Oral Testimony on the Draft EIS GEORGE RITCHIE ~THAM, BENNETT ORLOWSKI, WILLIAM J. CREMERS t{ENNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PI~NNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD May 29, 1996 Glenn Spetta Associates 1050 Smithtown Avenue Bohemia, NY 11716 RE: Beachcomber II Motel Cutchogue, NY SCTM# 1000-83-2-1,2 & 17 Dear Mr. Spetta, The Planning Board has received your letter of May 17, 1996. The Board cannot agree to issue a negative declaration in return for your agreement to merge the properties. Further, the Board will require an area be designated on the plan for the future location of the existing motel as it is presently located in the flood plain, and as you indicate in your letter, there is potential for future loss due to beach erosion. The record of the original zone change , copy attached, clearly shows it was Mr. Aliano's and the Town Boards intention to relocate the motel away from the beach due to the severe beach erosion taking place. The above comments should he addressed along with other issues brought up at the public hearing as part of your response for the FEIS. If you l~ave any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. / Chairman Encls. cc: Charles J. Voorhis PLANNING BOARD IV[EMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Vv/LLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS Town F_i,]i, 53095 Main Road F' O. Box 1179 Sou[ho~d, New York 11971 Fax 1516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 21, 1996 Charles Voorhis & Associates. Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 North Country Road, Suite 2 Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Beachcomber II Motel Cutchogue, NY SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Voorhis, The public comment period on the Draft DEIS ended May 10, 1996. The minutes of the verbal comments are enclosed along with copies of the written comments for your information. ' Please address the following concerns in preparing the FEIS: The merger of the (3) three parcels that comprise this project. Delineation of an area reserved for the future placement or relocation of the existing mote] back from the shoreline. This move was indicated as the reason for the original zone change. The current location is in the flood plain and subject to severe beach erosion. Adequacy of existing roads to handle anticipated traffic. Future use of residential parcel to the south. DEIS indicates that this area will be left fallow to provide the project with an adequate water supply. The Board would like you to particularly review the comments of the North Folk Environmental Council as they encapsulate the Boards concerns. Please COIllaCi me if' you have any questions, or require further information. '~ r9!5~, / Site Plan Reviewer Enel. 295 Vista Place Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935 May 3, 1996 Southcld Town Planning Board Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Planning Board: As a specialist in American Democracy, I have a good understanding of the concept of representative democracy. A small group of people try to represent and effect the best policies om behalf of the whole society. Such is the job of the Planning Board of Southold Town. In the particular instance of the petition for expanding the Beachcomber Motel, the board needs to consider the benefits such an expansion would have to the community. The proposers would argue that a certain number of jobs and peripheral sales would result and that there would be a 10w environmental impact to the neighborhood. This argument is filled with weaknesses and perhaps even deceptions. At present the motel is not well utilized. The summer trade is Iminimal although even on that level, customers intrude on the ~privacy and safety of the residential communities of Birch Hills ~a~d Vista Bluff; motel visitors roam the neighborhood, leaving litter, pet waste, and wander through private~property. Motel visitors speed through the narrow road and dangerous corner leading down to the motel, We have suffered a n~mber of pet deaths and children have barely avoided being run down. ~n increased motel population could only explode these problems into tragedies. A larger motel presence would strain local resources. Fire protection would have to be increased (there are few hydrants); and more Police protection would have to be provided. Both these additions would mean local residents would have to pay more taxes which would benefit nonresidents. The fragile watsr supply would be affected: please note the new discovery of water pollution leading north from Oregon Road and affecting the Sound front properties. Who would pay to protect the local residents from pollution caused by an increased number of visitors from other areas? I In some of the discussions about the Motel expansion, I noted ~several comments that previous rulings about moving existing motel ~.~[units have not been complied with in over 10 years. This provides Ino confidence that future restrictions on the use and care of the [property would be obeyed. Basically it is clear that the life styles and needs of %he ~ majority' of the local residents would be adversely affected by the expansion of the motel. We have no confidence that our own investments in our homes would not be seriously damaged by this plan. We believe the rezoning might lead to other types of development of the area which would totally destroy its rural residental character. Previously, the Planning Board or previous lapproval bureau did great damage to the area by allowing the Inatural habitat of the birds to be damaged. They should now amend ~-%~lthis error by protecting both the natural environment and the local |population by refusing to allow the expansion o¢ the motel. It ~mlshould, on this occasion, make sure that previous rulings are [obeyed. Perhaps fines are due for the lack of compliance. I would be happy to discuss my strong opposition to the petition to expand the Beachcomber Motel with the Board if they so desire. Sincerely, · Barbara D. Ripel, Ph.D. May 7, Southoid Town Planning Board Mr. P, Schard Ward. Chairman 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y 11971 Dear Nh'. Ward, I am writing this lerner on behalf of my wife and L to express our concerns with the application by the Beachcomber Motel to expand it's facility's. I verbally expressed our concerns at two public meetings held by the Board as a part of the review process. This letter is meant to formalize those concerns. .As a property owner of an adjoining lot to the Beachcomber property which is to be utilized as a )art of the expansion, one of our major concerns is the possible negative impact on the lim/ted water supply. It appears that the intended wells will draw from the same aquifer as the adjacent properties. We would like to know how the lo~stical location of the wells is determined? Is it based on expected usage ? If so, what happens if that usage were to change, to say a Time Share or a Condominium type of set up in the future? How are we protected against that? Is the owner .~ [willing to stipulate that he has no intentions of charting this property from a seasonal to year round usage in the future? ~ We have heard Mr. Aliano state that it's no one else's business but his as to his reason's for expanding what appears to be an unprofitable business by over twice it's current capacity, but we ...... 1 strongly disa~ee with his opinion, we feel n ~s our business, as adjacent property owners, ~f his | intentions are other than those he currently espouses to. As a point of fact and record. Mr. Aliano's record of following through on h~s expressed plans does not give me a great deal of confidence in his currently expressed plans. The point we allude to is his lack of follow up on his last expansion, a part of which was the relocation of the existing units. We feel that ifMr. Aliano is not required to fulfill his commitments to the board he will continue to flout l~s responsibility's, and do as he pleases, utilizing his version of what he has commi.'tted to. Therefore ~e request that he be directed to fulfill his current commitments before any new plans [be conside, ed. Then at the time the new plans are to be considered protection be built into those [ ptans against a possible change from Motel type of setup ~o a Time Sh, are or Condominium type ~,~,~,$[ of setup. If these points are not addressed by Mr. A liano, to the board s satisfaction, we urge you I to reject his request ~br any further expansion. Sincerely, Mr. Richarg Spellman , PETITION We, the undersigned, are stronaiv opposed to the-mxpadSiOd~flhe Beachcomber Motel (Beachcomber II), for the following reasons: This is a residential setting and therefore is no place for an expanded motel. The narrow, steep road leading down to the motel cannot accomodate the increased traffic. There will also be increased traffic on Duck Pond Road. There are many young children in this area whose lives may be in danger. The people in the neighborhood will not be able to walk/bicycle down to the beach due to the increased traffic. ~.lof being moved back as per We are also concerned that in the future, the hotel property may be sold and converted into condominiums, timeshares, or possibly a rehabilitation center (we are aware the zoning would have to be changed). / Why expand a motel that does very little business and/~ad the option a 1978 ruling to avoid the erosion? Name Address f Address Town ?!arming 3care : , .; ~ :,ca,- Mr Ward: Beachcomber Motel !l-This proposed site Dian is for the expansion of an existing motel through the addition of A6 more units in four new buildings. The prciect is located on Duck Fond Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM# !000-83-2-!, 2 & p/o i 7 We have a problem, I believe, with the posting on this particular site and I'd like to enter a resolution that the Southold Town Planning Board keep the hearing held open until the next public meeting on Abrit 29, 1996 pending further notification of pro0erty owners. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Odowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Also, be it further resolved that the public comment period will be held open until May 9, 1996. Mr. Cremers: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Oriowski, Mr. La,ham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. There are some of you that did come tonight and what I'd like to do is give you a chance to go on record if you have any comments regarding the Beachcomber proposal. You're welcome to do that tonight and you're also welcome to do that on the 29th when we have ,the next meeting. ~.Ii Barbara Rickel: I'm Barbara Rickel, Vista Place. My concern is that, I flipped through that huge report and there seem to be serious environmental concerns. It was Duck Pond Point. It is the home of the birds and someone, in my opinion, sDpidly filled in ~ I the Duck Pond and put the motel there and now we're faced with increased I des~'oying of the environment. I secondly want to make sure that everyone realizes that the environment is beyond the birds and the people. That is a very dangerous corner. Increased traffic will cause...we've had several dogs killed, I'd hate to think about children being killed on that corner. What about the increased pressure on our homes, valuewise, and also people from the motel tend to roam around our neighborhood. What is the Town willing to promise us in police support, fire protection, all those kinds of things. Litter increases during the summer because people~ander around our his neiiEhborhood, and I think that although Mr. Aliano has the right to develop .~ro~u~, our inveszmen[s and, [hink this is very damaging or~,.~,~.,, Ne have a right to our environment and where we live. It is a family cmmmuni~, and to open it UD to 46 more units of a mo[et brin[s a lot of denier to ail of us. Thank you. Fran Slezak: Hi, my name is Fran Slezak. I live on Alvah's Lane in Cutchogue. I walk the beach in that area. I was not notified of this because I'm not in the immediate area, but I did see the sign and t felt compelled to come here tonight because I too am very concerned about the environment, t he beach erosion, in the summer time I have cailed the police deparUnent and the highway doper[merit 3 or 4 times, because cars have pulled trailers with jetskis onto the beach there. These were people who maybe were staying at the motel, or not staying at the motel, I don't know. But I was concerned that they were there. 1 have seen when the motel was closed, hunters with beagles on the grounds, shooting rabbits with homes in the neighboring area. That concerned me greatly. There is no place for the people who live in the area, when we go down there in the summer time to walk along the beach, the non-residents cars are parked all the way along that road, all the way up to Duck Pond. I think it's invasion of a community. 1 think that you really have to consider the people ,,,ho live there. The dirt that's left on the side...there's a road that comes kom Duck Pond down to the water and it's the edge of the Beachcomber...the filth that's left there. I have seen the feet of deer left there in the fall when the motel is closed. I'm not blaming the mote!, but I'm saying a lot of people come there, they're aware that it's a dead end area, they reave things there, and it's just disgusting. I can't tell you how many times the barrier there has been pushed down by people because the barrier was there they couldn't drive their car on the beach to get to jetski sb they moved it over and they carried the jetski there. I couldn't believe it with my eyes. These are non- residents. So, I'm very concerned about what's going to happen when you increase it to 46 units. I'm already upset with seeing the changes that have happened. The dirt, the garbage, the food left on the beach, if you walk on the beach a mile down in either direction, the people have left. Who is going to go and pick that stuff up? I have ~icked it up. I've called the Town to say, hey there's stuff here. Very often the water ust naturally comes up very high on the sand. The natural erosion is not..J mean if tou put more people, more boats...l've seen motorcycles riding on the beach. Who's going to monitor this. When I called the police department one time because somebody had come with a etskJ and...when the jetski people come, they come with one jetski and there are five carloads of people, and they all take their turn and ride the jetski. I've seen the jetski with nobody on it going in circtes because they felt off. I thought it was supposed to _: ~.,,~,~'"~"'~' Town ?!anning Boar~ : ADrii ~,~ -..1 ac6 -:;ose off au[omatJcally? It diOn't. We!l, that frightened me because there were people and ohiioren in the water. And it's a limited beach area because of all the natural rocks and all the natural stones that are there that when these other people are there who are with the motel or not with the motel, I'm just saying that a lot of people come to the motel that are familiar with the area, then they come back. And the local peoole can't even get down there because all their cars are parked along the road, not n the motel, in those places. So, how are we going to monitor this. How are we going to...when I called the police one time they said, well, we'll try to get down there but we have a lot of other areas. Their hands are tied. They've got a lot of places to go. I think it's a major concern and ] think we really have to look at it because it's a community there and I think the Town people are concerned about it. And I just hal~l:ened to see the sign because I walk the beach every day. Thank you. Mr. Ward: We have a lot of street ends and we have similar problems really all over the Town during the spring, summer and fall. The issue that will be before us though on the 29th will be directly related to the Beachcomber proposed expansion. What we will do is take t~ese comments and make sure that the Town Board and police depa[tment at least are aware of these concerns. Ms. Slezak: There's not even a sign there that says only for Town residents. Is that because the motet is there? Almost every other dead end street in Southold has a sign that says parking for Town residents. This does not even have that. It does not even have a sign there. Mr. Ward: Which maybe means there is no parking, but I don't know the situation. Ms. Siezak: No, it says no parking hours between !0 and !0, but I'm saying every other place you go down it says Town of Southold slicker. And I think there is a direct correlation between what's happening there with the expansion. I think there's going to be more people, more cars traveling down there. I'm very concerned about it. Thank you. Gerald Waits: My name is Gerald Waits. I'm here on behalf of the North Fork Environmental Council. We do have some concerns concerning this project and I'm here to read a statement. The DEIS for the Beachcomber expansion evaluates the project as existing on three separately owned parcels of land rather than on one merged tract of land. The North Fork Environmental Council is concerned about how this approach may or may not impact future development of these parcels beyond the proposed Beachcomber 11 project. Since part of the SEQRA review calls for an anticipation of a project's possible imDact on future development, we fee! that a number of questions should be addressed. 1. What are the implications oeyond th's pro ect if the separate parcels are later sold J off7 2. Parce! #3 includes almost 30 acres presently zoned Agriculturat-Conse~ation. ,According to the DEIS, this land would no longer be farmed but instead would be left fallow' in order to provide the proiect with an adequate water supply. Without Covenants and Restrictions, does leaving this land dormant increase the like!ihood of it being re-zoned for development at some future date? 3. The exis~fing 36 motel units are presently located on Parcel 1 consisting of 2.1 acres. The normal allowable density for this parcel, however, would be 14.5 units. If the three parcels are not merged, is the Beachcomber complex, in effect, getting an extra 20 units? In other words, should public water later become available and/or further down the road yet another expansion is planned for parcel 2 or parcel 3, .would parcel one's 36 units be factored into the whole picture? T 4. The Beachcomber DE1S mitigates a number of SEQRA issues (traffic, burden on community se.vices, etc.) by highlighting the "seasonal" nature of the Beachcomber complex. What safeguards are there ensuring that Beachcomber will remain seasonal? For that matter (given the recent confusion over the definition of a "parking space") how exacting is the Town's definition of "seasonal"? Lastly, the NFEC would like to cite Chapter 37 of Town Law which gives the Southold Town the responsibility to "regulate in coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and erosion, land use and development activities so as to minimize or prevent damage and destruction to property." In keeping with this law, in 1978 the Planning Board supported a change of zone on Parcel 2 so that Mr. Aliano could "move the motel and facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion." However, although presumably the change of zone wastgranted for this purpose, this move has never taken place. As recently as April 23, 1992 the Trustees have also advised that the existing motel should be moved at least fifty feet back. As per Chapter 37 of Town Law, shouldn't Southotd see to it that this move of the existing motel be included in the Beachcomber project and thus accounted for in the DEIS? Thank you. Ms. Scopaz: Could we have a copy of your comments? Mr. Waits: Yes. Mr. Ward: Is there anyone else that would tike to address the Board this evening? Tom Mangimeie: I'm Tom Mangime!e, t live on Duck Pond Rd.~ My piece of property is on the bluff that overlooks the Beachcomber. On the busiesL weekend in the summer, Memorial Day, there's not more than six cars in that parking lot. What's the T i need for the expansion? What's the need.:' My ;oncern Is what's ~o~ng :o naopen further on down the road? It doesn't look like the mote! business is making it there. The Diace needs a paint job, the curtains are rioped, you can see it from the street. What's going to happen in the future? Can it be ~rned into a rehab cen[er? That's my concern. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Anyone else? Yes sir. IKip Bedell: I live on Duck Pond Rd. We've lived there three years now and we moved into what is essentially a dead end street, there's no outlet. And we felt that it would be a pre~ quiet road down there and we were very surprised actually with how much traffic is really there. -As Tom mentioned, there really are not a lot of cars usually at the Beachcomber Motel, but certainly it does increase the traffic in the summer time when there are people there and also people that use the beach, there are fishermen that use the beach. I can't even imagine the increase of 46 units, which means at least one car, meaning at least once a day they're going to be going somewhere and coming back. And more than likely they're going to be going multiple times leaving the motel to do something and come back again. And every time, they have to come up and down Duck Pond Rd. We did have a cat killed right in front of our house and I just can't imagine on this dead end road that increase in the traffic that much. I think it would be very bad. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board this evening? , Rich Spellman: I live on Duck Pond Rd. I have an adjacent piece of property right in back of Tom, in between Kip and Tom. My concerns are from a business Perspective. It's the same question that Tom has asked. What do they justify creating 46 units to a business that on face value does not seem to have more than 10% of those units at any given time, filled now. And if they were going to be required to move those units back, and you can see what the erosion has done, they put the cement wall up there, why didn't they do that before considering this other move? I only received my notice Saturday so I really didn't have a chance, I will go and look at the library, I understand there's a binder with all the information. But I thought there was something like 130 on the sound, maybe I'm wrong. I didn't know there were just 30. I heard 30 quoted but I thought there were more than that because there are about three buildings there. The total units that are at the existing Beachcomber Motel? , ner~ ~- 36 units and three aoar~ments axisdng on the site and they are orsoosing to adc~ an additional 4o, Mr. Spe!lman: AJright, then I'm incorrect. So, ~here's about 40 some odd units there now and they're going to add another ~.6, so they're essentially doubling the size of the units. I can't help but ask myself is there a hidden agenda here? There are 46 units that are not filled, I would be willing to bet you if you look at their books, not more than 25% of those units during the summer time are filled at any given night. Why do they need 46 more units? And especially when the place itself is ~'~"1 deteriorated. I've been there nine years now and it has deteriorated significantly over ~.) I the time lye been there, the maintenance. So those are ]us~ ques,hons asK. the Thank you. .Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board? If not, this hearing will be continued on the 29th and you're certainly welcome to come back. I'm sure the a!~plicant, at that particular time wilt have some responses to some of these ques~ons and [-he Board also has some concerns that we'd like to have addressed. So, we thank you for coming. MINUTES April 29, 1996 Present were: Richard G. Ward, Chairman Bennett Oriowski, Jr. G. Ritchie Latham Kenneth Edwards William Cremers Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Melissa Spiro, Planner Absent: Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Mart-ha Jones, Secretary Mr. Ward: Good evening. I'd like to call the April 29, 1996 Southold Town Planning Board meeting to order. The first order of business is the setting of the next Planning Board meeting. Board to set Monday, May 20, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at Southold Town Hall, Main Rd., Southold as the time-and place for the next regular Planning Board meeting. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: Moved and seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings Mr. Ward: Beachcomber Motel Il- This proposed site plan is for the expansion of an existing motel through the addition of 46 more units in four new buildings. The project is located on Duck Pond Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & p/o $outhold Town Plannin8 Board 2 ,-,~,' ~.,,,, c,c -3c; !7. [ see that the applicant is here, if they would like to aaoress the Boar~ at tnts time. Henry Raynor: Good evening Mr. Ward, gentlemen. My name is Henry Raynor, as agent for the Beachcomber. We're here tonight, here is Mr. Glenn Spaetta, of Glenn Spaetta Associates, who had prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which you have been studying before you and if the Board is amenable he has a synopsis that he'd like to present to you this evening and if there are any questions he'd be more than happy to answer those, if you'd like to have the hearing proceed in that manner. Mr. Ward: That's fine. - Glenn Spaetta: Good evening. As you can see we have an aerial photo of the property with some overlays of different scenarios for development. As Henry said, I'm an environmental consultant. I've been in the field for over 15 years preparing environmental impact statements for various projects, including residential homes and large developments, commercial property as well as for the proposed action. The project originally consisted of 86 units proposed for development to expand the existing motel complex. That was several years ago. A scoping meeting was held. At subsequent discussions after that meeting the project was significantly downsized to include 46 units. These units are four separate buildings and are pictured on the site plan on the aerial photo here. The project involves three separate tax map parcels. One of them is owned by Pond Enterprises, Inc. and that's 2.1 acres, that includes where the ex, isting motel is. The second one is owned by Patricia Krupski and that's 12.3 acres and includes where the cabana and a lot of the cleared area is as well as part of the woods on the property, and the third tot is owned by Nicholas Aliano and is 33.8 acres of which 32 is farm and approximately 1.8 is wooded. For the purposes of the project the lots have been combined together and will have to be, at a later date, merged together for the project. As part of the DEIS process, significant beneficial and adverse facts were discussed. Potential negative impacts of the project were some of the steeper sloped areas on the property and are located on the east of the clearing as well as on the south side of the clearing. Potential nitrogen loading into the Sound was a concern. Water usage, loss of some vegetation on the site, as well as traffic concerns and archeological concerns. Potential beneficial impacts to the project were an increase to local economic ~~u~ --~ ~r~ ?a~n~ng ~ar~ 3 April 29, !996 concerns, increased tax revenue, approximately $48,000 per year. There will be more jobs created, short term, during construction, as well as an increase in future spending if additional people come to stay at the hotel and spend money in the Town of Southold when they visit wineries as part of tourism and into the local community. Also, the project will retain open space on approximately 43 of the 48 acres, as proposed. The development is concentrated in the resort residential portion of the property; it's broken into resort residential and agricultural conservation. You see the white line that runs through the middle of the property. Mitigating measures were utilized to minimize a potential impact of the project that might have been detrimental. As far as erosion control, the buildings have been re- arranged from the original proposal out of steep sloped areas so that they're in flat cleared portions of the property. The set backs of the buildings, the closest new one proposed is 110 feet from the bluff and we've avoided with the design of the proposed action, we avoided disrupting natural drainage swales and utilize some of the natural areas to retain the existing drainage patterns on site. The applicant will follow all erosion control guidelines and an erosion control plan will be submitted as part of this project. We've kept the buildings in the vacant cleared areas, as we've said before, that you see on the property. A lot of that is currently mowed and there's a cabana and kind of an open field there right now and it's just north of the woods. Water demands for the project have been investigated and the proiect was downsized as we've said before, from 86 units to 46 units, and that meets all Suffolk County Department of Health requirements allowable for the 48.2 acres which are being included for this property. The requirement is 14,460 gallons per day and the total project will be at 14,425 gallons per day, so it will meet both New York State DEC as well as Suffolk County Department of Health standards for water demands. The sanitary system will consist of conventional sanitary sewage disposal, septic tanks and leaching pools and will also comply with all Suffolk County Department of Health Article 6 requirements. The applicant investigated salt water intrusion as a potential negative impact and has located the water supply wells back...you'll see two blue spots there near the resort residential and agricultural conservation district line and the wells will be located in that portion of the property and in that way they will not adversely mitigate groundwater supply or create the potential for saltwater intrusion. There will be a very small amount of vegetation lost as a result of the project on the Town Flanning Boara ~ April 29. I996 eastern side of the property where some of the portions of the prope,d7 would be cleared just slightly for the expansion of the units. Traffic impacts - aoproximately 33 trips per hour during the peak traffic hour and that amounts to about one car every two minutes on a Saturday afternoon in that peak hour and the total for the day on a typical Saturday, as a result of the project would probably be about an extra 100 trips per day. What the applicant is proposing is the addition of two stop signs, one at the top of the hill and_that's further to the left Garrett, on Duck Pond Rd., to the left of the red line, further to the left, there's a stop sign at the top of the hill so that when people have to turn right and go down to the beach they'll come to a complete halt. And also at the intersection of Vista Place and Birch Lane, so that they'll be traffic control in both of those directions. 'The Cutchogue Fire Department has requested that the applicant put in a 400 gallon per minute firewell on the property and the applicant has located that on the east side of the property and that meets with their requirements. Several alternatives to the project were investigated and the first one would be no action. No action would be as the site is now, with just the motel units and cabanas there. A second alternative was looked at, this was considered alternative B which also clustered units on the property, but left two units back on the farmed portion of the property but within the resort residential zoning. And you can see approximately the way that would look. That was alternative B that was investigated and the applicant feels that the proposed alternative is better than that one. The third alternative looked at in addition to no action and that one you just saw, was clustering the units in a U-shaped formation in that cleared portion of the property- and you see the way that looks. And again, you can see by the§e overlays that most of the property is again staying vacant and clear and all of the development really takes place in the cleared po~on of the proper~ as it exists now. And again, this is an alternative that was proposed and not preferred by the applicant. Matters to be decided, as far as the Town of Southold, before the project can proceed, a denial of the project has to be given by the Building Depa~bnent in order to be considered for special exception by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals would then have to make a decision as to whether or not to allow the resort residential zoning by special exception. The code permits each unit, 6,000 square feet, to be constructed. And so it allows for 6,000 square foot units by special exception. The Planning Board would also have to approve the site plan prior to it going forward. The Building Department would have to approve the design and finally the Highway Department would have to approve the stop signs that would go into place. Southolo Town ?l~nning Boara 5 April Suffolk County Department of Health Services would also have to review the water supply and approve the system as well as the waste water for the project. New York State Depa~Lment of Environmental Conservation would also have to approve the well permit and also the applicant would need to receive a non-jurisdiction letter for the tidal wetlands because it is close to it but it is outside the wetlands area. So, as you can see, an extensive review has been prepared and a DEIS has addressed concerns and issues of not only the Board but of other agencies as well that were involved in the comment period. At this point in l~me the applicant feels that the proposed action will have the most value not only to the Town of Southold but as well as makes the most economic sense for him at this time. With that, we'd be happy to open up for any questions that you might have. Mr. Ward: The Planning Board has two major concerns. One, is that the applicant going back a number of years, when he got a zone change, requested the zone change to move the existing motel back because the shoreline conditions kept undermining the motel and that the whole rationale for giving the zone change was to move the existing motel back so it would be out of the tidal and wave action along the shoreline. That alternative has not been addressed. That has to be addressed in this determination on your SEQRA review here. Secondly, the Board cannot understand how this project can be done as three separate holdings. They all work with one another. I don't believe we can really approve a project without knowing that it's under one ownership or one common ownership. Those are our two major concerns today. There have been other concerns raised by the community, but those are two major things we'd like to see addressed in detail in the environmental impact statement. , Mr. Spaetta: We agree with you on the combining of the parcels, and that needs to be done. Right now they're all individual parcels. We mentioned up front that that needs to be done in order for the project to proceed. I'm sure that the applicant is willing to do that. It requires some additional steps that need to be taken. As far as the removal of the existing units, that does create some economic hardship since the units are currently operating and are viable and that was addressed in the environmental impact statement as to remove the units now while they're still operating and still able to generate income, does create some difficulty for the applicant. We would be happy though to expand on that and address that further. Mr. Ward: Yes, we're requesting that. Are there any questions? Anybody here that would like to address the Board on this particular project at this time, you can do that if you wish. J know some of you were here at the last hearing. April 29, !996 ~,~ch Speiiman: At the ',as; oeanng, [ asKeo the question, having lived here not a tremendous amount of time, about nine years. To my recollection, and other people can speak for this too, I don't think I've ever seen at any given time any more than 125% of those units ever filled. And my question is, and I still don't understand it, if 'there's no more than 25% of those units filled, why double the number of units? That's the basic question and I haven't heard that explained. Maybe it doesn't have to be addressed at this point, I don't know, but it's a common sense question and I'd just like :o get some sort of an answer to that question. Mr. Ward: Would the applicant like to address that? Nick Aliano: My name is Nick Aliano. I'm the owner of Pond Enterprises, the Krupski parcel, which.is my daughters, and the Aliano parcel, so that's the three parcels. As ~'ar as what the business has been doing, or not doing, I don't think that's anybody else's business but mine. I have reasons why it's not doing well now. The water comes up to the motel units now. And one more big storm and I'll get wiped out altogether. And my main purpose 10 years ago when I made this application, was to be protected that if it does hit, I can build right away. I won't have to go through 10 years of this nonsense that we're going through now. So, the fact that it's not doing well has nothing to do with anybody else but me. And I have plans for this property. I wouldn't be here spending money for 10 years if I didn't. That's all I have to say about it, Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board this evening? Kip Bedell: I live on Duck Pond Rd. I just have a question. Does the applicant own the property all the way to Oregon Rd.? , Mr. Aliano: I do own property to Oregon Rd. Mr. Bedetl: gentleman that, in the Again, I'm very concerned about the traffic on Duck Pond Rd. This mentioned that there's going to be a car every minute, or something like season and this is a dead end road, it's a residential area... Mr. Aliano: I'm there 25 years, and I feel like a Johnny-come-lately. l'm there 26 years to be exact. And the fact that I have property on Oregon Road and I have frontage on Oregon Road ... Mr. Bedell: What I'm saying is that I feel that this project is going to create far too much traffic on a dead end residential road and I think that if this should even be considered by the Board, there should be a private road that runs up to this motel and by-pass Duck Pond Road altogether. .X, ir. 'h'arc. Anyone else like [o adaress the Board th~s evening? Tcm Mengine!e: I also live on Duck Pond Road. My concern ~s what can happen in the future to where this site is going to De. Let's say it sells, can it become something else, maybe a half-way house or a rehabilitation center? Because you know it is in a residential area, and that's my concern. Mr. Aliano: Well, now we've got it going for what we want to use it for. if other uses that you're talking about would be something else I'd have to go into. That would be a ,whole new ball game. Mr. Menginete: Well, let's just say it sold, woutd this have to come before the Zoning Board again? Mr. Ward: We!l, it would depend on what it was, but normally if it's a use that's not allowed within the zone, it would have to go for either a zone change, which would be the Town Board, or a special exception which would be the Zoning Board of Appeals. There would be other hearings, it wouldn't just happen. Mr. Menginete: And the way the zoning is right now for building, if in effect these buildings do get erected, can there be an add on? Or the way the zoning is right now is it certain buildings per amount of acreage? Mr. Ward: It sounds like right now the controlling factor happened to be the Health Department. I guess they had an application in for more units. Based on the amount of property that's here they would be allowed to build more units under the zoning category here, but at this particular junction the/re going alonl], I guess, with what Health Services will allow in terms of their capacity. Mr. Menginete: And also, just one other point. Outside of the stop signs, because I 'did see that in the environmental impact, is there any other kind of alterations that are going to be made to the roads or...because right now you have. no shoulder on those roads going down there. You go two feet off the road, you're either in a gully or into a tree. During the season, we do use the beaches out in front there and if a car comes, there's very little room. Iwas just wondering if that's being taken into consideration or even thought about? Mr. Ward: It will be looked at. Anyone else? Barbara Rickel: I live on Vista Place. I've lived there ;or 20 some odd years. I'm sorry, I just came in. I teach at the community college and we had a late meeting, so I don't know exactly what's been said but I want just to ~ut on record ~at I'm totally Scu[hclc ~own =tannin6 ~oard x~ A¢rlJ 29,: 996 detrimental to Ce environment. It doesn'~ consider the needs of the people in the area and I see no reason for it. There's ,qo~ a lot of use of (hat area, eno When people do come, there is no policin8 in how they walk throush our neighborhood, leave garbage and are inconsiderate. They let their dogs and ~eir children roam all over our yards. I have found motel people using my swing set. I don't understand that. We need to be protected. I think mat is a waste of everyone's effor{ to even consider the proposal. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Anyone else tike to address the Board? Does the applicant have anything else Iur~her that they would like to present? Mr. Aliano: I don't have anything else to say except that the Town itself saw fit to add, before I made an application, to add about six or seven acres to the back of my motel, just like that, without me going to the Town, it was just re-zoned for six or seven more acres. Now, I ask just another six acres and all this fuss...wetl, I got the other six acres, but, I have noBing else to say, unless you have another question. Mr. Ward: Anyone else on the Board? If not, all in order to close the hearing. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Orlowski: Second. Mr. Ward: Moved and seconded. Alt in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ortowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Carried. Just a note that the pubtic comment taeriod wilt run u. ntii May 9, 1996, and the Board may make a decision at the May 20 meeting whether to accept Be DEIS or re(~uire a Final Environmental Impact Statement. So, those that are interested in following this, May 20 would be a meeting then that you may like to attend. Thank you ail for coming. t;t~acl~combcr Motel (II) Final ElS ATTACHMENT B Public Hearing Transcript April 11, 1978 C~b\NGE OF ZONE p. PPLIC~,i~O[~ f,:~3o ~, .... O~.~S ~!.~:~0 & PAZF, iCIA KRUPSKi A public hearing was held by the Southold Totem Board at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, on April 11, 1978 on the application of Nicholas Aliano & Patricia Krupski for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "M-I" Multiple Residence District on property located at Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, New York.' Present at the hearing were: Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia Councilman James Homan Councilman Henry W. Drum Justice Martin Surer Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Absent: Councilman William R. Pe!!, 3rd and Justice Francis T. Doyen Councilman Drum read the notice of hearing as follows: Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Building Zone Ordinance of the To~m of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, public hearings will be held by the Southold Town Board at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road,.Southol~, New York, in said Town on the llth day of April, 1978, on the following proposal to amend the Building Zone Ordinance (including the Building Zone Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York: 8:00 P.M. by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M-I" Multiple Residence District the property of Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski, situated at Cutchogue, New York, and more particularly bounded and described as. follows: BEGINNING at a monument at the intersection of the easterly line of Duck Pond Road and the southerly line of Duc~ Pond Road which monument is distant North 29° 50' 50" East 213.08 feet from the northwesterly corner of lands of N. Aliano . thence from said point of beginning runnin~ North 52° 31' 10" East partly through lm~ds of N. Aliano and Pa~ricia Krupski to lands of R. Hammel; thence along said lands of R. Hammel and J. Zuhoski the following two (2) courses and distances: (1) South 45° 52' 40" East 39.06 feet; and (2) South 46° 17' 50" East 367.21 feet; thence from said point running along lands of Aliano et ano. South 43° 42' 10" West 946.44 feet to lands of Fellinger-Ihar; thence along said last mentioned lands North 42° 01' 40" West 465.90 feet to the southerly side of Duck Pond Road; thence along the southerly side of Duck Pond Road North 29° 50' 50" East 213/08 feet to the monument at the point or place of beginning. Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. DATED: March 14, 1978 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK COUNCIL}~N DRUM: PUBLIC HEARING C:~%NGE OF ZONE APPLICATION ~ 238 April 11, 1978 - NICHOLAS ALIANO & FATRICIA KRUPSKI COUNCILMAN DRUM: We have proof of notice of publication from the Suffolk Weekly Times, notarized March 24, 1978, and proof of notice of publication from the Long Island Traveler Watchman, notarized March 24, 1978.. We have an affidavit from Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk that this has been posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board at the Town Clerk's Office, Main Road, Southold, New York. We have received a letter from the Planning Board, Town-of Southold, dated March 13, 1978, to the Southold Town Board: Gentlemen: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board at a regular meeting held on 3anuary 30, 1978: RESOLVED.to recommend to the Southold Town Board approval of the petition of Nicholas Alia~o &Patricia Krupski, Case No. 238 for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "H-i" General Multiple Residence District on property located at Cutchogue, New York in view of the fact that it is apparent that the petitioner must move the motel and facilities back from the S-6~nd as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion. The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance with the development plan of the Town of Southold for this location. /s/ Muriel Brush, Secretary We have received a letter from the Suffolk County Department of Planning, dated March 1, 1978 to the Southold Town Board: On the petitioner Aliano vs. Krupski. Gentlemen: Pursuant to the requirements County Charter, the above captioned application which has been referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination. The d~ision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. /s/ Lee K~ppelman Director of Planning of Section 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: I would like to make a correction of the preceding le[ter. I believe you indicated that the petitioner was Aliano vs. Krupski. It is Aliano and Krupski. COUNCILb~N DRUM: Did I say that? Excuse'me, the petitioner is Aliano and Krupski. SUPERVISOR MART~CCHIA: Councilman Drum has read the legal notice on petition of Nicholas Aliano ahd Patricia Krupski, Case No. 238 requesting a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "M-l" General Multiole Residence. The subject matter has been advertised in both of ~he local papers and.notarized as such, it has b~en posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, and we have the recommendations and comments of the Southold Town Planning Board recommending approval and the Suffolk County Department of Planning has left it to local determination. At this time, I would like to open up the hearing to anyone who wishes to speak in behalf of the applicants. d ~.~pri! 11, 1978 - ,, ....0~ ALIAs0 ~ PATRICtA KRUPSKi NICHOI~,S ALiANO: i am Nick A!iano o~mer of the Beachcomber Mote]. which is 2he concern of this petition. What I would like to do first of all is give you an idea of what the motel looked like. This is what the beach looked like prior to the last storm. (blr. Aliano pre~ented photographs.) And this is a pciture of what it looks like now. Originally, I had about 150 to 200 feet of beachfront.about 8 years ago. Since that time, especially this last winter, not only have I lost all of the beach, but I have lost some of the sidewalk and it is already eroding the building. I have had the local sand & gravel man dump about 10 truck loads of sand in to shore up against my buildings and sidewalk. I have a photo here to show that even that sand was washed away after the next storm. So there is no question, that I am in emminent danger of losing my whole business. I bought as much property behind me and surrounding me that I could afford to move the location back. The local farmers in the asea wiiz-annest that it nothing more khan shrubs, sand, and scrub oak where I want to put the expansion or what have you, behind the motel. There is about three-quarters of an. acre of farmland that this involves. My intention is to put tennis courts and a golf course and situate the expansion along the perimeter of the cliff, it will be westerly. It is up to you gentlemen as to whether of not I stay in business. Without this expansion, ! cannot stay in business. I think that my reputation of cleaning up the place, when I bought it 8 years ago it was a sore eye to the dommunity and I think anyone in town will tell you That what I have done here is a credit. So now, I am asking your consideration of this extension. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Is there a map? bIR. ALIANO: The property west of me is owned by my family, that's across from Depot Lane. The property is east of me, my line is on the middle of a cliff; so that I couldn't do ~nything about that. The property south of me is owned by myself. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: This request that you are making f~r "M-I" zoning involves how much property? MR. ALIANO: It's 'about 9. acres., t have "M-I" zoning now, but of course that map shows before the beach ereoded and that's about 1~ acre you can take out of there. Business has improved and I must have room for expansion an~¢ay. Even if this had not happened, ! have need for the tennis court and golf course. I have already put a swimming pool in. We are off the beaten-track too far away from everything, and you have to give people some- thing to do while they are at a motel on vacation. I think I bring a lot of business to the town. It's a family-run operation. Thereare ten people in my family and we run a motel and restaruant. This is a picture from the L.I. Traveler Mattituck Watchman. It shows the erosion and it also states that a matter or fact the Town Hall has a copy of the erosion situation. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Sound. We have had a very bad winter along the MR. ALIANO: Yes, as I said, I put in 8-10 truckloads of sand and gravel mixture and that has all been washed away. I showed you CF~.~Gm OF ZOi{E APPEzCAT!ON :,- ~8 NICHOLAS ALLAN0 L =ATRICi: ......... the photographs of before and after. and I can't keep doing this. I~'s all been washed away, JUSTICE MARTIN SUTER: back? Was it your intention to move the building MR. ALIANO: No, I can't move the building back. Originally, When i filed the application, my intention was to expand because the business had increased that much. But since this erosion it won't really be an expansion, it's just a question of re-building. JUSTICE SUTER: So what does ~hase this out?. that mean? You plan to re-build and M]t. ALIANO: Yes that's correct to re-build and make it nice with the tennis court and gold course, the pool is already there. COUNCILMAN DRUM: On the bluff? MR. ALIANO: the middle. No, not on the bluff, it will have to be below or in SUPERVISOR ~RTOCCHIA: Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Aliano, is there something you are not clear about? Does anyone else wish to speak in behalf of the application? LOUIS EDSON, Maple Lane, Southold: I have known Nick Aliano for about 8 years when x% was: working back in MacDonalds, we had some business transactions../We have remained friends ~ver since. have seen some other project§ that he has done and done well. I saw this place when he first took it over, it certainly wasn't anyghing very attractive. He has spent a lot of m~ney and time down there and it shows. I think when people do this, it calls for some type of encouragement. The.Town Boar~ should encourage the growth of the To~m. I recommend the approval of his application. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone else wish to speak in behalf of this application? (There was no response.) SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone wish to speak in opposition? JOHN & OLIVIA FELLINGFR-I~R: I would like to ask you, where will the new buildings or additions be located? SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: The Town Board i$ concerned with the change of zone. The Planning Board would be concerned with the site plans, etc. JOHN FELLINGER-IHAR: I have a map here. See, we are the neighbors to the proposed 10 acre parcel. We would be concerned only if the motel is put up next to us. We would be concerned only if the motel would be extended next to us approximately east of us~2K acres, 105 feet east of us and goes down &60 . We are concerne~ a%out the ~x--,~G,z 0~' ZONE APPLicATION ~ 238 ~ .{z'i! 11, 1978 - NICHOLAS ALIANO & PATRICIA KRUPSKI density and population because we have a house here. We sympathize very much with Mr. Aliano, he is an excellent man and we like him very much and we know what happened on the beach and we hope there is somesolution for him. We are just concerned that next to us. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Will he have to go under the site plan? TOWN .ATTORNEY ROBERT W. TASKER: I think he wili probably have to have a site plan with soecified setbacks. MR. FELLINGER-I~R: It is about 2~ acres east of us that we are concerned with right next to our residence, r was told that eventually a house would be built there by Mr. Aliano. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone else wish to spe~k in opposition to this application? BILL WILHELM, President of the Birch Hills Property Owners Association: I would just like to know a little more about what is involved. For example, if there is a real motive involved here to protect the real estate, why was not bulkheading considered. My other point is the concern about expansion of the property with the additional buildings. In regards to health, we had some difficulty when we were building there and also some warnings. In fact we had to sign a waiver regarding pollutants in the soil. For example, our ni:rate levels are very high there. If there is indication that a significant expansion of that kind of thing would aggrevate the nitrate level, etc. Mr. Calvin Smith of ths Suffolk County Health Department is in charge of that. So even though I have no objections, I have some concerns. I question whether the solving of the problem could be done in other ways rather than in expansion. JUSTICE MARTIN SUTER: We have no control over the '~ealth Department. He must meet all of their requirements the sam~ as you did. b~. WILHEI~N Well, It turned out that we couldn't meet them and we had to sign a waiver. JUSTICE SUTER: This is up to the Health Department. MARK BRIAN: I have a question regarding the expansion. I live in the general area. I am interested in discovering whether or not anybody has informat.ion as to the proposed expansion of the motel. It is a substantial number of extra units or is it just a replacement on a 1-1 basis of what is already there? If it is a replacement on a 1~1 basis certainly there would be no objection, on my part. However, if it is expanded, I am wondering if that particular area is a desirable area in view of the rather limited road access and particularly the problems we have been having with the drainage area near the intersectior of Duck Pond Road, whether or not the motel would be appropriate until this problem is resolved. I understand there is supposed to be some resolution of this drainage problem in the area, but in any case the road is breaking up rather badly in certain areas and whether the additional traffic due to the motel would increase the number of residents would necessarily be desirable from the standpoint of the road and the residents who already live in the area. Since I don't PUBLIC HEARING C[~ANGE OF ZONE (r kApril 11, 1978 i<!CHC'LA$ AL!ANO & PATRICIA KRUPSKi know what the plans are, i can't say that i am against it, I have no objection at this point. Bun, could elaborate as to what the particular plans are. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: To my knowledge, none have been submitted that ! know of. The Planning Board would approve the site plan. MR. ALIANO: I have already told the Planning Board what my intention was. i originally wanted to expand what I had. But since I made application I am in danger of losing what I have, so it would wind up a 1-1 but I am not going to guarantee that all of a sudden that the sand is going to come back again. I plan to expand as needed. It is strictly a seasonal motel type or'operation. I am only open in the summer. I don't get that winter business that breaks up the road. I am not going to deal with that problem, that is up on Oregon Road, no wheres near me. bR. BRIAN: Basically, what I was interested in was this expansion or whether it was primarly for the replacing of buildings .... MR. ALIANO: It is both, either, or. Time will 'tell as far as the expansion. I don't expect to expand right away, but I want to know that it can be done. MR. BRIAN: Did you consider bulkheading? MR. ALIANO: Yes, it would cost me $30,000. ~nd there is no guarantee that the bulkheading will stay, I don't have that strong a footing it's a 22 year old building. So, If I put $30,000. into it and I can't get insumanee on bulkheading. I called the flood control people about it, they will not insure bulkheading. Rambo & the one from Greenport gave me prices of about $30,000.~ I would rather take that $30,000. and put the building back a~d let this building fall down. It is about ready to go now. MR. BRIAN: fall down. Is that what you have in mind,~ just letting the building I mean, you won't cart anything away? MR. AL!ANO: Well, I don't have any choice in the matter. I o~n enough property in the surrounding area, I am certainly not going to have it dumped there. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on the subject, in opposition to this application? BILL WILHELM: I would like to make a statement in opposition. Since I get the impression that.the primary effort here is to expand the facility. I have this personal opinion that I don't think it would be to the advantage of the community to have such a large enterprise down there. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this application? (There was no response.) Ci~ANGE OF ZONE APP~=CATiON:~ ~ ~ L !1, 1978 230 - NICHOLAS AL±ANO &'PATRICIg SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHiA: Has everyone who wishes to soeak had an opportunity to speak? .(There was no response.) SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Hearing none, the hearing will be closed, after digesting all the facts, the Board will make a determination. Respectfully submitted, ~~ville Deputy Town Clerk ? Beachcomber Motel (I1) Final ElS ATTACHMENT C Relevant Sections of Town of Southold Code Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS ATTACHMENT D Suffolk County Department of Health Services Letter COUNTY OF SUFFOLK March 24, 1998 Town of Southold Attn: Mr. Robert G. kassner 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southoid NY 11971 Subject: Beachcomber Motel Proposed Expansion S.C.T.M.: 1000-83-2-(t, 2. & 17) Water Supply Dear Mr. Kassner. 1998 Southold Town Planning Board We have.reviewed our existing files and monitoring d~. and t~e water quality data, colla~ted on 8/27/97, from ~he test well located on the ncrthesstem pot'don of the referenced property, submitted by Paul W. Gross~r, Ph.D., P.E., the consulting engineer for the water supply at the site. The data shows the water from this well contains detec~'bls levels of agricultural fertilizers, (NitreZes), and pesticides, (Aidicarb sulfoxJde, AJdicarb sultoxide, 1.2- Dichloropropane and 1,2,3- TrichJoropropane). None of these detectable levels exceeded the MexJmium Contaminant Levels (MCL's) established by Federal and New Yo~ State agencies, although the levels were high enough to warrant concern. Consequently, any water supply system design will have to provide an enclosed area large enough to contain and suppOrt treatment, should it becomes necessanJ.. The proposed trealment ama will be large enough to install an ion exchange unit for nitrate removal and GAC, (granular activated carbon), unit(s) for the removal pesticides and adequate storage for water treatment chemicals, es per conversations with Dr. Grosset. The propo~ motel expansion will be ciassir~:l as a non-community puDlic water supply, which is its current claasirmefion. If the units were sold as or converted to co-op's or condominiums, with multiple owners, then the system would become a community wa~er supply subject to more stringent regulations. Given the present water quality at the site, we would not approve it es a community water supply for new construction. Therefore, restrictive covenants must be placed upon the property, as a conition of approval, to assure it remains a motel, untll such a time that it could be connected to an existing approved community public water supply. As i,3d~sted ir, our tetter of 3/,'7/97, the peak domestic water demand will be about 100 gpm which would necessitate multiple wells for the proje=. Two new wells are being proposed to provide water for the e.~3, ansion. If salt water intrusion becomes a problem, then additional welL~ may be reaUired. Additionally, since the pumping capacity for the site will exceed 45 gpm, ~ Long island Wel', Permi*, must be applied for a~qd obtained from I'4YSDEC, The comments presented i~ this letter are general comments concerning the wa~er supply tot the proposed proje~ and should not be construed as tacit approval for construction by Suffolk County Department of Health Services. A formal application *For Sewage Disposal Facilities and Water Supply Systems for O~er Than Single Family Residences" must be submitted to our Bureau of Wastewater Management in Riverhead in order to proceed with construction approval Please feel free to contact this office at 8S3-3195. if you have any questions concerning this matter. Very truly yours, Robert J. Farmer, P,E. Senior Public Health Engineer Bureau of Drinking Water cc: Paul Grosset, PhoD., P.E. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) ,3outhold Town planning Board BEACHCOMBER MOTEL (II) Hamlet of Cutchogue Town of Southold New York Prepared by: Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC Town of Southold Planning Board Glen Spetta Associates October 1998 Final Environmental Impact Statement for BEACHCOMBER MOTEL (II) Hamlet of Cutchogue Town of Southold, New York Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS Lead Agency: Southold Planning Board Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Contact: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner, 516-765-1938 Applicant: Nicholas Aliano Ashley Lane Shoreham, N.Y. 11786 Draft EIS prepared by: Glen Spetta Associates 1050 Smithtown Avenue Bohemia, N.Y. 11716 516-567-5859 Final EIS prepared by: Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC. Consultants to thc Planning Board 572 Walt Whitman Road Melville, New York 11747 516-427-5665 Town of Southold Planning Board Glen Spetta Associates Availability of Document This document, together with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement concerning this proposal, represents a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Copies are available for public review and comment at thc office of thc Lead Agency. Comments on thc FEIS should be submitted to the Lead Agency listed above by to be included in the public record. Date FEIS Accepted: Page I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Final Environmental Impact Statement for BEACHCOMBER MOTEL (Il) Hamlet of Cutchogue Town of Southold, New York TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 DRAFT ElS (Incorporated by Reference) INTRODUCTION RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ElS PROJECT DESCRIPTION WATER RESOURCES TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY TRAFFIC LAND USE COMMUNITY SERVICES CULTURAL RESOURCES GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS REFERENCES ATTACHMENTS Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS Page 3 Page 5 Page 7 Page 17 Page 19 Page 20 Page 23 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Beachcomber Motel (11') Final ElS Final Environmental Impact Statement for BEACHCOMBER MOTEL (II) Hamlet of Cutchogue Town of Southold, New York INTRODUCTION This document is a FinaJ Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) for a proposed project involving three single and separate tax parcels totaling 48.2 acres located north of Oregon Road and east of Duck Pond Road in Cutchogue, Town of Southold. The proposed project involves expansion of an existing 36 unit motel by an additional 46 units to a total of 82 units. The proposed expansion will occur on the northern portion of the property, which contains the existing motel. This area is currently zoned Resort/Residential (PR) and includes 16.2 acres. The 32 remaining acres of the property are zoned Agricultural Conservation district (AC), and would remain undeveloped at this time. The Town Planning Board of the Town of Southold became the lead agency with responsibility to review the project as the decision making agency on the proposed site plan. As required by law, the Town conducted a coordinated review with involved agencies, and subsequently issued a Positive Declaration on October 30, 1992. A Draft EIS was prepared by Glenn Spetta Associates, consultants to the applicant. After several revisions and a reduction in the requested number of units, the Draft EIS was accepted by the Planning Board on March 18, 1996, and a Notice Of Completion was issued. The Draft EIS was then circulated for comment, and a Public Hearing was held by the Town Planning Board to hear comments on April 8, 1996. The heating was continued until April 29, 1996, and the 30 day public comment period was held open until May 9, 1996. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) was prepared by Nelson, Pope & Voorhis (NP&V) as consultant to the Planning Board in accordance with SEQRA [6 NYCRR Part 616.14(i)]. This document addresses all of the substantive comments received by the lead agency during the comment period on the Draft EIS, which were forwarded to the applicant's consultant on May 21, I996 for response. The Town Planning Board then directed their consultants, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, to prepare a preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Beachcomber II project. The document went through several drafts and revisions, and required certain input from the applicant for completion. As a result, and adequate period of time was needed to prepare the Final Page 3 I I i I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I Beachcomber Motel (H) Final EIS EIS. As lead agency, the Town Planing Board is responsible for the contents of the Final EIS and has reviewed and participated in the preparation of this document. Nelson, Pope & Voorhis. (NP&V) is a professional environmental and planning consulting firm with offices at 572 Walt Whitman Road, Melville, N.Y. 11747. NP&V has sought to provide the Planning Board with an independent, objective response to each of the comments raised through review of the Draft EIS. All substantive comments are included in the text of the revised Final EIS, and are followed by an appropriate response. Comments are organized within the same general outline as was used in the Draft EIS according to the section which they most closely address. Several of the comments are redundant, and in these cases only one comment is directly quoted, with similar comments noted in parentheses. An appropriate response is provided in the document and cross-referencing is used to direct the reader in cases of redundant comments. This document fulfills the obligation of the Planning Board in completing a Final EIS based upon Final EIS content requirements as outlined in 6 NYCRR Part 617.14. The Draft EIS is a part of the EIS record and is incorporated by reference such that the combination of these documents constitutes the Final EIS. The following section provides the Response to Comments on the Draft EIS. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS The following documentation provides a response to each comment received on the Draft EIS for the Beachcomber II project. Each comment is stated or paraphrased and is followed by the source of the comment which corresponds to the annotated letters reviewed in preparation of the Final EIS. Several comments were redundant, and in such cases, only one of the sources is quoted, with sources of similar comments in parentheses. Each comment is followed by a response which is intended to provide the information requested in the comment, as related to the required information necessary for the lead agency and involved agencies to make informed decisions of specific impacts of the project. A total of eleven (11) sources of comments were received by the Town Planning Board. Of these, there were three letters from private citizens, a petition fi-om local residents and two letters fi-om the Planning Board. The remaining comments were made at the two public hearings, which included comments by local residents, the North Fork Environmental Council and the Planning Board Chairman. All of the letter writers also spoke at one or both of the public heatings. Public comments received on the Draft ElS included oral testimony from the two public heatings as well as three letters and'a petition fi-om a group of local residents. In addition to these individual comments, Gerald Waltz of the North Fork Environmental Council read a statement into the record at the April 8, 1996 hearing, and the Planning Board has offered both oral and written comments. These comments are enumerated herein, and have been identified in the text with the appropriate abbreviation. None of the comments were made to specific pages of the Draft EIS, thus the comments have been discussed according to the general section of the Draft ElS to which they refer. The comment letters and hearing transcripts are attached (Attachment A), and individual comments fi-om each source are numbered in the margin. Plannin~ Board Letters (PB1) Letter fi-om the Planning Board to Glen Spetta of May 29,1996 (Note: This letter was written in response to a May 17,1996 letter fi-om Mr. Spetta to the Planning Board, which discussed two issues raised by the Planning Board at the Public Hearing of April 29, 1996.) Letter fi-om the Planning Board to Charles Voorhis and Associates of May 21,1996. Letters from Private Citizens (BRD (KTM/) (PET) Barbara Ripel, 295 Vista Place, Cutchogue (May 3, 1996). Richard and Patricia Spellman, 2600 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue (May 7, 1996). Kathy and Tom Mangramele, 3 180 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue (May 8, 1996). Petition from Local Citizens (May 9, 1996). Page 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Beachcomber Motel (II) Final ElS April 29, 1996 Planning Board Meeting (PBS) (K~ i) (KTM2) (BR2) Planning Board Comments - Richard Ward, Chairman. Kip Bidell, 2420 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue. Tom Mangramele, 3180 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue. Barbara Ripel, 295 Vista Place, Cutchogue. April 8, 1996 Planning Board Meeting (BR3) (FS) (NFEC) (KTM3) (KB2) (~S2) Barbara Ripel, 295 Vista Place, Cutchogue. Fran Slezak, Alvah Lane, Cutchogue. North Fork Environmental Council - Gerald Waltz representative. Tom Mangramele, 3180 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue. Kip Bidell, 2420 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue. Richard Spellman, 2600 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 ! I I Beachcomber Motel (H) Final ElS PROJECT DESCRIPTION Comment 1: "The Board cannot understand how this project can be done as three separate holdings...! don't believe we can really approve a project without knowing that it's under one ownership or one common ownership." (PB3-2, see also PB2-1) "The Board cannot agree to issue a negative declaration in return for agreement to mergeproperties." (PBI-1). Respoase: The subject property consists of three single and separate tax parcels, and the Town has indicated that these parcels should be merged before the proposed project is approved. This issue has been raised by the Town as well as in other public comments. The subject property consists of the following parcels: Suffolk County Tax Parcel (SCTP) 1000-083-2-1: Owned by Pond Enterprises, which operates the existing motel and restaurant, which are located on the parcel. Mr. Nicholas Aliano is President of the corporation. Total Area: 2.1 acres. SCTP 1000~083-2-2: Owned by Patricia Kmpski, Mr. Aliano's daughter. Existing pool arid cabana are located on the property, and the remaining area is wooded. Most of the proposed units will be located on the parcel. Total Area: 12.3 acres. SCTP 100-083-2-17: Owned by Mr. Nicholas Aliano. The pamel is currently rented as farmland. One of the proposed buildings will be located on the parcel, as will the proposed wells and drainage area. According to the Draft EIS, it is unknown at this time whether the existing agricultural use will be discontinued. Total Area: 33.8 acres. In a May 17 letter, Mr. Spetta indicated that the applicant felt that a Negative Declaration on the proposed project was necessary before he could proceed with consolidation of the three properties. The applicant has agreed that the merger of the three properties will be necessary; however, if the proposed project is not approved, the applicant wishes that the three parcels remain in separate ownership. In a more recent letter to the Board (September 7, 1996), the applicant stated that he is willing to agree to a merger of the properties in Covenants and Restrictions pending the approval of the proposed project. As long as the merger is required as a condition of final approval, the current separate status of the parcels should not present an obstacle to the conclusion of the SEQRA process, as long as the Environmental Impact Statement evaluates the impacts to the combined parcels. It is reasonable to allow the applicant to wait until the SEQRA process is complete before merging the parcels. The Board should require consolidation of the parcels before final approval is granted through use of Covenants and Restrictions on the proposed project. This will result in the parcels being treated as a single parcel for the purposes of SEQRA review without limiting the applicant if the proposed project is not approved. Page 7 Comment 2: Response: Comment 3: Response: Beachcomber Motel (ID Final EIS The SEQRA process will be concluded with a statement of Facts and Findings on the EIS rather than a Negative Declaration. The Findings will balance environmental, social and economic issues and will provide the basis for a decision on the project. The Findings may contain mitigation measures and conditions which must be implemented in order for the project to be approved. It would be appropriate to include the merger of the three subject parcels as a condition within the Findings. The "DEIS evaluates 3 separately owned parcels of land rather than one merged tract of land...how will this impact future development of these parcels? What are the implications beyond this project if the separate parcels are later sold of/?." (NFEC-1) Although the subject parcels are currently separate, the Draft EIS examines the impact of the proposed project on the overall property. As was discussed above, the merger of the three parcels can and should be required as a condition of final approval of the project, however, it is not necessary at the current stage of the SEQRA process. Under existing conditions, the combined acreage of the three parcels is necessary to meet County Health Department requirements for sanitary flow for the proposed project, arid no further development would be permitted on any of the three parcels whether or not they are merged. If public water or sewage treatment was provided, the southem portions of the site could be further developed as a residential subdivision provided that Planning Board and Health Deparhnent approval were obtained. Such a residential subdivision would require approval of all other appropriate agencies and would require complete review of water supply, sewage disposal and zoning requirements. The potential for further development will be discussed in more detail in the Land Use section of this document, however, it has been determined that the appropriate density of the site based on environmental constraints would allow construction only 42 additional units, rather that the 46 shown on the proposed site plan. Additional development would not be allowed unless public water and/or sanitary treatment were available on site. The FEIS should address 'future use of the residential parcel to the south. [The] DEIS indicated that this area will be left fallow to provide the project with an adequate water supply." (PB2-4) The Draft EIS is unclear about the applicants' future plans for the southern portion of the site, which is zoned as an Agricultural Conservation District (AC). Although the document suggests that the land remain fallow to minimize impacts to ~oundwater, the applicant does not commit to this elsewhere in the document. The northern portion of the site is zoned Resort Residential (RR). The proposed expansion will be located on the RR zoned portion of the property with the exception of two wells, which will be located in the northernmost portion of the AC land. As xvas discussed I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I ! I i I I Comment 4: Response: Beachcomber Motel (H) Final EIS in the Draf~ EIS, the impact of the proposed project on groundwater will be significantly reduced if the parcel remains fallow. The Town may wish to covenant that the land either remain fallow or be used for specific types of agricultural crops which require limited application of fertilizers. Such a restriction would minimize the groundwater impacts which would result fi.om the proposed project in combination with unrestricted agricultural use. This could be accomplished through a covenant requiting the applicant to utilize a Soil Conservation Management Plan for any agricultural use of the property in the future. The covenant should stipulate that the plan be developed in consultation US Department of Agriculture's the Soil Conservation Service, which regularly prepares agricultural management plans to minimize soil loss as well as to limit the use of nitrogen and pesticides. Mr. A10'Connell of the Soil Conservation Service was contacted during preparation of this document, and indicated that his office would be able to formulate a site specific plan to limit use of nitrogen on the agricultural portion of the subject property. "The record of the original zone change, copy attached, clearly shows it was Mr. Aliano 'S dnd the Town Board's intention to relocate the motel away from the beach due to the severe beach erosion taking place." (PB1-3) Mr. Aliano applied for a change of zoning on a portion of the subject property in the spring of 1978. At that time, it appeared that the existing building was in imminent danger due to erosion of the beach face, and erosion had been particularly severe in the winter of 1977-78. Since that time, erosion has been less severe and the buildings are still in operable condition, although repairs to the foundation were necessary following a severe storm in December of 1992. The storm undermined the seaward foundation of the motel, and the owner made an application for emergency repairs which were completed in May of 1993. The applicant applied for and received an emergency permit for a new seawall fi.om the NYSDEC at that time. It was suggested at that time by the Southold Town Trustees that the applicant consider a "selective retreat" in order to properly fortify the shoreline. They indicated that a storm of similar magnitude has the potential to create the loss of nine or more units along with the restaurant fronting the Long Island Sound. The applicant intends to operate the existing units as long as they are safe, and feels that a requirement to remove or relocate the units at this time would present an economic hardship. The applicant has indicated that he will not operate unsafe units, and is willing to move the units once they can no longer generate income; however, he does not feel that this can be accomplished without additional rental income from the new units. Although Mr. Aliano did state the need to move the units as one reason for the original change of zone, the record fi.om the April 11, I978 hearing indicates that he wished to expand whether or net the move was necessary (Attachment B). The Page 9 I I I ! I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I ! Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS applicant believed at the time that the proposed construction would be a replacement of the threatened units, but did not rule out an expansion. The Planning Board's stated rationale for approving the change of zone was the ongoing erosion, however, they were fully aware of the applicant's overall plan to expand the motel (see Attachment B). In a letter of February 1978, the applicant wrote the following to the Town Planning Board to be forwarded to the Suffolk County Department of Planning. "We have outgrown our present facilities. We turn away hundreds of people every summer - We are highly rated by Mobil Travel Guide, we accommodate people who are sent to us by the Greenport Chamber of Commerce - also Local peoples Friends and Relatives, Church Groups and retirement Groups in addition to our regular following of family vacationers...This need for expansion is compounded by the erosion of our beach front. Motel units are thereby in eminent danger of being wiped out... We are a summer resort open May 1st to Oct. 1st and immediate plans are to Landscape, seed and build a golf course in the center of the planned new construction which units would compliment tennis courts, playgrounds etc." In a FebrUary 23, 1978 letter to the County Planning Department, Muriel Brush, Planning Board Secretary, wrote: "The recommendations of the Planning Board [to approve the change of zone] have been submitted previously. There were no conditions established. Anything permitted in the Code of the Town of Southold for that zoning section is recommended to be allowed by the Board." On March 13 of 1978 the Town Planning Board recommended an approval of the petition of Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski, Case #238 for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M-I" General Multiple Residence District, "in view of the fact that it is apparent that the petitioner must move the motel and facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion. The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance with the development plan of the Town of Southold for this location." The only condition of the approval was that no buildings be constructed within 200 feet of the western boundary line of the property. Thus, although the Board did state the potential loss of units in support of the change of zone, relocation of the existing motel was never required as a condition of approval of the change of zone. Relocation cannot be required retroactively, and there was no previous commitment from the applicant to move the units. Furthermore, the original change of zone did not place any limit on the total number of units, and additional units are allowed under current zoning regulations. The Town can require relocation of any units which become unsafe due to erosion of the beachfront, and potential locations for these units are discussed in the response to Page 10 Comment 5: Response: Commeltt 6: Beachcomber Motel(II) Final EIS Comment 6. In his written response to comments on the Draft EIS, the Applicant has stated that he is willing to agree to relocation of unsafe units in the Covenants and Restrictions with regard to the proposed project. Once the units are removed, they could be replaced by new units, as long as the total number of units does not exceed the maximum recommended density. "[We] would like to cite Chapter 37 of Town Law, which gives the Southold [Town Board] the responsibility to 'regulate, in coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and erosion, land use and development activities so as to minimize and prevent damage and destruction to property'. In 1978 the Planning Board supported a change of zone on Parcel 2 so that Mr. Aliano could 'move the motel and facilities back from the Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion'... As recently as 4/23/92, the trustees have also advised that the existing motel should be moved at least 50feet back. As pe1' Chapter 37 of Town Law, shouldn't Southold see to it that this move of the existing motel be included in the Beachcomber project and thus accounted for in the DEIS?" (NFEC-5, see also PB3-1, BR1-6, BRi-IO, PET-6, RPS1-4, fPS2-2) The bluffs along Long Island's North Shore are subject to ongoing erosion, and location of new structures in areas which are subject to flooding and erosion may accelerate this process. Because of this ongoing sediment loss, greater setbacks would probably be required for construction of a new motel under current regulations, however, the motel is an ongoing, preexisting use. Although the Town does have the responsibility to regulate land use in coastal areas, this is carried out through restrictions on new development rather than through regulation of preexisting development. Relocation of the existing units was not made a condition of the original change of zone by the Board. Thus, although it would be preferable to move the entire motel landward and restore the beachfront, as seems to be implied in Comment 5, this cannot be made a condition of the current application. The cost of moving the entire existing motel is likely to be prohibitive, and the Town has no legislative basis to require relocation. A selected removal of unsafe units could be required, and the applicant should be required through a covenant to remove and relocate out of the hazard area any units which become unsafe. The applicant can be required to consider the potential location of any relocated units at this time so that an optimal design for the furore motel can be considered, and SEQRA la~v requires that all phases of a multiphased project be evaluated. This issue is further discussed in the response to Comment 6 below. The FEIS should address "delineation of an area reserved for the future placement or relocation of the existing motel back from the shoreline. This move was indicated as the reason for the original zone change. The current location is in the flood plain amt subject to severe beach erosion." (PB2-2. See also PB3-1, PB I-2) Page 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response: Beachcomber Motel (ID Final EIS The applicant has submitted an alternative site plan which presents a conceptual layout for relocation of six units which are seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area boundary (Figure 1). The Hazard Area is determined by the Town in compliance with NYS Environmental Conservation Law Article 34, and represents the area in which erosion is likely to occur over a 45 year period based on shoreline recession analysis and other relevant studies. The applicant believes that six units may potentially become unsafe due to erosion of the beachfront and are likely to require relocation. The alternative plan shows these reconstructed units abutting thc eastern wall of the existing motel building. In addition, the existing restaurant is moved approximately 45 feet to the south. The relocated units would have a 6 fooi setback from the Hazard Area boundary, and the restaurant would have a 20 foot setback. This alternative would remove thc units from the Hazard Area with minimal impacts to the remainder of the site; however, ongoing erosion of the shoreline may endanger the units and restaurant in the future. Town Code requires a 100 foot setback to the edge of a bluff for new construction. Although the existing Beachcomber Motel is located within a flat area between bluff areas to the east and west, and the beachffont would not be considered a bluff, there are slopes' over 15 percent along much of the shoreline in front of the motel. As the beachfront is expected to continue to recede (Figure 2),, the Town may wish require that the applicant consider a greater setback for the six reconstructed units than is presented on the alternative plan. A method to achieve this would be to locate a portion of the six units within the footprint of the new buildings as shown on the original site plan. The proposed site plan shows 46 units. As will be discussed, the appropriate density of the site would recommend construction of only an additional 42 units. Thus, four of the units shown on the current site plan should be eliminated, and these units could be used as new locations for the endangered units. The remaining two relocated units could be added to the southernmost proposed building with minimal changes to the current site plan. This alternative would be preferable to the alternative layout suggested by the applicant, and would allow the units to be setback from the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Impact to the remainder of the site would be similar to those of the originally proposed plan, and the units would not be endangered by ongoing erosion. Construction of these additional six units should not be allowed by the Town until the existing units are removed and the restaurant is relocated. In addition, the location of the units to the south of the existing motel should be covenanted as a condition of the proposed project and clearly shown on the final site plan. Page 12 I ~ ! I I I i I, I ! .~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FIGURE 2 Steep Slope Areas on the Subject Site Coastal Zone Hazard Area Boundary Legend: ~) ~ Areas of Steep Slopes Scale: Not to Scale Base Map: Site Plan prepared by Bm-ret, Bonacci, Hyman and Van W~le, 7/29/93 Beachcomber Motel Final EIS Page 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Comment 7: Response: Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS The restaurant location shown on the plan is not ideal; however, potential locations for this building are more constrained than for the six motel units. One of the attractions of the establishment is the waterfi'ont location, and moving the building to the interior of the site would eliminate these views and require relocation of other facilities. The waterfi:ont location seems appropriate as the restaurant is an existing use and is enhanced by its location. The restaurant shown on the alternative plan is 20 feet fi:om the hazard area boundary, which should provide adequate protection in the near future. Other siting of the restaurant is constrained as noted above, and the 45 foot relocation represents a significant improvement. In view of economic considerations, siting constraints and the lack of significant erosion over the nearly 20-year period since the original application, there is no compelling reason to further relocate the restaurant beyond the recommended site 20 feet south of the coastal erosion hazard area boundary. The applicant has agreed to a covenant requiring relocation of the endangered units once the new units are providing sufficient income. Relocation of these six units as well as the restaurant could be included as a condition of the current project. The covenant ~hOuld be clearly worded, setting a time limit for the relocation of the units and specifying where the units will be located. It is suggested that these units be demolished within one year of completion of the new units. Construction of replacement units could then follow as desired by the applicant. As was discussed above, removal of four of the units would be required before construction if all 46 new units are to be built. The covenants and restrictions should clearly delineate locations for relocation of any units which become unsafe. "The Draft EIS mitigates a number of SEQRA issues (traffic, burden on community services, etc.) by highlighting the 'seasonal' nature of the Beachcomber complex. I~at safeguards are there ensuring that Beachcomber will remain seasonal? [Vt/hat is] the Town's definition of'seasonal'?" (NFEC-4) The applicant has indicated that he intends to continue to operate the motel as a seasonal business (May 1st to October lst); however, year round operation would be permitted under Town Code. The Town's zoning code does not define "seasonal", and does not provide any restrictions on seasonal operations. The Draft EIS indicates that impacts such as increased traffic and contribution of nitrogen to groundwater will be seasonal, which will help to mitigate the projected impacts. Tour/sm on Long Island is highly seasonal, and thus it is likely that the motel will continue as a seasonal use, but the projected impacts of the proposed project should be evaluated as potentially occumng year round. The Planning Board will consider the potential impacts of year round use in making a determination on the proposed project, as has been done in analysis contained in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS concludes that the impacts of year-round use of the expanded motel will not be significant, although the document states that seasonal use will offer further mitigation. I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I Comment 8: Response: Comment 9: Beachcomber Motel (ll) Final EIS "We cannot understand why [the applicant] would want to expand the motel when it does very little business during the summer." (KTM1-2, see also KTM2-1, PET-5, RPS2-1, RPS3-1) The scoping letter for the Draf~ EIS did not require the applicant to perform a market analysis for the proposed project; however, the applicant feels there is a demonstrated need for additional motel units within the Town. According to the applicant, the motel has recently picked up in business and the owner would like to further improve the customer base of the business. The applicant indicates that the motel has been selectively utilized during peak holidays, including Memorial Day, July 4th and Labor Day. The applicant has the right to expand the motel under current zoning and believes that the proposed expansion will make the existing facility more attractive to tourists. The completion of up-to-date umts in a pleasant beach-front area with a seasonal tourist base seems to be conducive to a successful business. Recreational opportunities, a convenient restaurant and enhanced on-site amenities all add to the potential success of the business. SEQRA law requires that the Planning Board as lead agency weigh the potential environm6ntal impacts of a proposed project against the public need and potential benefits of the project. If the Board finds that the proposed motel expansion will result in significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated and feels that public need for the project has not been justified, they should deny the project based on SEQRA law. "We are also concerned that in the future, the motel property may be sold and converted into condominiums, time shares, or possibly a rehabilitation center. (We are aware the zoning would have to be changed.)" (PET-4, see also RPS1-2). As was discussed above, the applicant believes that there is an increasing demand for motel accommodations in the area. If the motel were to fail, any uses allowed within the Resort Residential (RR) zoning category could be constructed or retrofitted without a change of zoning, although site plan review for the change of use could be required. An application for a change of zoning would have to be made to the Town Board for any uses which do not conform to existing zoning, and the application would be subject to the SEQRA process. An application for a change of zone could be made whether or not the proposed expansion is approved, and would be determined based on the merits of the application. Uses which are permitted within the RR zoning district include motels and all uses allowed within the A~m-icultural Conservation District zoning designation. These uses are enumerated in Attachment C. Facilities for treatment of drug addiction are specifically excluded within the AC zone, and therefore would not be permitted on site, although other health care and religious institutions xvould be allowed. Multifamily development, including condominiums, are not permitted within the zone as indicated in the Zoning Code included in Attachment C. Page 16 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS Comment 10: We request that at the time the plans are considered by the Board "protection be built into those plans against a possible change from a Motel [use] to a Time share or Condominium use." (RPS1-5). Response: Although it would be possible to include this stipulation as a covenant on the subject property, this protection akeady appears to be in effect under the Town zoning code. The code defines a resort motel as a facility available to "transients on a daily rental basis or to vacationers or other persons on a weekly rental basis." Thus, a condominium or time share, where units are owned by individual guests, does not conform to the definition of a motel. As other multifamily units are not permitted within the zone, a condominium use would not appear to be permitted. This could be stated explicitly in the Covenants and Restriction associated with the proposed project. Comment ll:"Given that the existing motel is under utilized, what is the justification for the proposed expansion? Mr. ,41iano has stated (at the 4~29~96public hearing) that his reasons J3r expanding the motel are no one else's business, however, we strongly disagree. "We believe that it is our business as adjacent property owners, if his intentions are other than he espouses to." (RPS1-2, see also RPS2-3) Response: The Applicant has stated that the Beachcomber Motel has been successful in the past, and that he would like to continue with this success, realizing the full development potential of the property and eventually passing this on to his family. The location is conducive to a water enhanced motel and restaurant, and the proposed expansion is allowed under zoning. If the applicant has plans other than those he has stated, such plans would be regulated under zoning code, as was discussed above. The Planning Board must evaluate the project based on the current application. Also refer to response to Comment 8. WATER RESOURCES Comment 12 "The fragile water supply will be affected... [there has been] a new discovery of water pollution leading north from Oregon Road affecting the Sound front properties. Who will pay to protect local residents from pollution caused by an increased number of visitors from other areas?" (BR1-5) Response: The proposed expansion has been designed to meet Suffolk County Department of Health Standards for protecting groundwater. Water usage is regulated based on year- round usage, and the proposed motel will not exceed these limits in the event that the facility were to be utilized year round. I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Comment 13: Response: Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS The Draft EIS fully discusses the projected impact of the proposed project upon water supply quality in the area. The projected level of nitrogen in groundwater is 5.6 mg/1 while the motel is in operation, assuming the cultivation of the southern parcel is discontinued. This is less than the 10.0 mg/1 NYS drinking water standard, and should not result in significant impacts even if the motel were to be operated on a year round basis as considered in the analysis. If the applicant wishes to return the southern portion of the property to cultivation, a management plan can be required to reduce fertilizer use as was discussed previously. Groundwater flow in the area of the site is toward Long Island Sound. Thus, sanitary waste recharged at the site will move away fi.om, not toward, neighboring wells. Groundwater contamination has occurred along Oregon Road to the north of the Town of Southold landfill, and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services has begun testing and resthction of water use downgradient fi'om the landftll. The site and surrounding residences are outside of the area of potential contamination as defined by the Town, although testing of wells in the area, including the applicant's, may be advisable. Based on currently available information, the proposed project is not expected to be affected by this pollution source, nor is it expected to contribute to it. "..One of our major concerns is the possible negative impact on the limited water supply. It appears that the intended wells will draw from the same aquifer as the adjacent properties. We would like to know how the logistical location of the wells is determined? Is [the location] based upon expected usage? If so, what happens if the usage were to change to... a Time Share or Condominium [use] in the future? How are property owners in the area protected?" (RPSI-I) The location of the wells was detemfined in conformance to both Suffolk County Department of Health requirements and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation water supply and ~;ell permit regulations, which are designed to protect wells on adjacent properties. The Draft EIS discusses water quantity issues in detail, including the potential for drawdown at the property, and no significant impact is expected. Groundwater quality is also discussed fully in the Draf~ EIS. Health Department standards are based on daily use throughout the year, and thus no signiftcant impact to adjacent wells would be expected if the property were to change to year round occupation. Suffolk County Health Department regulatory standards limit the water usage on a site on a per acre basis regardless of the use. Any future uses would have to conform the same standards for overall water use and sanitary flow. The location of wells is evaluated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in addition to the SCDHS, and considers both water quality and potential drawdown and saltwater intrusion to adjacent properties. Once the SEQRA process is complete each agency is in a position to complete review of the water supply design for conformance Page 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS with work permit requirements. Suffolk County Department of Health Services and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation review must ensure that adequate potable water supply can be supplied to the site. Design review may include additional water quality testing, pump tests, drawdown projections and complete design and permitting of the water supply system. Water supply and wastewater disposal systems must be sized properly for the density of proposed development. The Town can assist by requiring and reviewing floor plans to ensure that unit size is consistent with the bedroom count and therefore the design flow used for impact analysis in the Draf~ EIS. The zoning and additional covenants and restrictions to motel use will assist in this regard. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY Comment 14: "The Planning Board or previous approval bureau did great damage to the area by allowing the natural habitat of the birds to be damaged. They should now amend this error by protecting both the natural environment and local population by refusing to allow the expansion of the motel." (BRI-9) Response: The existing motel is a pre-existing use which was constructed in the late 1960's. The pond on site was filled in the 1950's, before wetlands were regulated in the State, and a permit was not required. Although current land use regulations would not allow a similar motel to be constructed today, the Planning Board must assess the impacts of the current project. The fact that the site is already developed and was partially cleared prior to implementation of restrictive zoning does decrease the sensitivity of the site to the proposed expansion. The Planning Board is responsible for determining if the projected impacts are significant, and, if so, that any impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent possible. The Planning Board cannot deny a project based on past impacts. Approval must be granted if a project complies with local zoning and is not shown to have significant environmental impacts. The purpose of the Draft and Final EIS is to assess potential impacts of the proposed project and to provide mitigation of potential impacts. The Draft and Final EIS fulfill this requirement. Comment 15: The area was known as Duck Pond Point and was home to many birds. "Someone... stupidly filled in the Duck Pond and put the motel there and now we're faced with increased [destruction] of the environment". (BR2-1) Response: The history of the pond on site is discussed in detail in the archaeological report attached to the Draft EIS. The pond appears to have been undergoing natural succession through the early 1900's, and was nearly dry due to filling by blown sand and growth of woody species by the 1950's. It is unlikely that waterfo~vl utilized the pond at that time, although they may have been present during the 1800's. Beachcomber Motel (II) Final ElS The pond was filled by a previous owner in the late 1950's, and now is the site of a small drainage area. It was not filled by the current owner or in conjunction with the motel construction as suggested in the comment. The drainage area now has minimal value as a wetland, and is vegetated by non-native species. The proposed expansion will continue to utilize this area for drainage. Regarding will be necessary enlarge the drainage area to receive additional run-off from the new roofs and pavement. As was discussed in the Draft EIS, this will require removal of large area of common reed, which is an invasive species that will recolonize readily. Thus the project does not represent a significant loss of vegetation. In fact, the proposed project provides an opportunity to improve the quality of the drainage area for local vegetation and wildlife. The Town may wish to require that the applicant revegetate this area with native wetland species such as rushes, sedges, bayberry and sweet pepperbush. This would result in an net improvement to this habitat at minimal cost to the applicant, as the area will akeady be regraded. This should be required as part of a site landscape plan as part of an amended site plan required t,o conform to EIS findings. As is discussed in the Draft EIS, it is not expected that the natural environment will be "destroyed" by the addition of motel units to the existing Beachcomber motel. Relatively little cleating is proposed, as the proposed buildings will be located in an area which is already cleared and partially developed Through this plan the steep slopes will be protected. The large agricultural property will also remain undeveloped through the zoning restrictions and use of covenants are restrictions to protect groundwater resources. Agricultural use may occur in consideration of a soil conservation management plan which minimizes use of nitrogen fertilizer. TRAFFIC Comment 16 :[The FEIS should address] the "adequacy of existing roads to handle anticipated traffic." (PB2-3, see also KB I-1). Response: The traffic conditions expected as a result of the proposed action were analyzed in the DEIS and were reassessed for this Final EIS. Table 1 presents a more detailed calculation of the projected trip generation which is likely to result from the project as proposed, which was derived using "Trip Generation, 5th Edition, with February 1995 Update" which is published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Page 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS TABLE 1 Projected Trip Generation Time Period Existing Units Additional Units 36 46 Avg Wkdy 2-Way Vol 330 429 7-9 am Total Vol 21 27 4-6 pm Total Vol 22 27 Sat 2-Way Vol 301 387 Sat Pk Hr Vol 45 52 Sun 2-Way Vol 251 321 Sun Pk Hr Vol 27 33 As the motel facility is presently a seasonal business, operating f~om Memorial Day to mid-October, and is consistent with the tourism industry intrinsic to the area, inspectiort of the above trip generation numbers suggest that there is not likely to be a significant adverse impact as a result of the proposed addition. The new trips will occur throughout the day, with minimal impact during peak hours. Although impacts are expected to be minimal, mitigation measures are recommended to facilitate traffic flow and to improve safety conditions. The Draft EIS suggested mitigation at the intersection of Duck Pond Road and Vista Place and Birch Lane. Duck Pond Lane makes a sharp right turn at this intersection, continuing down grade to the motel. A stop sign should be installed (with the consent of the Highway Superintendent) to control northbound traffic at the intersection of Duck Pond Road, Vista Place and Birch Lane as a condition of site plan approval. Trimming of the brushy vegetation at the southeast comer of the intersection and pruning of the large evergreen on the northeast comer of Duck Pond Road and Oregon Road should also be required within the Town right-of-way. If trimming beyond the Town right-of- way, would add sight distance and increase the level of safety, the applicant shall seek to obta'm the permission of the adjacent property owner in order to perform such mitigation. The existing basic road configuration should remain in order to maintain the existing rural character of the roads; however, striping, pedestrian walks, resurfacing, etc. may be necessary to promote driver awareness and pedestrian safety. The applicant and Town shall consider this and propose a balance of mitigation measures for this intersection in the submission of a revised site plan. In summary, the proposed addition of 46 units to the Beachcomber Motel is not likely to have a significant impact to the surrounding community with the minor remediation measures recommended above. As has been discussed previously, the total number of additional units which are recommended on site is 42, which ~vill Pa:4e 2 ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Comment 17: Response: Comment 18: Response: Comment 19: Response: Comment 20: Response: Beachcomber Motel (H) Final ElS result in a slight decrease in the projected number of trips generated by the proposed project. "Motel visitors speed through the narrow road and dangerous corner leading down to the motel. Pets have been killed and children have barely avoided being run down. An increased motel population could only explode these problems into tragedies." (BR1-3, see also BR2-2, KB1-2, PET-2). The proposed stop sign should help mitigate the problem of cars traveling at high speeds along the road, however, it is unlikely that the motel is the primary cause, as Duck Pond Road is also utilized by traffic to the beach at the road end. The proposed project is unlikely to generate significant traffic problems, as was discussed above. Use of pavement markers and other calming measures will further reduce potential impacts. "We use the beach by the motel quite frequently, and use the road leading to the Beachcomber to walk our 2 small children to the beach. That would no longer be possible [if the motel is expanded.] (KTMI-1, PET-3)" It is expected that local residents will continue to be able to be able to use the road leading to the Beachcomber motel to walk to the beach as this is a public road. With the added traffic improvements mentioned there should be no significant impact to the existing traffic in the area. Traffic will be slowed by the northbound proposed stop signs and other traffic calming measures, and sight distances at the comer of Duck Pond Road and Vista Lane will be improved. Are "there any other kind of alterations [in addition to the proposed stop signs], that are going to be made to the roads? There are no shoulders on the roads going down [to the beach/motel entranceJ.., and ifa car comes, there is very little room." (KTM3- s) There are no plans at present to widen Duck Pond Road. Analysis in the Draft and Final EIS suggests that the proposed project does not warrant extensive road improvement except for mitigation at the intersection. If Duck Pond Road is widened, the existing topography would present constraints. There is no compelling reason to explore further mitigation at this time. "Local people can't get down [to the Town property at the end of Duck Pond Road] because [non-resident] cars are parked along the road, not in the motel... There's not even a sign there that says 'Town of Southold" sticker. Is that because the motel is there?" (FS-2). Extensive parking and illegal use of Town beaches and road ends by non-residents is a problem throughout the Town. It is unlikely that these problems are due to the presence of the motel, as guests park on the motel property, which has an adequate Page 22 I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I Comment 21: Response: LAND USE Comment 22: Response: Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS parking area. The area should be posted for Town residents only, although the absence of a sign is not due to the motel. The comment should be directed to the Town of Southold Town Board and Highway Department. As the applicant owns property to Oregon Road, if the project is to be considered by the Board, there should be a private road to the motel from Oregon Road. This would eliminate traffic problems on Duck Pond Road, which is a dead end street. (K~2-~) The Draft EIS concludes that traffic impacts will be minimal. Although any minimal traffic impacts would be reduced by this alternative, an access road fi.om Oregon Road would cause greater natural impacts. A large area of native vegetation would have to be cleared, as the road would cross an area of steep slopes. This would alter the existing drainage swale, creating potential erosion problems. The road would also create a significant impervious area which would generate stormwater and require recharge. Such an access would be more feasible if the southern parcel were developed, which would require that the site be provided with public water as will be discussed below. As this is unlikely to occur in the near future, access from Oregon Road doe~ not appear to be a viable option at this time. "The existing 36 motel units are presently located on Parcel 1 consisting of 2.1 acres. The normal allowable density for this parcel, however, would be 14.5 units. If the three parcels are not merged, is the Beachcomber complex, in effect, getting an extra 20 units? In other words, should public water later become available and/or further down the road yet another expansion is planned for parcel 2 or parcel 3, would parcel one's 36 units be factored into the whole picture?" (NFEC-3, see also KTM3- 2) Although the three subject parcels are not legally merged at this time, the Draft EIS addresses development on the combined parcels. All three parcels are necessary in order for the applicant to obtain the desired yield at this time, and the applicant has agreed to merge the parcels as a condition of final approval of the project. The existing units have been included in the calculation of the yield of the combined parcels. A clarification of the current and future development potential of the project site does appear to be necessary. The maximum development allowed on a parcel of land is regulated by both Town zoning regulations and County Health Department Standards, and the most restrictive regulations apply on any particular property. According to the Draft EIS, the maximum yield of the combined parcels is limited by the County Health Department standards, which are generally more restrictive than zoning regulations in unsewered areas. On the subject site, however, zoning regulations are more restrictive than County Health Department standards, however, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Beachcomber Motel (Il) Final EIS there are environmentally sensitive lands on the property. The maximum yield should be based on the overall acreage of the site, in consideration of the area of sensitive environmental land. The RR zoned portion of the site contains both waterfi'ont property and areas of steep slopes, which would reduce the reasonable yield on the parcel. The following is a more appropriate determination of the development potential of the property. Zoning regulations limit development within RR zoned districts to one unit per 6,000 s.f. if the site is unsewered, and one unit per 4,000 s.f. if the site is sewered and has public water. Although the total area of RR zoned land on site is 16.5 acres, the areas with slopes over 15 percent and the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area cannot be considered buildable land under Town Code. Figure 2 shows these areas, which total 4.8 acres, and thus, the total unconstrained area of the site zoned for RR development is 11.7 acres. A buildable area of 11.7 acres would result in a yield of 85 hotel units if the site were vacant, however, the determination of reasonable density must also consider the existing development on site, including the three apartment units and restaurant. The apartments and existing units can be directly subtracted from the overall yield, however, the restaurant is a preexisting, non-conforming use which is not discussed under the zoning code. The minimum lot size on which a restaurant would be allowed is 20,000 s.f. in a Hamlet Business district. Thus, it is reasonable to subtract 20,000 s.f. from the buildable land to allow for the restaurant, which would result in a total of 11.3 acres ofbuildable land on site. Based on this figure, the reasonable density of the parcel would be 81 un/ts. As there are currently 36 units and three apartments on site, the total number of additional units should be 42. There are 46 additional units proposed on the current site plan, and thus four (4) of the proposed units should be removed from the site plan. The preceding discusses only the 16.5 acre RR zoned portion of the site. The remaining 31.7 acres of the site is zoned AC, which would allow subdivision of the property into 80,000 s.f. residential lots. This would permit approximately 12 new homes on the southern portion of the site, assuming 20 percent of the site is used for roads and a recharge basin. Although this yield would be permitted under the Zoning Code, County Health Department standards are more restrictive, as will be discussed in the following paragraph. County Health Department standards limit the total wastewater discharge on a site to 300 gallons per day (gpd) per acre in areas without public water and sewage treatment. As the site is 48.2 acres and has neither public water or sewers, the total flow permitted on the parcels at this time is 14,460 gallons per day (gpd). The combined acreage of all three parcels is necessary to obtain this total allowed flow. As calculated in the Draft EIS, the proposed project would result in a total flow of 14,425 gpd, which would not allow development of the remaining AC portion of the site, however, subtraction of four units as discussed above would reduce this flow by 150 gpd per unit, or 600 gpd. This would allow construction of two single family homes on the AC portion of the site. Thus, under existing conditions, the reasonable Page 24 Comment 23: Beachcomber Motel (1~ Final ElS yield on the overall property would be 42 additional motel units and two new single family homes. The development potential of the overall property would increase if public water and/or sewage treatment were available on site. County Health Department standards increase the maximum sanitary flow allowed on a property to 600 gpd per acre in an area with public water. Sanitary flow is not limited if both sewage treatment and public water are provided. Zoning regulations require that both public water and sewage treatment be provided before the yield is increased within the RR zoning district to allow one unit per 4,000 s.f. ofbuildable land rather than one unit per 6,000 s.f.. Within the AC zoning district, the development potential is the same whether or not sewage treatment or public water are provided. Thus, if only public water were provided on site, the yield on the RR portion of the site would not change, with a reasonable yield of 42 additional un/ts. The yield of the AC portion of the site would change, as the combined acreage of the three parcels would no longer be necessary to meet County Health Department standards. Thus, in the event that public water is provided at the site, the appropriate density on site would be °42 additional units and 12 single family homes. If both public water and sewage treatment were provided, the yield on the RR zoned portion of the property would increase to one unit per 4,000 s.f, which would allow a total of 83 additional units. Thus, the maximum development potential on the subject property under any conditions is 83 additional motel units and 12 single family homes. This would require that the applicant construct a sewage treatment plant, as it is unlikely that public sewers would be extended to the area. Such a plan would require site plan approval. In addition, location of additional units in an appropriate and environmentally sensitive manner would be of concern and would warrant additional detailed environmental review. A supplemental EIS would most likely be necessary to address these issues. In summary, the appropriate density under existing conditions is 42 additional motel units and two single family homes, and thus four units must be removed from the site plan. If public water were available on site, 12 single family homes would be allowed, but there would be no increase in the number of motel units. If both public water and sewage treatment were provided, the maximum yield allowed under zoning would be 83 new motel units and 12 single family homes, although location of the traits in an environmentally sound manner would be of concern. In the event that the proposed project is approved, the Board should incorporate this derivation of yield within the Findings establishing the basis for approval and providing a means to limit further development of the site. "Parcel #3 includes almost 30 acres presentl, v zoned Agricultural Conservation. Without Covenants and Restrictions, does leaving this land dorma~zt increase the likelihood of it being re-zoned for development at some fiaure date?" (NFEC-2) I I I ! I ! ! I I I I I I I I I I I I Response: Comment 24: Response: Comment 25: Response: Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS The AC zoned portion of the project site is currently farmed. It has been suggested that the Town require that the land lie fallow in order to reduce the groundwater impacts of the proposed project. The resulting loss in rental income to the project sponsor might provide some added incentive to develop the remainder of the site; however, development would provide a significant economic advantage even if the property is farmed. Although the applicant does not have plans to rezone the parcel, a request for a change of zone could be made in the future. Any change of zone application would require approval from the Town, and would a decision would be made based on the merits of the proposal and detailed environmental review. The existing AC zoning designation does not preclude development as is suggested in this comment, and mzoning would not be necessary before the site is developed. In fact, it is more likely that the AC land will be developed if the project is not approved, as the proposed project will limit the development potential of the AC lands to two single family homes unless public water is provided at the site, as was discussed above. "This is a residential setting and therefore no place for an expanded motel." (PET-I) It is acknowledged that the location of the motel and restaurant within a residential area does present land use conflicts. Although this spot zoning would be unlikely to be approved under existing land use regulations, the facility has been located in the area since 1970 and constitutes a preexisting use. As the proposed project conforms to the zoning code, the Board has no basis to deny the application. "It is clear that the life styles and needs of the majority of the local residents would be adversely affected by the expansion of the motel. We have no confidence that our own investments in our homes would not be adversely affected by the expansion of the motel." (BR1-7, see also BR3-1) It is not expected that property values will decrease as a result of the proposed expansion, as the motel was present when most residents moved into the neighborhood. Although local residents will be aware of an increase in traffic and in the number of people using the shore during peak occupancy, the impact of the proposed project will be minimal throughout much of the year. The lifestyle of local residents is not expected to be significantly altered. Seasonal increase in human activity already occurs in the area, due to both the motel and the public beach at the end of Duck Pond Road. Although there are a few homes which currently have views of the motel in the winter, perspectives from most of the adjacent properties are screened as is discussed in the Draft EIS. The proposed construction will require minimal cleahng, and will not remove the vegetation which currently screens views of the site. The applicant has indicated that the proposed motel will be designed to be an attractive, high quality business oriented toward families. The addition of units to the site is not expected to Page 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Comment 26: Response~ Camment 27: Response: Comment 28: Response: Comment 29: Response: Beachcomber Motel (11) Final EIS significantly change the character of the existing neighborhood, and use of landscape improvements, architectural control and site plan design can be exercised by the Town to minimize impacts. These measures can be ensured during the site plan review through the required resubmission of a site plan consistent with the statement of findings and facts on the Final EIS. "If such an expansion would be approved, we would seriously consider selling our home. We bought in this area for privacy, quiet, serenity, and not to look at an expanded motel." (KTM1-3) As was discussed above, it is not expected that the proposed expansion will significantly alter the character of the neighborhood. The property has been used as a resort for tourists since at least 1970. The motel is a preexisting use and residents were aware of it when they made the decision to move into the area. Landscaping can be utilized where necessary and can be required as part of the revised site plan. "I think this is very damaging to our environment and where we live. It is a family community, and to open it up to 46 more units ora motel brings a lot of danger to all of us." (B~2-5) The comment does not support the contention that the proposed motel expansion will be dangerous to the community. No significant health or safety impact to local residents was identified during preparation of the Draft EIS. The Draft and Final EIS also suggest that the environmental impacts will be minimal. "The rezoning [of the property] might lead to other types of development in the area which would totally destroy its rural residential character." (BR1-8) The proposed project is not a request for a change of zone as suggested in the comment. The motel expansion is an allowed special exception use in an area zoned for this type of development, and the application is for the necessary site plan approval. Thus, the project is not expected to result in rezoning for non-residential uses on surrounding lands, which are currently zoned for residential development or agricultural conservation. The rural nature of the area will be protected by the existing surrounding zoning. Furthermore, any future request for zoning changes would require approval from the Town Board and other involved agencies, and would be subject to the SEQRA process and public comment. 'T think it is a waste of everyone's effort to even consider the proposal" (BR3-3) The Planning Board does not have the option to refuse to entertain a proposal which is a reasonable request in accordance with existing zoning. Page 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I l Beachcomber Motel Cfi) Final EIS COMMUNITY SERVICES Comment 30: '~ larger motel will strain local resources. Fire protection would have to be increased.., and more Police protection would have to be provided. Both these additions would mean local residents will have to pay more taxes which would benefit nonresidents." (BR1-4, see also BR2-3) The Draft EIS shows that there will be no strain on local police and fire departments. The Southold Police Department was contacted, and responded with a letter stating that they would be able to provide Police protection to accommodate the expansion (Appendix D-56 of the Draft EIS). The Cutchogue Fire Department expressed some concerns concerning their capability to respond to fires (Appendix D-57 of the Draft ELS). The site plan was modified in response to these concerns, and the applicant will install a 400 gpm fire well on the property. Even if there were an increase in demand for these community services, the comment is incorrect in the conclusion that taxes would be increased for local residents. As with almost all commercial development, the proposed project will result in an increase in local tax revenues. Commercial and industrial development are the major source of tax revenue for most municipalities, while residential development represents a net loss in tax revenues. This is because of the higher valuation of commercial and industrial properties as well as the generation of school children by residential development. Thus, the proposed project will increase tax revenues, allowing a decrease in the proportion of taxes paid by local residents. The Draft EIS did not calculate the tax revenue which will be generated by the proposed project. The applicant currently pays over $47,000 each year, of which approximately $27,000 goes to the local school district. The cost of the new building was estimated in the Draft EIS to be approximately $2,000,000, which will significantly increase both the assessed value of the property and the taxes generated on site. Comment 31: At present, the motel is not well utilized.., although even on that level, customers intrude on the privacy and safety of the residential communities of Birch Hills and Vista Bluff Motel visitors roam the neighborhood, leaving litter, pet waste, and wander through private property (BR1-2, see also BR2-4, BR3-2). Response: While it is possible that at least some motel guests violate the property rights of local residents, the end of Duck Pond Road allows access to the general public. Day trippers and Town residents both use the road for access to the beach and Long Island Sound, and are probably partially responsible for the problems presented in this comment. Page 28 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I ! I I I Beachcomber Motel (ID Final EIS Trespassers should be informed that they are on private property, and can be reported to the police by local residents. Littering should also be reported to the police. The Town could require that the applicant clearly mark the boundaries of the motel property and inform guests of the fights of local property owners, which might help to reduce any trespassing by motel guests. The applicant has stated that to his knowledge the motel guests are not inconsiderate. He has not been informed of any instance of guests leaving garbage or allowing their children or pets roam in the neighborhood. He asks that such instances be reported to himself or to the Police. If a motel guest is responsible, the applicant has indicated that he will be happy to remind them of their obligations to be considerate of the neighbors and to keep the Town of Southold clean. Comment 32: This is a lengthy comment discussing various concerns relating to public use of the beach at the end of Duck Pond Road and surrounding area. These concerns include beach erosion due to illegal launching of jet skis, illegal hunting on the motel property, extensive parking along the road and edge of the Beachcomber property by non-residents, littering and dumping of garbage and illegal use of motorcycles on the beach. T~te comment suggests that the motel attracts residents to the area, who then return, contributing to theseproblems. (FS-I). Response: Mr. Richard Ward, prior Chairman of the Town Planning Board, responded to this comment at the time it was made, stating that the Town had similar problems at other road ends throughout the Town during the warmer months. While it is possible that some motel guests contribute to these problems, the primary attraction is the public beach. Both residents and non-residents may be responsible for the illegal activities which occur in the area. The presence of the motel is likely to be a minor factor, as these activities also occur in areas without the presence of a motel. In particular, it is unlikely that motel guests park illegally along the road, as they can park at the motel. As was discussed above, these problems should be reported to the Town of Southold, and it is acknowledged that code enfomement could be improved to address these problems. The applicant has stated that he informs all motel guests to follow local regulations, and that he picks up garbage when it comes onto his property. To his knowledge none of the motel guests have launched jet skis at the beach. He does not allow hunting on the property and has posted signs warning that there is no hunting or trespassing allowed. CULTURAL Comment 33: The existing motel "needs a paint job, the curtains are ripped, [and] you can see it from the street ". (KTM2-2. see also RPS2-4) Response: It is possible to view the motel from the end of Duck Pond Road, and the new units will be partially visible. The applicant argues that painting and maintenance is Page 29 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS typically performed during the winter and spring prior to opening. The Town may wish to require mitigation measures such as additional landscaping to improve the visual quality of the site, which would benefit from aesthetic improvement as suggested in the comment. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS Comment 34: The board needs to consider the benefits such an expansion would have on the community. The proposers would argue that a certain number of jobs and peripheral sales would result and that there would be low environmental impact. This argument is filled with weaknesses and deceptions (BRI-1). Response: It is true that the Board must consider the potential benefits of the project as well as the potential negative impacts. The creation of jobs and peripheral sales are expected to he a real benefit of the proposed project, as with most commercial development. The Draft EIS discusses this issue in Section 9, Growth Inducing Aspects, and, while this section could be more clearly presented, it appears to be factual. The Draft EIS acknowledges some potential impacts, and the overall assessment of the significance of these impacts is the responsibility of the Board. Page 30 I I I t I I I I I I I I 'l I I I I I l Spe~a, Glen; 1996. Beachcomber Motel (11) Final ElS REFERENCES Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Beachcomber Motel II, Cutchogue, Suffolk County, New York, Township of Southold. Glen Spetta Associates, Bohemia, N.Y. ?age31 ATTACHMENT A Written Comments and Oral Testimony on the Draft ElS PI.~ANNING BOARD MEMBERS RICHARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITCHIE DATHAM, JR. BENNETT ORLOWSKI, .IR. WILLIAM J. CREMERS K~NNETH L. EDWARDS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTI-IOLD May 29, i996 Glenn Spetta Associates 1050 Smithtown Avehue Bohemia, NY 11716 RE: Beachcomber II Motel Cutchogue, NY SCTM# 1000-83-2-1,2 & 17 Dear Mr. Spetta, The Planning Board has received your letter of May 17, 1996. The Board cannot agree to issue a negative declaration in return for your agreement to merge the properties. Further, the Board will require an area be designated on the plan for the future location of the existing motel as it is presently located in the flood plain, and as you indicate in your letter, there is potential for future loss due to beach erosion. The record of the original zone change , copy attached, clearly shows it was Mr. Aliano's and the Town Boards intention to relocate the motel away from the beach due to the severe beach erosion taking place. The above comments should be addressed along with other issues brought up at tile public hearing as part of your response for the FEIS. I I I I I t I 1 I I I ! I ! I ! I t I If you have any questions, please do not l~esitate to contact this office. En¢l$. cc: Charles J. Voorhis I I I PI~,.NN~N~ BOARD RICIZ~ARD G. WARD Chairman GEORGE RITC~E ~, BENNE~ O~O~, ~I~ J. C~ME~ ~NNETH L. EDWA~S Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fox (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD I 1 I I I I May 21, 1996 Charles Voorhis & Associates. Inc. Environmental and t~lanning Consultants 54 North Country Road, Suite 2 Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Beachcomber II Motel Cutchogue, NY SCTM# 1000-83-2-1, 2 & 17 Dear Mr. Voorhis, The public comment period on the Draft DEIS ended May 10, 1996. The minutes of the verbal comments are enclosed along with copies of the written comments for your information. Please ! address the following concerns in preparing the FEIS: The merger of the (3) three parcels that comprise this project. Delineation of an area reserved for the future placement or relocation of the existing motel back from the shoreline. This move was indicated as the reason for the original zone change. The current location is in the flood plain and subject te severe beach erosion. I I I Adequacy of existing roads to handle anticipated traffic. Future use of residential parcel to the south. DEIS indicates that this area will be left fallow to provide the project with an adequate water supply. The Board would like you to particularl)' review the comments of the North Folk Environmental Council as they encapsuiate the Boards concerns. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I Please contact me if you have any questions, or require further information. Site Plan Reviewer El%cl. i 295 Vista Place Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935 May 3, 1996 Southold Town Plannzng Board I Main Road Southold N.Y. Z1971 Dear Plannzng Board: I have As a specialist in American Democracy, a good understanding I of the conoapt of representative democracy. A small group of people try to represent and effect the best policies on behalf of the whole society. Such is the job of the Planning Board of i Southold Town. In the particular instance of the petition for expanding the Beachcomber Motel, the board needs to consider the benefits such an I_ expansion would have to the community. The proposers would argue that a certain number of jobs and peripheral sales would, result and that there would be a low environmental impact to the neighborhood. I This argument is filled with weaknesses and perhaps even deceptions. At present the motel is not well utilized. The summer trade is Iminimal although even on tha~ level, customers intrude on the -~ ~privacy and safety of the residential communities of Birch Hills ~and Vista Bluff; motel visitors roam the neighborhood, leaving ~litter, pet waste, and wander through private property. Motel 'visitors speed through the narrow road and dangerous corner leading I down to the motel. We have suffered a number of pet deaths and %_~ children have barely avoided being run dowm. An increased motel population could only explode these problems into tragedies. A larger motel presence would strain local resources. Fire  protection would have to be increased (there are few hydrants); and more Police protection would have to be provided. Both these ~-q additions would mean local residents would have to pay more taxes which would benefit nonresidents. The fragile water supply would be affected: please note the new discovery of water pollution I leading north from Oregon Road and affecting the Sound front properties. Who would pay to protect the local residents from S pollution caused by an increased number of visitors from other areas? I I tn some of the discussions about the Motel expansion, I no,ed several comments that previous rulings about moving existing motel uniSs have not been complied with in over t0 years. This provides no confidence t~at future resur~ctions on the use and care of the proper~7' would be obeyed. I ~Basically it is clear that the life styles and needs of the ~majority of the local residents would be adversely affected by the lexpansion of the motel. We have no confidence that our own ~investments in our homes would not be seriously damaged by this ~|plan. We believe the rezoning might lead to other types of ~ldevetopment of the area which would totally destroy its rural |residental character. Previously, the Planning Board or previous lapproval bureau did great damage to the area by allowing the _~natural habitat of the birds to be damaged. They should now amend error by protecting both the natural environment and the local ~poputation by refusing to allow the expansion of the motel. It ~m~should, on this occasion, make sure that previous rulings are ~obeyed. Perhaps fines are due for the lack of compliance. I would be happy to discuss my strong opposition to the petition to expand the Beachcomber Motel with the Board if they so desire. Sincerely, · Barbara D. D. I I I I I I I ! I ! I I I I May 7, 1996 Southold Town Planning Board Mr. Richard Ward, Chairman 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 1197l Dear Mr. Ward, I am writing this letter on behalf of my wife and [, to express our concerns with the application by the Beachcomber Motel to expand 't s facility's. I verbally expressed our concerns at two public meetings held by the Board as a part of the review process. This letter is meant to formalize those concerns. *Us a property owner of an adjoining lot to the Beachcomber property which is to be utilized as a part of the expansion, one of our major concerns is the possible negative impact on the limited water supply. It appears that the intended wells will draw fi.om the same aquifer as the adjacent properties. We would like to know how the logistical location of the wells is determined? Is it based on expected usage ? Ii'so, what happens il'that usage were to change, to say a Time Share or a Condominium type of set up in the future? How are we protected against that? Is the owner /willing to stipulate that he has no intentions of changing this property from a seasonal to year round usage in the future? We have heard ,'Vk. Aliano state that it's no one etse's business but his }s to his reason's for expanding what appears to be an unprofitable business by over twice it s current capacity, but we ~stron=ly disa~ee with his opinion, we feel it is our business, as adjacent property owners, if his intentions are other than those he currently espouses to. As a point of tact and record, Mr. Aliano's record of following through on his expressed plans does not give me a great deal of confidence in his currently expressed plans. The point we allude to is his lack of follow up on his last expansion, a part ofwh/ch was the relocation of the e,,dsting units. We feel that ifMr. Aliano is not required to fulfill his commitments to the board he will continue to flout his responsibility's, and do as he pleases, utilizing his version of what he has comm~.'tted to. Therefore we request that he be direct,e,d to fulfill Ns current commitments before any new pans be considered. Then at the time the ne,v plans are to be considered, protection be built into those plans against a possible change from Motel type of setup to a Time S,hare or Condominium type of setup 1£ these points are not addressed by ~k.)diano, to the board s satisfaction, we ume you Ito reject his request for any ~rrher expansion. ~ i I i Sincerely. %Lr P-,ichar~ ,5<ce!Iman Mrs Parricia Soeilman /, ·/)? , ---/-- \ ~ , /.' // , ! I I I ! I I I i I I I ! I I i I I I I I I I ! I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I PETITION We, the undersigned, are stronely op[~osed to thce'xp'a~bd'-ofIhe .... -~ Beachcomber Motel (Beachcomber Il), for the following reasons: /1. This is a residential setting and therefore is no place for an expanded motel. The narrow, steep road leading down to the motel cannot accomodate the increased traffic. There will also be increased traffic on Duck Pond Road. There are many young children in this area whose lives may be in danger. The people in the neighborhood will not be able to walk/bicycle down to the beach due to the increased traffic. We are also concerned that in the future, the hotel property may be sold and converted into condominiums, timeshares, or possibly a rehabilitation center (we are aware the zoning would have to be changed). Why expand a motel that does very little busineSs and/~ad the option i~lof being moved back as per a 1978 ruling to avoid the erosion? I I I I I I I I Name Address l l l l I I I ! I I I I I I I I I ress I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Ward: Beachcomber Mote! !1- This proposed site plan is for the expansion of an exis~ng motel through the addition of 4.6 more units in four new buildings. The project is located on Duck Pond Lane in Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-83-2.1, 2 & p/o 17. We have a problem, I believe, with the posting on this particular site and I'd like to enter a resolution that the Southold Town Planning Board keep the hearing held open until the next public meeting on April 29, 1996 pending further notification of property owners. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Odowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carded. Also, be it further resolved that the pubiic comment period will be held open until May 9, i996. Mr. Cremers: Sec')nd. Mr. Ward: Motion seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. There are some of you that did come tonight and what I'd like to do is give you a chance to go on record if you have any comments regarding the Beachcomber proposal. You're welcome to do that tonight and you're also welcome to do that on the 29th when we have the next meeting. ~'I Barbara Rickel: I'm Barbara Rickel, Vista Place. My concern is that, i flipped through that huge resort and there seem to be serious environmental concerns. It was Duck Pond Point. It is the home of the birds and someone, in my opinion, s~pidty filled in ~ I the Duck Pond and put the motel there and now we're faced with increased I des~'oying of the environment. I secondly want to make sure that everyone realizes ,that the environment is beyond the birds and the people. That is a very dangerous corner. Increased traffic will cause...we've had several dogs kilted, I'd hate to think about chitdren being kiiled on that corner. What about the increased pressure on our homes, vaiuewise, and also peoo~e from the motel tend to roam around our neighborhood. What is the Town willing to promise us in police suoport, fire protec~fion, ail those kinds of things. Utter increases during the summer ~ecause ¢eo[~ie 'gander arouno our neighborhood, and I think that aithough Mr. Aliano has the dgnt to deveioo his Southold Town P!anning Board 2 Apn18, I996 property, we have a right to protect our inves~'nents and I think this is ve.r'/damaging to our environment and where we live. It is a family community, and to open it u[} to 4.6 more units of a motel brings a lot of danger to all of us. Thank you. Fran Slezak: Hi, my name is Fran Slezak. I live on Alvah's Lane in Cutchogue. I walk the beach in that area. I was not notified of this because I'm not in the immediate area, but I did see the sign and I felt compelled to come here tonight because I too am very concerned about the environment, t he beach erosion. In the summer time I have called the police department and the highway department 3 or 4 times, because cars have pulled trailers with jetskis onto the beach there. These were peopte who maybe were staying at the motel, or not staying at the motel, I don't know. But I was concerned that they were there. l have seen when the motel was closed, hunters with beagles on the grounds, shooting rabbits with homes in the neighboring area. That concerned me greatly. There is no place for the people who live in the area, when ,Ne go down there in the summer time to walk along the beach, the non-residents cars are parked all the way along that road, ail the ,Nay Up tO Duck Pond. I think it's invasion of a community. I think that you really have to consider the people who live there. The dirt that's left on the side...there's a road that comes ~om Duck Pond down to the water and it's the edge of the Beachcomber...the filth that's left there. I have seen the feet of deer left there in the fall when the motel is closed. I'm not blaming the motel, but I'm saying a lot of people come there, they're aware that it's a dead end area, they leave things there, and it's just disgusting. I can't toil you how many times the barrier there has been pushed down by people because the barrier was there they couldn't drive their car on the beach to get to jetski so they moved it over and they carried the jetski there. I couldn't believe it with my eyes. These are non- residents. So, I'm very concerned about what's going to happen when you increase it to 46 units. I'm already upset with seeing the changes that have happened. The dirt, the garbage, the food left on the beach. If you watk on the beach a mile down in either direction, the people have left. Who is going to go and pick that stuff up? I have picked it up. I've called the Town to say, hey there's s~ff here. Very often the water just naturally comes up very high on the sand. The natural erosion is not..J mean if you put more peoole, more boats...I've seen motorcycles riding on the beach. Who's going to monitor this. /Vhen I called the police depa~ment one time because somebody had come with a ietski and...wnen the ietski peopie come, they come with one jetski and there are five carloads of peoole, and they ail take their turn and ride the jetski. I've seen the jetskJ ,vith '~obcd,/on [t going [n circles because they fell off. ! thought it was suscosed to I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Southold Town P~anmng Boara 3 ApnlB, i996 ,close off automatically? It didn't. Well, that frightened me because there were people and children in t~e water. And it's a limited beach area because of ail the natural rocks and all the natural stones that are there that when these other people are there who are with the motel or not with the motel, I'm just saying that a [pt of peol~le come to the motel that are familiar with the area, then they come back. And the local people can't even get down there because all their cars are parked along the road, not in the motel, in those places. So, how are we going to monitor this. How ace we going to...when I called the police one time they said, wetl, we'll try to get down there but we have a lot of other areas. Their hands are tied. They've got a lot of places to go. I think it's a major concern and I think we really have to look at it because it's a community there and I think the Town peol~le are concerned about it. And I just happened to see the sign because I walk the beach every day. Thank you. Mr. Ward: We have a lot of street ends and we have similar probtems really all over the Town duhng the spring, summer and fall. The issue that will be before us though on the 29th will be directly related to the Beachcomber proposed expansion. What we will do is take these comments and make sure that the Town Board and police deparLment at least are aware of these concerns. Ms. Slezak: There's not even a sign there that says only for Town residents. Is that because the motel is there? Almost every other dead end street in Southold has a sign that says parking for Town residents. This does not even have that. It does not even have a sign there. Mr. Ward: Which maybe means there is no parking, but I don't know the situation. Ms. SIezak: No, it says no parking hours between !0 and !0, but i'm saying every other place you go down it says Town of Southold s~cker. And I think there is a direct corre!a~on between what's hat~pening there with the expansion. I think there's going to be more people, more cars traveling down there, i'm ve~ concerned about it. Thank you. Gerald Waits: My name is Gerald Waits. I'm here on behalf of the North Fork Environmental Council. We do have some concerns concerning this project and I'm here to read a statement. The DEiS for the Beachcomber expansion evaluates the project as existing on three separately owned parcais of !and rather than on one merged tract of land. The North Fork Environmental Councli is concerned about how this approach may or may not impact future deve!ooment of these garcs!s beyond the proposed Beachcomber It project. Since pa~ of ~he SEQRA review coils for an anticipation of a project's possible impact on 'ut~;ra dove!pomona, we fee! that a number of quesdons should be addressed. ~.. Wha'[ are ~e implicadons beyond th, ts sro!ed: f :he ~'~ec'ar~[e~ - o-cr~.~..*=~* ,ara ',a'~er sold I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Southold Town Planning Board I off? 2. Parcel .~3 includes almost 30 acres presently zoned Agricultural-Conservation. According to Be [:)EIS, [his land would no longer be farmed but instead would be left fallow in order to provide [he project with an adequate water supply. Without Covenants and Restrictions, does leaving [his land dormant increase the tike!ihood of it being re-zoned for development at some future date? 3. The exis~ng 36 motel units are presently located on Parcet 1 consisting of 2.1 acres. The normal allowable density for [his parcel, however, would be 14..5 units. If the three parcels are not merged, is the Beachcomber complex, in effect, getting an extra 20 units? In other words, should public water later become available and/or further down [he road yet another expansion is planned for parcet 2 or parcel 3, ~vould parcel one's 36 units be factored into [he whole pic~re? 4. The Beachcomber DE!S mil~gates a number of SEQRA issues (traffic, burden on community semices, etc.) by highlighting the "seasonal" nature of the Beachcomber complex. ~Nhat safeguards are [here ensuring [hat Beachcomber will remain seasonal? For [hat matter (given [he recent confusion over [he definition of a "parking space") how exacting is the Town's definition of "seasonal"? Lastly, the NEC would like to cite Chapter 37 of Town Law which gives [he Southold Town the responsibility to "regulate in coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and erosion, land use and development activities so as to minimize or prevent damage and destruction to property." In keeping with this law, in 1978 [he Planning Board supported a change of zone on Parcel 2 so [hat Mr. Aliano could "move [he motel and facilities back from [he Sound as a result of substantial loss of beach through erosion." However, although presumably [he change of zone was granted for this purpose, this move has never taken place. As recently as April 23, 1992 [he Trustees have also advised that the existing motet should be moved at least fifty feet beck. As per Chapter 37 of Town Law, shouldn't Southold see to it that this move of the existing motel be inctuded in the Beachcomber project and thus accounted for in the OE]S? Thank you. Ms. Scopaz: Could we have a copy of your comments? Mr. Waits: Yes. Mr. 'Nard: is there anyone e!se that would like to address the Board this evening? 7om Mangime!e: I'm Tom Mangime!e, I!ive on Duck Pond Rd. My p{e~:' ¢* of property on the bluff that overlooks the Beachcomber. On the busiest Neek~nd in the summer, Memorial Oay, there's not more ~han six cars in ~hat aarking lot. 'Nhafs ~he I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Southold Town Planning Board 5 A~ril 8, 1996 i need for the expansion? What's the need? My concern is what's going to happen further on down the road? It doesn't look like the motel business is making it there. The place needs a paint idb, the curtains are doped, you can see it from the s~eet. What's going to happen in the ~ture? Can it be turned into a rehab center? That's my concern. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Anyone else? Yes sir. I Kip 8edell: I live on Duck Pond Rd. We've lived there three years now and we moved into what is essentially a dead end street, there's no outlet. And we felt that it would be a pre~ quiet road down there and we were very surprised actually with how much ~raffic is really there. -As Tom menl~oned, there really are not a lot of cars usually at the Beachcomber Motel, but certainly it does increase the b'affic in the summer time when there are people there and also people that use the beach, there are fishermen that use the beach. I can't eve~ imagine the increase of 46 units, which means at least one car, meaning at least once a day they're going to be going somewhere and coming back. And more than likely they're going to be going multiple times leaving the mote! to do something and come back again. And every time, they have to come up and down Duck Pond Rd. We did have a cat killed right in front of our house and l just can't imagine on this dead end road that increase in the b'affic that much. I think it would be very bad. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Anyone e!se like to address the Board this evening? Rich Spellman: I live on Duck Pond Rd. I have an adjacent piece of property right in back of Tom, in between Kip and 7om. My concerns are from a business . Perspective. It's the same question that Tom has asked. What do they jUStiTy creating 46 units to a business that on ~ce value does not seem to have more than 10% of those units at any given time, filled now. And if they were going to be required to move those units back, and you can see what the erosion has done, they put the cement wail up there, why didn't they do that before considering this other move? I only received my notice Saturday so l really didn't have a chance. ! will go and look at the library, I understand there's a binder with all the information. But I thought there was something like i30 on the sound, maybe i'm wrong. I didn't know there were just 30. I heard 30 quoted gui! thought there were more than that because there are about three buildings there. 7he to(al units that are at the existing Seachcomber Mote!? I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Southold Town P!anning Board A~rii 8, 1996, Ms. Scopaz: There's 36 units and three aparb,ents existing on the site and they are proposing to add an additional 46. Mr. Spellman: Alright, then I'm incorrect. So, there's about 40 some odd units there now and they're going to add another 46, so they're essentially doubling the size of the units. I can't help but ask myself is there a hidden agenda here? There are 46 units that are not filled, I would be willing to bet you if you look at their books, not more than 25% of those units during the summer time are filled at any given night. Why do they need 46 more units? And especially when the place itself is deteriorated. I've been there nine years now and it has deteriorated significantly over the time I've been there, the maintenance. So those are just the questions I ask. Thank you. .Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board? If not, this hearing will be continued on the 29~ and you're certainly welcome to come back. I'm sure the applicant, at that particular time will have some responses to some of these questions and the 8pard also has so,ne concerns that we'd like to have addressed. So, we thank you for coming. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MINUTES April 29, 1996 Present were: Absent: Richard G. Ward, Chairman Bennett Orlowski, Jr. G. Ritchie Latham Kenneth Edwards William Cremers Vale/'ie Scopaz, Town Planner Melissa Spiro, Planner Robert G. Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Martha Jones, Secretary Mr. Ward: Good evening. I'd like to call the April 29, 1996 Southold Town Planning Board meeting to order. The first order of business is the setting of the next Planning Board meeting. Board to set Monday, May 20, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at Southold Town Hail, Main Rd., Southold as the time.and place for the next regular Planning Board meeting. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Latham: Second. Mr. Ward: Moved and seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. Hearings Held Over From Previous Meetings Mr. Ward: Beachcomber Motel II- This proposed site plan is for the expansion of an existing motel through the addition of 46 more units in four new buildings. The project is located on Duck Pond Lane in Cutchogue. SCTlVI# i000-83-2-1, 2 & p/o I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I Southotd Town Planning Board 2 April 29, 1996 17. I see that the applicant is here, if they would like to address the Board at this time. Henry Raynor: Good evening Mr. Ward, gentlemen. My name is Henry Raynor, as agent for the Beachcomber. We're here tonight, here is Mr. Glenn Spaetta, of Glenn Spaetta Associates, who had prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which you have been studying before you and if the Board is amenable he has a synopsis that he'd like to present to you this evening and if there are any questions he'd be more than happy to answer those, if you'd like to have the hearing proceed in that manner. Mr. Ward: That's fine. · Glenn Spaetta: Good evening. As you can see we have an aerial photo of the property with some overlays of different scenarios for development. As Henry said, I'm an environmental consultant. I've been in the field for over 15 years preparing environmental impact statements for various projects, including residential homes and large developments, commercial property as well as for the proposed action. The project originally consisted of 86 units proposed for development to expand the existing motel complex. That was several years ago. A scoping meeting was held. At subsequent discussions after that meeting the project was significantly downsized to include 46 units. These units are four separate buildings and are pictured on the site plan on the aerial photo here, The project involves three separate tax map parcels. One of them is owned by Pond Enterprises, Inc. and that's 2.1 acres, that includes where the existing motel is. The second one is owned by Patricia Krupski and that's 12.3 acres and includes where the cabana and a lot of the cleared area is as well as part of the woods on the property, and the third lot is owned by Nicholas Aliano and is 33.8 acres of which 32 is farm and approximately 1.8 is wooded. For the purposes of the project the lots have been combined together and will have to be, at a later date, merged together for the project. As part of the DE1S process, significant beneficial and adverse facts were discussed. Potential negative impacts of the project were some of the steeper sloped areas on the property and are located on the east of the clearing as well as on the south side of the clearing. Potential nitrogen loading into the Sound was a concern. Water usage, loss of some vegetation on the site, as well as traffic concerns and archeological concerns. Pote,qtial beneficial impacts to the project were an increase to Iocal economic I I Southold Town Planning Board 3 April 29, 1996 concerns, increased tax revenue, approximately $48,000 per year. There will be more jobs created, short term, during construction, as well as an increase in future spending if additional people come to stay at the hotet and spend money in the Town of Southold when they visit wineries as part of tourism and into the local community. Also, the project will retain open space on approximately 43 of the 48 acres, as proposed. The development is concentrated in the resort residential portion of the property; it's broken into resort residential and agricultural conservation. You see the white line that runs through the middle of the property. Mitigating measures were utilized to minimize a potential impact of the project that might have been detrimental. As far as erosion control, the buildings have been re- arranged from the original proposal out of steep sloped areas so that they're in flat cleared portions of the property. The set backs of the buildings, the closest new one proposed is 110 feet from the bluff and we've avoided with the design of the proposed action, w,e avoided disrupting natural drainage swales and utilize some of the natural areas to retain the existing drainage patterns on site. The applicant will follow all erosion control guidelines and an erosion control ptan will be submitted as part of this project. We've kept the buildings in the vacant cleared areas, as we've said before, that you see on the property. A lot of that is currently mowed and there's a cabana and kind of an open field there right now and it's just north of the woods. Water demands for the project have been investigated and the project was downsized as we've said before, from 86 units to 46 units, and that meets all Suffolk County Department of Health requirements allowable for the 48.2 acres which are being included for this property. The requirement is 14,460 gallons per day and the total project will be at 14,425 gallons per day, so it will meet both New York State DEC as well as Suffolk County Oeparlment of Health standards for water demands. The sanitary system will consist of conventional sanitary sewage disposal, septic tanks and leaching pools and will also comply with all Suffolk County Department of Health Article 6 requirements. The applicant investigated salt water intrusion as a potential negative impact and has located the water supply wells back...you'll see two blue spots there near the resort residential and agricultural conservation district line and the wells will be located in that portion of the property and in that way they will not adversely mitigate groundwater supply or create the potential for saltwater intrusion. There will be a very small amount of vegetation lost as a result of the project on the -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I $outhold Town Planning Board ¢ Apd129,1996 eastern side of the property where some of the portions of the property would be cteared just slightly for the expansion of the units. Traffic impacts - approximately 33 trips per hour during the peak traffic hour and that amounts to about one car even/two minutes on a Saturday afternoon in that peak hour and the total for the day on a typical Saturday, as a result of the project would probably be about an extra 100 trips per day. What the applicant is proposing is the addition of two stop signs, one at the top of the hill and...that's further to the left Garrett, on Duck Pond Rd., to the left of the red line, further to the left, there's a stop sign at the top of the hill so that when people have to turn dght and go down to the beach they'll come to a complete halt. And also at the intersection of Vista Place and Birch Lane, so that they'll be traffic control in both of those directions. 'The Cutchogue Fire Department has requested that the applicant put in a 400 gallon per minute firewell on the property and the applicant has located that on the east side of the property and that meets with their requirements. Several alternatives to the project were investigated and the first one would be no action. No action would be as the site is now, with just the motel units and cabanas there. A second alternative was looked at, this was considered alternative B which also clustered units on the property, but left two units back on the farmed portion of the property but within the resort residential zoning. And you can see approximately the way that would look. That was alternative B that was inveslJgated and the applicant feels that the proposed alternative is better than that one. The third alternative looked at in addition to no action and that one you just saw, was clustering the units in a U-shaped formation in that cleared portion of the property- and you see the way that looks. And again, you can see by these overlays that most of the property is again staying vacant and clear and all of the development really takes place in the cleared portion of the property as it exists now. And again, this is an alternative that was proposed and rfot preferred by the applicant. Matters to be decided, as far as the Town of Southold, before the project can proceed, a denial of the project has to be given by the Building DeparITnent in order to be considered for special exception by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals would then have to make a decision as to whether or not to allow the resort residential zoning by special exception. The code permits each unit, 6,000 square feet, to be constructed. And so it allows for 6,000 square foot units by special exception. The Planning Board would also have to approve the site plan prior to it going forward, The P~uiiding Department would have to approve the design and finally the Highway Department would have to approve the stop signs that would go into place. I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I Southold Town P~anning Board Apdl 29, 1996 Suffolk County Department of Health Services would also have to review the water supply and approve the system as well as the waste water for the project. New York State Depaf'b',ent of Environmental Conservation would also have to approve the well permit and also the applicant would need to receive a non-jurisdiction letter for the tidal wetlands because it is close to it but it is outside the wetlands area. So, as you can see, an extensive review has been prepared and a DEIS has addressed concerns and issues of not only the Board but of other agencies as well that were involved in the comment period. At this point in time the applicant feels that the proposed action will have the most value not only to the Town of Southold but as well as makes the most economic sense for him at this time. With that, we'd be happy to open up for any questions that you might have. Mr. Ward: The Planning Board has two major concerns. One, is that the applicant going back a number of years, when he got a zone change, requested the zone change to move the existing motel back because the shoreline conditions kept undermining the motel and that the whole rationale for giving the zone change was to move the existing motel back so it would be out of the tidal and wave action along the shoreline. That alternative has not been addressed. That has to be addressed in this determination on your SEQRA review here. Secondly, the Board cannot understand how this project ~an be done as three separate holdings. They all work with one another. I don t believe we can really approve a project without knowing that it's under one ownership or one common ownership. Those are our two major concerns today. There have been other concerns raised by the community, but those are two major things we'd like to see addressed in detail in the environmental impact statement. Mr. Spaetta: We agree wi~ you on the combining of the parcels, and that needs to be done. Right now they're all individual parcels. We menl~oned up f~ont that that needs to be done in order for the project to proceed. I'm sure that the applicant is willing to do that. It requires some additional steps that need to be taken. As far as the removal of the existing units, that does create some economic hardship since the units are CUrTently operating and are viable and that was addressed in the environmental impact statement as to remove the units now while they're still operating and still able to generate income, does create some difficulty for the al~plicant. We would be happy though to expand on that and address that further. Mr. Ward: Yes, we're requesting that. Are there any questions? Anybody here that would like to address the Board on this particular proiect at this time, you can do thai if you wish. I know some of you were here at the last hearing. Southold Town Planning Board April 29, 1996 Rich Spellman: At the last hearing, I asked the question, having lived here not a tremendous amount of time, about n ne years. To my recollection, and other peop e !can speak for this too, I don't think I've ever seen at any given time any more than 25% of those units ever filled. And my question is, and I still don't understand it, if there's no more than 25% of those units filled, why double the number of units? That's the basic question and I haven't heard that explained. Maybe it doesn't have to be addressed at this point, I don't know, but it's a common sense question and I'd just like to get some sort of an answer to that question. Mr. Ward: Would the applicant like to address that? Nick Aliano: My name is Nick Aliano. rm the owner of Pond Enterprises, the Krupski parcel, which.is my daughters, and the Aliano parcel, so that's the three parcels. As ~ar as what the business has been doing, or not doing, I don't think that's anybody etse's business but mine. I have reasons why it's not doing well now. The water comes up to the motel units now. And one more big storm and I'll get wiped out altogether. And my, main purpose 10 years ago when I made this application, was to be protected that if it does hit, I can build right away. I won't have to go through 10 years of this nonsense that we're going through now. So, the fact that it's not doing well has nothing to do with anybody else but me. And I have plans for this property. I wouldn't be here spending money for 10 years if I didn't. That's all I have to say about it. Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board this evening? Kip Bedetl: I live on Duck Pond Rd. I just have a question. Does the applicant own the property all the way to Oregon Rd.? Mr. Aliano: I do own property to Oregon Rd. Mr, Bedell: gentleman that, in the Again, I'm very concerned about the traffic on Duck Pond Rd. This mentioned that there's going to be a car every minute, or something like season and this is a dead end road, it's a residential area... Mr. Aliano: I'm there 25 years, and I feel like a Johnny-come-lately. I'm there 26 years to be exact. And the fact that I have property on Oregon Road and I have frontage on Oregon Road ... Mr. 8edell: What I'm saying is that I feel that this project is going to create far too much traffic on a dead end residential road and I think that if this should even be considered by the Board, there should be a private road that runs up to this motel and by-pass Duck Pond Road altogether. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Southold Town Planning Board Apn12§,I996 Mr. Ward: Anyone else like to address the Board this evening? Tom Menginete: I also live on Duck Pond Road. My concern is what can hal~pen in the future to where this site is going to be. Let's say it soils, can it become something else, maybe a half-way house or a rehabilitation center? Because you know it is in a residential area, and that's my concern. Mr. Aliano: Well, now we've got it going for what we want to use it for. If other uses that you're talking about ,/could be something else I'd have to go into. That would be a whole new ball game. Mr. Menginele: Well, let's just say it sold, would this have to come before the Zoning Board again? Mr. Ward: We!l, it ,gould depend on what it was, but normally if it's a use that's not allowed within the zone, it would have to go for either a zone change, which would be the Town Board, or a special exception which would be the Zoning Board of Appeals. There would be other hearings, it wouldn't just happen. Mr. Menginele: And the ,/cay the zoning is right now for building, if in ~ffe., these buildings do get erected, can there be an add on? Or the way the zoning is right now is it certain buildings per amount of acreage? Mr. Ward: It sounds like right now the controlling factor happened to be the Health Department. I guess they had an application in for more units. Based on the amount of property Bat's here they ,/could be allowed to build more units under the zoning categoq here, but at this particular junction the,/re going along, I guess, with what Health Services will allow in terms of their capacity. Mr. Mengine!e: And also, just one other point. Outside of the stop signs, because 'did see that in the environmental impact, is there any other kind of alterations that are going to be made to the ~'oads or...because right now you have. no shoulder on those roads going down there. You go two feet off the road, you're either in a gully or into a tree. During the season, we do use the beaches out in front there and if a car comes, there's yeP/little room. I was just wondering if that's being taken into consideration or even thought about? Mr. Ward: It will be ',poked at. Anyone else? Barbara R cxc.. i live on Vista ?!ace. i've ~lved there fcr 20 some odd years. I'm · ~lle=_ and 'Ne had a late mee:.ing, so sorP~, I just came in. I ~each at the community ~'," ~= ~n, e~rd :.hal i m totally i don't !<now =..~cJy naC~ ~ ¢ ~ -~" .e~n said but [wan~ jus; to 2ut * ~ ,'" ' I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Southcld Town Planning 8pard opposed to this expansion. I think it's de*zimentat to our neighberhood. It's detrimental to the environment. It doesn't consider the needs of the people in the area and I see no reason for it. There's not a lot of use of that area, and when people do come, there is no policing in how they watk through our neighborhood, leave garbage and are inconsiderate. They let their dogs and their children roam ali over our yards. I have found motet people using my swing set. I don't understand that. We need to be protected. I think that is a waste of everyone's effort to even consider the proposal. Thank you. Mr. Ward: Anyone e!se like to address the Board? Does the applicant have anything e!se further that they would like to present? Mr. Aliano: I don't have anything else to say except that t~e Town itself saw fit to add, before I made an application, to add about six or seven acres to the back of my motel, just like that, without me going to the Town, it was just re-zoned for six or seven more acres. Now, ! ask just another six acres and all this fuss...we!l, I got the other six acres, but~ I have nothing else to say, unless you have another question. Mr. Ward: Anyone etse on the Board? If not, all in order to close the hearing. Mr. Cremers: So moved. Mr. Oriowski: Second. Mr. Ward: Moved and seconded. All in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ortowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cremers, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Carded. Just a note that the public comment period will run u. ntil May 9, 1996, and the Board may make a decision at the May 20 meeting whether to accept the DEIS or require a Final Environmental Impact Statement. So, those that are interested in following this, May 20 would be a meeting then that you may like to attend. Thank you ail for coming. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ATTACHMENT B Public Hearing Transcript April 11, 1978 Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS I I I I I I I I I I I I I PUBLIC HEARING April 11, 1978 CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION ~'/238 - NICHOI_AS ALIANO & PATRICIA KRUPSKI A public hearing was held by the Southold Town Board at the' Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York at 8:00 P.M., Tuesday, on April 11, 1978 on the application of Nicholas Aliano & Patricia Krupski for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "Mol" Multiple Residence District on property located at Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue, New York.' Present at the hearing were: Supervisor Albert M. Martocchia Councilman James Homan Councilman Henry W. Drum Justice Martin Surer Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker To,em Clerk Judith T. Terry Absent: Councilman William R. Pe!!, 3rd and Justice Francis T. Doyen Councilman Drum read the notice of hearing as follows: Pursuant to Section 265 of the To?~ Law and requirements of the Building Zone Ordinance of the To~ of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, public hearings will be held by the Southold Totem Board at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road,,Southold, New York, in said Town on the llth day of April, 1978, on the following proposal ~o amend the Building Zone Ordinance (including the Building Zone Maps) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York: 8:00 P,M. by changing from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M-i" Multiple Residence District the property of Nicholas Aliano and Patricia Krupski, situated at Cutchogue, New York, and more particularly bounded and described as. follows: BEGINNING at a monument at the intersection of the easterly line of Duck Pond Road and the southerly line of Duck Pond Road which monument is distant North 29° 50' 50" East 213.08 feet from the northwesterly corner of lands of N. Aliano;. thence from said point of beginnin~ running North 52° 31' 10" East partly through lahds of N. Alian~ and Patricia Krupski to lands of R. Hammel; thence along said lands of R. Hammel and J. Zuhoski the following two (2) courses and distances: (1) South 45° 52' 40" East 39.06 feet; and (2) South 46° 17' 50" East 367.21 feet; thence from said point running along lands of Aliano et ano. South 43° 42' 10" West 946.44 feet to lands of Fellinger-!har; thence along said last mentioned lands North 42° 01' 40" Wes~ 465.90 feet to the southerly side of Duck Pond Road; thence along the southerly side of Duck Pond Road North 29° 50' 50" East 213/08 feet to the monument at the point or place of beginning. Any person desiring to be heard on the above proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. DATED: March 1~, 1978 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TO%~ BOARD JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK COUNCIL:-iAN DRU,'!: I I I ! I I I I CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION~ ~ 238 - NICHOLAS ALIAN0 & FATRICIA KRUPSKI COUNCII~4AN DRUM: We have proof of notice of publication from the Suffolk Weekly Times, notarized March 24, 1978, and proof of notice of publication from the Long Island Traveler Watchman, notarized March 24, 1978.. We have an affidavit from Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk that this has been posted on the Town Clerk Bulletin Board at the Town Clerk's Office, Main Road, Southold, New York. We have received a letter from the Planning Board, Town-of Southold, dated March 13, 1978, to the Southold Town Board: Gentlemen: The following action was taken by the Southold Town Planning Board at a regular meeting held on January 30, 1978: RESOLVED.to recommend to the Southold Town-Board approval of the petition of Nicholas Alia~o &Patricia Krupski, Case No. 238 for a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural District to "M-l" General Multiple Residence District on property located at Cutchogue, New York in view of the fact that it is apparent that the petitioner must move the motel and facilities back from the Sound as a r~sui~ of substantial loss of beach through erosion. The type of recreational use asked for is completely in accordance with the development plan of the Town of Southold for this location. t I ! I ! I /s/ Muriel Brush, Secretary We have received a letter from the Suffolk County Department of Planning, dated March 1, 1978 to the Southotd Town Board: On the petitioner Aliano vs. Krupski. Gentlemen: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1323 to 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter, the above captioned application which has been referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination. The d~cision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. /s/ Lee K~ppelman Director of Planning SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: I would like to make a correction of the preceding letter. I believe you indicated that the petitioner was Aliano vs. Krupski. It is Aliano and Krupski. COUNCILbLIN DRUM: Did I say that? Excuse~me, the petitioner is Aliano and Krupski. ! I I I SUPERVISOR b~RT~CCHIA: Councilman Drum has read the legal notice on petition of Nicholas Aliano a~d Patricia Krupski, Case No. 238 requesting a change of zone from "A" Residential and Agricultural to "M-i" General Multiple Residence. The subject matter has been advertised in both of the local papers and notarized as such, it has been posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, and we have the recommendations and comments of the Southold To~ P!annin~ Board recommending approval and the Suffolk Counz7 Department cf Planning has left it to local determination. At this lime, i would like to open up the hearing to anyone who wishes ~ soeak in behalf of the applicants. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (3) PUBLIC HEARING L~C ~ ~pril 11, 1978 CHANGE OF ZONE APP A .ON #238 - NICHOLAS ALIAL~O & PATRICIA KRUPSKI £ NICHOLAS ALIANO: I am Nick Aliano owner of the Beachcomber Motel which is the concern of this petition. What I would like. to do first of all is give you an idea of what the motel looked like. This is what the beach looked like prior to the last storm. (Mr. Aliano pre~ented photographs.) And this is a pciture of what it looks like now. Originally, I had about 150 to 200 feet of beachfront.about 8 years ago. Since that time, especially this last winter not only have I lost all of the beach, but I have lost some of the sidewalk and it is already eroding the building. I have had the local sand & gravel man dump about 10 truck loads of sand in to shore up against my buildings and sidewalk. I have a photo here to show that even that sand was washed away after the next storm. So there is no question, that I am in emminent danger of losing my whole business. I bought as'much property behind me and surrounding me that I could afford to move the location ~ack. The local farmers in the area wiii-annes~ that it nothing more %hah shrubs, sand, and scrub oak where I want to put the expansion or what have you, behind the motel. There is about three-quarters of an acre of farmland that this involves. My intention is to put tennis courts and a golf course and situate the expansion along the perimeter of the cliff, it will be westerly. It is up to you gentlemen as t~ whether of not i stay in business. Without this expansion, I cannot stay in business. I think that my reputation of cleaning up the place, when I bought it 8 years ago it was a sore eye to the Community and I think anyone in town will tell you that what I have done here is a credit. So now, I am asking your consideration of this extension. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Is there a map? FIR. ALIANO: The property west of me is owned by my family, that's across from Depot Lane. The property is east of me, my line is on the middle of a cliff, so that I couldn't do anything about that. The property south of me is owned by myself. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: This request that you are making for "M-I" zoning involves how much property? MR. ALIANO: It's 'about. 9. acres.. ~ have "M-I" zoning now, but of course that map shows before the beach ereoded and that's about i~ acre you can take out of there. Business has improved and I must have room for expansion an~.~ay. Even if this had not happened, ! have need for the ~ennis cour~ and golf course. I have already put a swimming pool in. We are off the beaten-track too far away from everything, and you have to give people some- thing to do while they are at a motel on vacation. I think I bring a lot of business to the town. It's a family-run operation. Thereare ten people in my family and we run a motel and restaruant. This is a picture from the L,!. Traveler Mattituck Watchman. It shows the erosion and it also states that a matter or fact the Town Hall has a copy of the erosion situation. SUPERVISOR ~.R~0CoH±A: We have had a very bad winter along the Sound. MR. A~.~:n. v=s as z said, T put in 8-10 truckloads of sand and gravel mzx~ure' and tn=~' ~ has all been washed away. ~_ showed you t I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I PUBLIC HEARING ~ ~ (4) ~ ~April 11, 1978 CHANGE OF ZONE APPE~CATION # 238 - NICHOLAS AL1ANO & PATRICIA KRUPSKI the photographs of before and after. It's all been washed away, and I can't keep doing this. JUSTICE MARTIN SUTER: Was it your intention to move the building back? MR. ALIANO: No, I can't move the building back. Originally, When I filed the application, my intention was to expand because the business had increased that much. But since this erosion it won't really be an expansion, it's just a question of re-building. JUSTICE SUTER: So what does that mean? You plan to re-build and ~ha~e this out? MR. ALIANO: Yes , that's correct to re-build and make it nice with the tennis court and gold course, the pool is already there. COUNCILMAN DRUM: On the bluff? MR. ALIANO: No, not on the bluff, it will have to be below or in the middle. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Aliano, is there something you are not clear about? Does anyone else wish to speak in behalf of the application? LOUIS EDSON, Maple Lane, Southold: I have known Nick Aliano for about 8 vears when :~t was: working back in MacDonalds, we had some business'transactions..'We have remained friends Ever since. I' have seen some other project§ that he has done and done well. I saw this place when he first took it over, it certainly wasn't anything very attractive. He has spent a lot of maney and time down there and it shows. I think when people do this, it calls for some type of encouragement. The Town Board should encourage the growth of the Town. I recommend the approval of his application. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone else wish to speak in behalf of this application? (There was no response.) SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone wish to speak in opposition? JOHN & OLIVIA FELLINGER-I~R: I would like to ask you, where will the new buildings or additions be located? SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: of Zone. The Planning etc. The Town Board is concerned with Board would be concerned with the the change site plans, JOHN FELLINGER-IHAR: I have a map here. See, we are the neighbors to the proposed 10 acre parcel. We would be concerned only if the motel is put up next ~o us. We would be concerned cn!v if the motel would be extended nex~ to us approximately east of us [~ acres, 105 feet east of us and goes down'~60' We are concerned ~oun nme I I I t I I t I I I I I l 1 I I I I C~\NGE OF ZONE APPLI~ATION # 238 - NICHOLAS ALIANO & PATRICIA KRUPSKI density and population because we have a house here. We sympathize very much with Mr. Aliano, he is an excellent man and we like h~m very much and we know what happened on the beach and we hope there is somesolution for him. We are just concerned that next to us. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Will he have to go under the site plan? TOWN ATTORNEY ROBERT W. TASKER: I think he wili probably have to have a site plan with specified setbacks. MR. FELLINGER-IHAR: It is about 2~ acres east of us that we are concerned with right next to our residence. I' was told that eventually a house would be built there by Mr. Aliano. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Does anyone else wish to speak in opposition to this application? BILL WILHEP~, President of the Birch Hills Property Owners Association: I would just like to know a little more about what is involved. For example, if there is a real motive involved here to protect the real estate, why was not bulkheading considered. My other point is the concern about eRpansion of the property with the additional buildings. In regards to health, we had some difficulty when we were building there and also some warnings. In fact we had to sign a waiver regarding pollutants in the soil. For example, our nitrate levels are very high there. If there is indication that a significant expansion of that kind of thing would aggrevate the nitrate level, etc. Mr. Calvin Smith of ths Suffolk County Health Department is in charge of that. So even though I have no objections, I have some concerns. I question whether the solving of the problem could be done in other ways rather than in expansion. JUSTICE MARTIN SUTER: We have no control over the '~ealth Department. He must meet all of their requirements the same as you did. b~. WILHELM: Well, It turned out that we couldn't meet we had to sign a waiver. JUSTICE SUTER: This is up to the Health Department, them and MARK BRIAN: I have a question regarding the expansion. I live in the general area. I am interested in discovering whether or not anySody has information as to the proposed expansion of the motel. It is a substantial number of extra units or is it just a replacement on a 1-1 basis of what is already there? If it is a replacement on a 1-1 basis certainly there would be no objection, on my part. However, if it is expanded, I am wondering if that particular area is a desirable area in view of the rather limited road access and particularly the problems we have been having with the drainage area near the intersectic of Duck Pond Road, whether or no~ the motel would be appropriate until this problem is resolved. I understand there is supposed to be some resolution of this drainage problem in the area, but in any case the road is breakiq{~up rather badly in certain areas and whether the addi~~on~ traffic due to the motel would increase the number of residents would necessarily be desirable from the standpoint of the road and the residents who already live in the area. Since I don'~ I I I I I II t I I I I I ! I I I I I (6) P~BLIC HEARING ~ t CHANGE OF ZONE APPliCATION #238 - ( (April 11, 1978 NICHOLAS ALIANO & PATRICIA KRUPSKI know what the plans are, I can't say that I am against it, I have no objection at this point. But, could elaborate as to what the particular plans are. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: To my knowledge, none have been submitted that I know of. The Planning Board would approve the site plan. MR. ALIANO: I have already told the Planning Board what my intention was. I originally wanted to expand what I had. But since I made application I am in danger of losing what I have, so it would wind up a 1-1 but I am not going to guarantee that all of a sudden that the sand is going to come back again. I plan to expand as needed. It is strictly a seasonal motel type of'operation. I am only open in the summer. I don't get that winter business that breaks up the road. I am not going to deal with that problem, that is up on Oregon Road, no wheres near me. ~. BRIAN: Basically, what I was interested in was this expansion or whether it was primarly for the replacing of buildings .... MR. ALIANO: It is both, either, or. Time will tell as far as the expansion° I d6n't expect to expand right away, but I want to know that it can be done. MR. BRIAN: Did you consider bulkheading? MR. ALIANO: Yes, it would cost me $30,000. ~nd there is no guarantee that the bulkheading will stay, I don't have that strong a footing it's a 22 year old building. So, If I put $30,000. into it and I can't get insumanee on bulkheading. I called the flood control people about it, they will not insure bulkheading. Rambo & the one from Greenport gave me prices of about $30,000., I would rather take that $30,000. and put the building back and let this building fall down. Et is about ready to go now. MR. BRIAN: Is that what you have in mind,: just letting the building fall down. I mean, you won't cart anything away? MR. ALIANO: Well, I don't have any choice in the matter. I ox~n enough property in the surrounding area, I am certainly not going to have it dumped there. SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on the subject, in opposition to this application? BILL WILHELM: I would like to make a statement in opposition. Since I get the impression that.the primary effort here is to expand the facility. I have this personal opinion that I don't think it would be to the advantage of the community to have such a large enterprise do~ there. SUPERVISOR HARTOCCHIA: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in oppcsition to this application? (There was no response. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (7) PUBLIC HEARING ~- [ CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION # 238 d~ z 11, 1978 - NICHOLAS ALzANO &'PATRICIA KRUPSK~ SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: opportunity to speak? .(There was no response.) SUPERVISOR MARTOCCHIA: after digesting all the Has everyone who wishes to speak had an Hearing none, the hearing will be closed, facts, the Board will make a determination. Respectfully submitted, Bet ty ~Neville Deputy Town Clerk -e I ! I I I I I I ATTACHMENT C Beachcomber Motel (ID Final ElS Relevant Sections of Town of Southold Code ! I I I i I I I [ I I I I I II Beachcomber Motel (II) Final EIS ATTACHMENT D Suffolk County Department of Health Services Letter ~PR 27 '98 24: L~ TO;dM O? SOUTHOLD m COUNT FFOLK ! ,~.O~,E~RT J. (~AFFNEY SUFFOL~ COUNTY EXE~IVE March 24, 1998 Town of ~hold ~095 ~ Ro~ P,O. Box 1179 So~hold NY 11971 Subj.: B~er Mo~l P~posed S.C.T.M.: 1~2-(1, 2 & 1~ Southold Town Wa~r Supp~ Planning Board Dear Mr. Ka~_ner: I I I I I I I We have.reviewed our exJsting fi~es and monitoring dntn, and the water quality data, collected on 8~7/97, from the test. well located on the northeastern portion of the referenced property, submitted by Paul W. Gros~r, Ph.D., P.F_., the consulting engineer for the water supply at the site. The data shows the water from this well contains detectible levels of agricultural fertilizem, (Nitrates), and pesticides, (Aldicarb sulfoxJde, Aldica~b sulfoxide, 1.2- Dichleropropa~e and 1,2,3- TdchJoropropane). None of these detectable levels exceeded the MaxJmium Contamina .nt Levels (MCL's) established by Federal and New York State agencies, although the levels were high enough to warrant concern. Consequently, any water supply system design will have to provide an enclosed area large enough to contain and support treatment, should it becomes necaesmy.. The proposed treatment area will be large enough m install an ion exchange unit for nitrate removal and GAC, (granular activated careen), unit(s) for the removal pesticides end adequate storage for water treatment chemicals, as per conversations with Dr. Grosser. The proL-~-,~ motel expansion will be cleasified as a non-community public water supply, which is its current classlrmation. If the units were sold as or converted to co-op's or condominiums, with multiple owners, then the system would become a community wa~er supply subject to more stringent regulations. Given the present water quality at the site, we would not approve it as a community water supply for new construction. Therefore, restrictive covenants must be p~acecl upon the property, as a conition Of approval, to assure it remains a motel, until such a time that it could be connected to an e~istln9 approved community public water supply. m m m I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! 1 I I I RPR ~? '9~ ~4:L2 TO~M OF SOUTHOLD P.3/3 As indicated in our letter of 3/7/97, the peak domestic water demand will be about 100 gpm which would necessitate muttiple wells for the project. Two new wells are being proposed to provide water for the expansion. If salt water intrusion becomes a problem, then additional wel!.s may De required. Additionally, since the pumping capacity for the site will exceed 45 gpm, R Long lstand Well Permit must be applied for a~d obtained from NYSDEC. The comments presented in this letter are general comments concerning the wa~er supply tar the proposed project and should not be construed as tacit approval for construction by Suffolk County Deparbment of HeAlth Services. A formal application 'For Sewage Disposal Facilities and Water Supply Systems for Other Than Single Family Residences" must be submitted to our Bureau of Wastewater Management in Riverhead in order to proceed with construction apprevaL Please feel free to contact this office at 853-3195, if you have any questions concerning this matte r. ve~j truly yours, Robert J. Farmer, P.E. Senior Public Health Engineer Bureau of Drinking Water cc: Paul Grosset, Ph.D., P.E. WATER RESOURCE/SYSTEM BEACHCOMBER 1T CUTCHOGUE, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JULY 1991 It GR,OUP HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, RC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · ARCHITECTS · PLANNERS · SCIENTISTS · SURVEYORS MELVILLE, NY. FAIRFIELD, NJ. I I I-t GROUP Ho~Tmacher, Mc. Lendon & Mur~lL P.C. * Holzmacher, McLendon 8: Murrell, Inc. H2M Construction Management, Inc. * H2M Labs, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 575 Broad HolloA, Road, MelviJle, N'Y 11747-5076 (516) 756-8000 · Fax: (516) 694-4122 July 29, 1991 Mr. Nicholas Aliano 3800 Duck Pond Road Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935 Re: Engineering Report Beachcomber II Water Resource/System WATR 89-07 Dear Mr. Aliano: As promised we have made a few revisions to the draft report and enclose herewith eight (8) copies of the subject engineering report with exhibits and plates. We again apologize for the delay and if you wish to perform any additional work we will be pleased to accommodate your needs. Very truly yours, HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL P.C. Samuel C. McLendon, P.E., DEE Con sul tant ENGINEERS ARC H ]TE CTS SCIENTISTS PLANNERS CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS SURVEYORS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATER RESOURCE/SYSTEM BEACHCOMBER II CUTCHOGUE, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JULY 1991 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATER RESOURCE/SYSTEM BEACHCOMBER II CUTCHOGUE. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE LOCATION AND BACKGROUND EXISTING FRESH WATER RESOURCES WATER REQUIREMENTS WATER SYSTEM TABLE 1 - WATER REQUIREMENTS/CONSUMPTIVE USE/ ALLOWABLE FLOWS AND UNITS EXHIBIT A - WATER ANALYSES EXHIBIT B - COST OPINION FOR NON-COMMUNITY TWO WELL SUPPLY SYSTEM PLATE I - AREA PLAN PLATE II - SITE PLAN & LAYOUT i PAGE NO. 1 1 4 7 9 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATER RESOURCE/SYSTEM BEACHCOMBER II CUTCHOGUE. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JULY 1991 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this study and report is to advise the owner and others dealing with the proposed development of a 14.1 acre site adjacent to the existing Beachcomber Resort Motel. This report will refer to the project as "Beachcomber II" and its various options, including consideration of the existing five cabana/motel units and swimming pool on the 14.1 acres. This report will review the estimated available water resources at the project site, the available water quality data and projections, the permitted residential density under the available options, and will discuss various water system alternatives with appropriate recommendations. Cost estimates or opinions are presented for comparative purposes to assist in making decisions. LOCATION AND BACKGROUND The proposed project is located in an area north of Oregon Road and east of Duck Pond Road (a continuation northerly of Depot Lane) and extends to the south shore of Long Island Sound. All of the subject area is within Section 83, Block 2 as shown on I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the Suffolk County Real Property Tax Map. Lot 2 (12.3 acres on the Tax Map) is primarily (9 acres) within RR (M-i) Zone for high density residential. Lot 17 (33.8 acres on the Tax Map) is partially (5.1 acres) within RR (M-l) Zone. The balance, 3.3 acres of Lot 2 and 28.7 acres of Lot 17, is zoned two-acre residential. The total area in the two lots is shown as 46 acres, subject to actual surveys and deeds. Plate I shows the other existing subdivisions in Blocks 1 and 4, while Beachcomber I is in Block 2, Lot 1 with 2.1 acres. These areas and the project site are shown on Plate I. There is already some development in the area consisting of: (a) the Beachcomber Motel fronting on Long Island Sound on property (Lot 1, 2.1 acres) separate from but adjacent to (north and west) of the proposed project; (b) existing partially built single family subdivision on the east side of Duck Pond Road to the west and southwest of the proposed project; and (c) another subdivision north of (b) but west of Duck Pond Road and extending to Long Island Sound. The total potential single family homes in (b) and (c) is 55 on about 50 acres. Most of the nearby area to the south, east and west is residential/agricultural with a two-acre zoning and is currently under cultivation. The existing Beachcomber Resort Motel (Beachcomber I) property is owned by others than the owners of the proposed project property (Beachcomber II). For general information, it is noted that 36 motel units, three apartments and a 50-seat restaurant exist at Beachcomber I. The Beachcomber I well was I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I redrilled in 1990 to obtain acceptable quality water· It is looated near the southeast corner of the motel. All of the existing and proposed single family homes in (b) and (c) above are supplied by individual private wells. Beachcomber I is supplied by a non-oommunity water system with a single well (No. 1) near the southeast corner of the motel. The existing five cabana/motel units and pool within Beachcomber II site are supplied by a non-community system single well project (No. 2) pool. and system located about 200 The two well systems are standby, each to the other. feet southeast of the swimming interconnected for reliability There have been some reported water problems at Beachcomber I but these have been resolved as noted in tests by the owners and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) during the past year (see Exhibit A, Water Analyses). In June 1990, Well No. 1 was replaced with Well iR near the old well to a depth of 50 feet. High chloride content in the older well (No. 1) may have been due to salt water intrusion resulting from weeks of excessive well pumpage caused by leaks in the piping system for the pool. Because of prior Aldicarb problems, the well is equipped with two 20-inch diameter by 5 foot high granular activated carbon (GAC) filters for removal of organics. Recent analyses indicate that the GAC filter is no longer needed for temik but remains as a safety precaution and for removal of other organics. Well No. 2 for Beachcomber II was reconstructed from a test well also in June 1990 by increasing its depth from 60 to 100 feet. This deepening I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I corrected a severe iron problem and resulted in good quality water. High nitrates had been detected in one of the test wells constructed in 1989 but recent tests show less than 4.0 mg/L compared to a limit of 10.0 mg/L. Some organics, up to 4.0 ~g/L of dichloroprcpane and ll.0 ~g/L of aldicarb, had been detected but most recent tests show very little (2.0 ~g/L or less) of aldicarb but increases in dichloropropane. Changes in the existing GAC system will be made to correct this problem. In the event this should change, there does exist the GAC treatment unit to remove organics. EXISTING FRESH WATER RESOURCES Water resource available is defined as that which can be developed without exceeding the chloride (salty water) level prescribed by Drinking Water Standards. The project site is near the northern edge of the water budget area included in Zone 3 of the North Fork of Long Island. This zone extends from Mattituck Creek in West Mattituck to Hashamomack Pond (between Southold and Greenport). Reference is made to three water resource studies: (1) CPWS-24, Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C.; (2) North Fork Water Study, ERM Northeast; and (3) Suffolk County Water Resources Management Plan, Malcolm Pirnie and Divirka & Bartilucci. The fresh groundwater in the Town of Southold is exposed to salt water interfaces on the sides, as well as underneath. In most areas, the salty groundwater and fresh water are in dynamic I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I balance and approximately conform with the Ghyben-Herzberg principle. This principle approximates the location of the salt water/fresh water interface at a depth of 40 times the elevation of the water table above sea level, based on a specific gravity of salt water of 1.025. According to the 1990 Suffolk County water table contour map, the water table is located about 3 feet above sea level on the site. Using the Ghyben-Herzberg principle, the salt water/fresh water interface is located approximately 117 feet below sea level (120 feet below water table). Water recharge from precipitation is estimated at 1.0 million gallons per day (MGD) per square mile or 1,563 gallons per day (GPD) per acre. Permissive sustained use (safe yield) is estimated at 0.35 MGD per square mile or about 35 percent of recharge. This is equivalent to 547 GPD per acre of recharge area. The gross area of the project site, including the residential/agricultural property south of the proposed development, is 46.1 acres (Tax Map) as sho%rn on the enclosed Cutchogue area plan. Discounting the northerly 2 acres, the water budget area would approximate 44 acres and provide an average annual recharge of 58,772 GPD. Of this, 24,068 (say 24,000) GPD is available for consumptive use (safe yield). The other two-thirds is needed for underflow during low recharge periods to preserve the fresh water/salt water interface. It is obvious that recharge of treated wastewater at points north of Se I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the wells best preserves and utilizes the water resources available. The Suffolk County Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) used an "area averaging approach" to evaluate potential impacts of consumptive use on fresh water lenses in wastewater areas and as a result concluded that these areas also contributed to the available water resources. The WRMP reported the ERM Northeast estimate of permissive sustained yield from the budget area in Zone 3 (Mattituck Inlet to Hashamomuck Pond) at 4.9 MGD. The total consumptive use estimated for the year 2000 was only 4.0 MGD of which 2.8 MGD is for agricultural use. The report indicated two approaches for estimating the influence of shallow wells on the North Fork. The Theis Drawdown distance which indicated that for a 1-foot drawdown, the radius be approximately 10 feet for a well pumping rate of The recharge balance calculation indicated a radius would 200 GPM. of 1,510 feet for a 200 GPM rate and 1,070 feet for a 100 GPM pumping rate. With water levels ranging from approximately 3 to 5 feet above sea level on the project recharge area the calculated salt water interface would be approximately 120 to 200 feet below sea level. by 40 below 60 A major change of 1-foot in water level would reduce each. feet making the salt water interface at 80 to 160 feet sea level. Since proposed well depths are recommended at feet below sea level, the bottom of the well would still be 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I to 100 feet above the resultant salt water interface. The further south the wells, the more obvious that safety exists. WATER REOUIREMENTS Water requirements are estimated based on the following criteria: Motel unit area of 400 square feet (or less) 100 GPD Motel unit area of 400 to 600 square feet 150 GPD Single family home 350 GPD Irrigation (consumptive use) - Motel unit 20% Irrigation (consumptive use) - Single family home 40% There are five existing small motel/cabana units on the north edge of the project site and a single family farm house on the south edge of the acreage included in the site recharge area for the project. The existing zoning on the 14.1-acre (RR or M-i) area would permit, at 4,000 square feet per unit, up to 153 units or 148 more than present. A preliminary proposal was developed by S. Hymen for 147 more units in 12 buildings. The Town of Southold Planning Board has stated that public water and public sewerage are required for this density. calculations have been prepared to show how many units can be constructed base on SCDHS criteria or rules relating to discharged wastewater flow per acre. Including a covenant that the 32 acres of low density residential area would not be developed until public water was available, a rate cf 300 GPD per acre would be allowed. The total allowed flow would be 13,830 GPD for 46.1 acres. Subtracting the five existing cabana units at 100 GPD and the one single family home at 350 GPD, the 7e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I assignable flow from proposed added unit flow on the 46.1 acres would be 12,980 GPD. With estimated SCDHS criteria wastewater flow of 150 GPD per motel unit (400 to 600 square feet), the allowed additional number is therefore 86 units. Since each acre of the covenant area would add two units, an added area of 30 acres would be required for the 61 more units that zoning would allow on the 14.1 acres. If this were done, the result would be 152 (5 + 86 + 61) on the 14.1-acre site but an added 32 acres (plus the 32 for a total of 64 acres) would require a covenant. The other alternative for the added 62 units allowed by zoning would be a central sewage or wastewater treatment facility, though not part of this study. With a central sewage treatment system, the full amount permitted by zoning (153 units) could be used for development without adjacent land covenants. The additional cost for the 62 units would probably exceed $550,000. as an estimated cost for a sewage treatment plant for 153 units. If the iow density residential area is not placed under a covenant until public water is available, the allowable units on the 14.1 acres would be only 30 units, the existing five units at 100 GPD plus 25 new units at 150 GPD. This flow would total 4,250 GPD compared with an allowed flow of 14.1 x 300, or 4,230 GPD. Regardless of what final plans are approved, the water resources developed should be upstream (south) of the treated I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I wastewater recharge. This will minimize any potential adverse effect by utilizing the treated wastewater as a major portion of the fresh water underflow required for equilibrium (see Table 1). The 27,800 GPD maximum month average need would translate into an estimated maximum day need of about 55,000 gallons and a peak hour need of 105 GPM. Since more than half of this would potentially be allocated to the 62 future motel and 16 single family homes, it is likely that a 105 GPM system would be able to supply the needs of the proposed 86 additional units and the adjacent area motel and single family units which may wish water service. WATER SYSTEM As indicated in the Water Resources and Water Requirements sections, there is adequate water supply with respect to salt water intrusion, for any extent of development possible under existing zoning regulations. Water quality with respect to agricultural chemicals must be periodically evaluated and monitored and, if required, treatment systems provided and maintained. The most likely cost effective and permissible development plan will consist of the construction of the number of units permitted by the SCDHS regulation which limits the wastewater flow to an average of 300 GPD per acre. Utilizing the entire area of parcels B and C of 46.1 acres, the allowed water or wastewater flow would then be 13,830 GPD. With five existing l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I motel/cabana units at 100 GPD and one single family unit at 350 GPD, the remaining assignable flow is 12,980 GPD. With a size of about 600 square feet per proposed unit, and 150 GPD per unit, the allowed number of units would be 86, which with the six existing units would total 92. All of the new units would be constr~cted within the RR or M-1 zoned area (14.1 acres) but the 32 acres of residential/agricultural zoned area would be under covenant to restrict any development until such time that public water were available in the area and to the project. If an additional recharge area were acquired (e.g., part of Lot 16 to the east), the full 148 added units could be available at 4,000 square feet per unit. The added acreage would approximate 30: (153 - 93 units at 150/300 or one-half acre per unit or 30 acres for 60 units). The total development would then be 152 units (including 5 existing) on 14.1 acres plus 32 acres (1 house) and 30 acres of covenant watershed area, for a total watershed area of 73 acres. This option does not exist under present proposals. The development plan for 92 units would require two wells (one as standby) each with a capacity of about 60 GPM constr~cted as part of a central but non-community type water system. We propose, however, that 105 GPM well supply be developed to provide reserve for adjacent areas, if needed. A 3,000-gallon hydropneumatic tank with pressure controls ranging from 40 to 60 psi, providing about 400 gallons of useable storage would be constructed in a manner to provide water treatment contact time. 11. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This contact time would approximate 10 minutes based on a flow of 105 GPM and a water content in the tank of about 1,050 gallons. This would be helpful for chlorine contact in the event of a bacteria problem. Any other treatment required such as granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption/filtration would precede the hydropneumatic tank. Based on present water quality data, nitrate removal would not be required. Since the water needs will be very seasonal, it is recommended that the existing 25 GPM well (No. 2) be retained for base load, and that two 95 GPM wells be constructed. The new well plant is proposed to be in the southerly portion of the RR zoned property (lot zoned part of Lot 17) and with a non-pollution protection radius into the low density area to the south. It is proposed to place the two wells about 60 to 100 feet apart and at least 200 feet from potential pollution sources, requiring a site of about 4.5 acres, but less with non- pollution easements. The well depth proposed is about 110 feet at a ground elevation of about 50 providing a well bottom elevation of about 60 feet below sea level. The existing well (No. 2R) which was converted to a supply well for the existing units and pool is at a 100 foot depth about 39 feet or at an elevation of 61 water quality of the 100-foot well Exhibit A at the end of the report. east-northeast of the proposed wells. from a ground elevation of feet below sea level. The is excellent as shown in This well is about 600 feet 12. I I I I Even though there is no indicated present need for treatment other than emergency chlorination, it is recommended that space, controls and piping arrangements be provided for a second GAC unit in the event that pesticides show an increase in the new I I I wells at a later date. Should nitrates (from agricultural fertilizer) become a problem, the well depth would be changed to utilize a lower nitrate level stratum. As noted above, though not part of this project, it is considered prudent to include additional water supply capacity in I I I I the non-community system to be able to assist the existing motel development (Beachcomber I) north of the proposed project (Beachcomber II). This would require about 35 percent added supply on the maximum day but probably less of an increase during the maximum hour. In order to allow for potential increased density by zoning above the 92 units noted, an increase is planned to provide 95 GPM in each of two wells (one spare). I I I These would be capable of supplying a peak hour rate of 136,800 GPD for a maximum day average rate of 45,600 GPD and for an average maximum month day of to a design standard (SCDHS) These requirements are above 22,800 gallons. This would equate equivalent of 152 units at 150 GPD. that available from the existing 25 I I I GPM Well No. 2. The preliminary cost opinion for the two well stations is $170,000. as shown in Exhibit B, including piping headers within project site to permit future fire hydrants where feasible. The next alternative as a possible plan includes utilization I I of the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) as the water 13. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I purveyor. Were it not for the presence of the Town of Southold sanitary landfill to the southeast, negotiations could have permitted the dedication to SCWA of a well field on the southerly portion of Lot 17 just north of Oregon Road. This would have permitted the SCWA to develop a satellite well field and system for this area, including this project. (It is noted that with the much smaller well capacities and use, the potential effect of the landfill on the proposed non- community well field is less likely to be a problem). This alternative could be rather costly, dependent on decisions to be made by SCWA. The amount of water piping required from Oregon Road along existing roadways to the project entrance is 3,400 feet. Approximately another 3,000 feet (or less) westerly on Oregon Road may be desirable to extend the piping to a potential SCWA well site sufficiently distant and angled from the landfill. Another 5,000 feet would be required to reach the existing well site on Alvahs Lane south of CR48 (now owned by Village of Greenport). Assuming that Beachcomber II costs would relate to the Oregon Road site, a 12-inch water main cost for 6,400 feet would approximate $200,000. Presumably there would be contract provisions that would permit partial recovery by Beachcomber II if other development needs are supplied by this main. The SCWA would also require at least a portion of the cost of a satellite well plant to be paid by Beachcomber II. If such cost sharing were based on capacity need and that 60 GPM is needed for the 93 units, Beachcomber II may pay 60 of 300 GPM (expected SCWA well 14. I I I I 1 1 / I capacity) or 20 percent. If the SCWA plant cost were $500,000., Beachcomber II at 20 percent would be $100,000. The total with this alternative would be $300,000. plus the on-site distribution which should approximate $40,000. including backflow prevention protected 6-inch service. The total would then be $340,000. compared with the $170,000. projected for a non-community but central system. The final costs should be reviewed after preliminary approval by SCDHS, the Town of Southold and SCWA. If the SCWA satellite system and the added cost of public central wastewater treatment is justified by the additional units which could then be approved, the SCWA water supply plus a sewage treatment plant would be proposed. The treated wastewater recharge should be placed at a point or in an area least likely to impact the existing private wells for single family homes. This location would be in the northeast section of the 32 acres. The new wells would be at a new SCWA site and the existing wells relegated to irrigation. After review and approval by the SCDHS, it is recommended that the necessary application and detailed plans be prepared for the Town of Southold. Respectfully submitted, HOLZ~CHER, McLENDO~& MURRELL, P.C. '~amuel C. McLendon, P.E., D ~, ~~ Consultant ~ ~ ~ ,5. J ll I 1 I I WATER ANALYSES BEACHCOMBER I & II EXHIBIT A I WELL OR SAMPLE I.D. ~ 1 i DATE 6/14/88 8/26/88 LAB HD HD I Sc 750 639 i NO3 -N 6.4 5.5 C1 100 129 I SO4 76 60 Fe 0.15 0.16 I Mn None 0.35 CU 0.4 0.31 I Na 69.3 69.2 I Hardness 88 88 pH 5.6 5.5 I Zinc .... Organics 11 -- I Other Heavy Metals None None I H2M indicates H2M Labs, Inc. HD indicates Health Department ECO indicates ECO Test Labs I * Reported as 0.6 · * 7 Aldicarb, 5 Chloropropane I T denotes "Test" well I lO/3/88 ~2~ 235 '6.0 40 0 0.27 0.02 88 6.7 1 7/19/89 7/20/89 HD 2990 3.7 922 182 0.16 0,42 0.11 379 6.3 None *'12 1T 11/9/89 H2M 649 2.0 142 15.5 4.17 6.2 1 1T 5/14/9o HD 24 0 I 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT B COST OPINION FOR NON-COMMUNITY TWO WELL SUPPLY SYSTEM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COST OPINION FOR NON-COMMUNITY TWO WELL SUPPLY SYSTEM Wells - two (2) 6" diameter (100' depth - 10' screen length) Pumps - two (2) 95 GPM at 200' TDH (7.5 HP) Building - 16' x 25' x 10' (manufactured) Electrical - three phase service Motor/pump controls Lighting & miscellaneous Engine/Generator Set - 20 KW GAC Units & Pipe - two at 4' diameter x 8' Blowoff pits & pipe Chlorination Hydropneumatic tank & controls Piping, Mechanical, Meters Contingencies SUBTOTAL . $3,000. 9,000. 4,000. Engineering & Design Inspection & Miscellaneous SUBTOTAL . Piping - Well Field to Project Buildings PROJECT TOTAL . EXHIBIT B $ 19,000. 7,000. 29,000. 16,000. 4,500. 12,000. 4,500. 3,500. 6,000. 8,500. 15.000. .$125,000. 12,000~ 8,000. .$145,000. 25,000. $170,000. o, ONE / ~.TO SE REM'bV.~D ~. -- MINI-- X~ i/ / X ~ X ~ / UNITS EXISTING ~ HAZARD GAZEBO / TO reMAiN TO REMAIN BOCC~ ~ JRANT, lNG LOSS EROSION AREA, EXISTING (BASED UPON STORAGE FOR 2" STORM) STEEP SLOPES 229,063 S.F. X 0.167 X 3DX = 11,476 C.F. 2,661 C.F. 7,305 C.f. 5,600 C,F. PROPOSED BUILDINGS 13.800 S,F. EXIST. CABANA 1,750 S.f. EXIST. GAZEBO 384 S.F. TOTAL BUILDINGS T~. 27,042 C,F. PAVEMENT LANDSCAPED 43,745 S.F, X 0.167 X 100~ = 335,345 S.F, X 0.187 X 10~ = TOTAL VOLUME REQ'D / / / / t / '/ / / t I / I I i/ / II / / fl I i / / / ,/// / //// / / / / / / / / I(lil JI IIII/I/ll r I I r I I I I I IIIIIII II III II )111111 ~ I I I I I I I I I I/llllll I I I I//ll/lllllh llllLIIIH b 0 0 / / X, x, N 40'25'00" W "- :---. 870.21' I I / / / \ / 1 / \ \ \ 465. 90 ' \ \ \ 890. 14_' ~ __ SCDHS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY EQUIVALENT CALCULATIONS ALLOWABLE SANITARY FLOW 48.2 ACRES X 300 GPD/ACRE = 14.480 GPO EXISTING SANITARY FLOW (ONLY COUNTING FLOWS FOR THE RESTAURANT THAT GET CREDITED AGAINST DENSITY) CABANA 5 UNITS X 100 GPDPU = 500 GPD APARTMENTS 3 UNITS X 350 GPDPU = 1,050 GPD MOTEL 35 UNITS X 150 GPDPU = 5,400 GPD BAR S OCCUPANTS X 15 GPDPO = 75 GPD RESTAURANT 50 SEATS X 10 GPDPS = 500 GPD TOTAL EXISTING PLOW~E~3--~ PROPOSED SANITARY FLOW MOTEL 46 UNITS X 150 GPDPU = 6.900 GPD PROPOSED TOTAL SANITARY SEWAGE FLOW T~ TYPICAL 8ANITAFIY 8EWm,,~ CALCUI.ATION8 TYPICAL 12 UNIT BUILDING 12 UNITS SEP~C TANK LEACHING POOL X 150 GPDPU = 1,800 GPD 3,600 GAL. REQ~D PRO'DE 1--12'm X 6' -- 3,750 GAL. PROVIDED 1,BO0 GAL. -- 10 GPDPSF = 180 S.F. REQ'D PARKING CALCULATIONS EXIS~NG MOTEL EXIS~NG RESTAURANT EXIS~NG APARTMENTS PROPOSED MOTEL UNITS , EMPLOYEES ACCESSORY USES TOTAl REQUIREMENTS TOTAL PROVIDED 36 UNITS X l/UNIT 50 SEATS X 1/3 SEATS 3 APTS. X 1/ APT. 46 UNITS X 1/UNIT 6 EMP. X 1/EMP, NO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 104 STD. + 4 HANDICAP 36 STALLS REQUIRED 17 STALLS REQUIRED 3 STALLS REQUIRED 46 STALLS REQUIRED 6 STALLS REQUIRED AS REQUIRED 108 STALLS REQUIRED 108 STALLS PRO~4DED REVISIONS 3/24/95 Nfl/ BEACHCOMBER MOTEL OUTCHO(~U~ 8t%-FOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT SJH BY DRA~/N BY REP 1"=50' 86--30 Il -- COUR~ [exISilNO~ MINI-- %x GOLF /X EXISTING GAZEBO TO REMAIN BOCCI TO BE EXISTING ~ATURAL DRAINAGE AREA DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS (BASED UPON STORAGE FOR 2" STORM) TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA 624.0B7 S.f. STEEP SLOPES 229,063 S.F. X 0.167 X 30% ~ 11,476 C.F. PROPOSED BUILDINCS 13.800 S.F. EXIST. CABANA 1,750 S.F. EXIST. GAZEBO 384 S,F, TOTAL BUILDINGS 15,95~ 1B,934 S.F. X 0.167 X 100~ = PAVEMENT LANDSCAPED ~ / / / I / / / / / I t II II II II / / / //z / / / / i/ I / // /// IIIII IIIIIII II//I /i/ II 0 ~ / 570. 21' .~ S ~4~'~6'f0" E //I I/ ILD~NG I/llll I Ill/Ill H/Ill~ Ifil~ill IIIIIIIIIIIIllll N 40'25'00" W 465. 90 ' \ \ / / / WA1TR TABtE CONTOUR DIRECllON OF GROUND~KA NER FLOW x/ SCDHS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY EQUIVALENT CALCULATIONS ALLOWABLE SANITARY FLOW 48.2 ACRES X 500 GPD/ACRE = 14,460 GPD EXISTING SANITARY FLOW (ONLY COUNTING FLOWS FOR THE RESTAURANT THAT GET CREDITED AGAINST DENSITY) CABANA 5 UNITS X 100 GPDPU : 500 GPD APARTMENTS 3 UNITS X SS0 GPDPU = 1,050 GPD MOTEL 56 UNITS X 150 GPDPU : 5,400 GPD BAR 5 OCCUPANTS X 15 GPDPO = 75 GPD RESTAURANT 50 SEATS X 10 GPDPS = 500 GPD TOTAL EXISTING FLOW ~ PROPOSED SANITARY FLOW MOTEL 46 UNITS X 150 GPDPU = 6,900 GPD PROPOSED TOTAL SANITARY SEWAGE FLOW ~ TYPICAL SANITARY 8~VVER CALCULATION8 TYPICAL 12 UNIT BUILDING 12 UNITS SEPTIC TANK LEACHING POOL X 150 GPDPU = 1,800 GPD 5,600 GAL. REQ'D PROVIDE 1--12'¢ X 6' -- 3,750 GAL. PROVIDED 1,800 GAL. -- 10 GPDPBF ~ 180 S.F. REQ*D PROVIDE 1--10'¢ X 6' -- 188.6 S.F. PROVIDED PARKING CALCULATIONS EXISTING MOTEL EXISTING RESTAURANT EXISTING APARTMENTS PROPOSED MOTEL UNITS EMPLOYEES AOOESSORY USES fOTAL REQUIREMENTS TOTAL PROVIDED 36 UNITS X 1/UNIT 50 SEATS X 1/3 SEATS 5 APTS. X 1/ APT. 46 UNITS X 1/UNIT 6 EMP. X 1/EMP. NO BPEClFIC REQUIREMENTS 104 STD. + 4 HANDICAP 56 STALLS REQUIRED 17 STALLS REQUIRED 3 STALLS REQUIRED 46 STALLS REQUIRED B STALLS REQUIRED AS REQUIRED 108 STALLS REQUIRED 108 STALLS PROVIDED REVISIONS J/24/95 OVERFLOW 71/~5/95 ADDED ~7RE · BARRETT CONSULTING ENGINEERS B ONAC C I / LAND SURVEYORS HYM. AN & / PLANNERS iVAN~ TEL 516/435-1111 FAX 516/435-10~2 Barrett, Bonacci, Hyman & VanWeele, P.C, 175 A Commerce Drive, Hauppouge, New York 11788 BEACHCOMBER MOTEL CUTCHO~I. IF-, 8UFFOI-K C~Y, NEW YORK PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 7/29/93 1 "=50' 86--30 S I I OF rO~ OF SOUnfOLD 890. 14' __ ...... -------------------- N 46'17'50" I % 489 06' o ~o* ,,\ ~ S 45'5240 E '-. )~lNO SE~ACK ~ kx 2. ~ -. .. .~ . ~ . . .... / x ..... "- ~¢~ 8ODH8 ~ESIDENTIAL DENSITY .... ' EQUIVALENT CALCULATIONS II ~-. I ~ ~ POOl ~ PA IIC i ~'~ / ~ '¢ ~ / / TYBCAL SALARY REW~ CALO~A~ON8 · " " * :*~¢ % PARKING CALCULATIONS - / , ~ / -- DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS , ~*s~ .... ~75 A Commerce Drive, Hauppm~ge, New York 11788 (BASED UPON STORAGE FOR 2" STORM) 10TAL DRAINAGE AREA ~24,087 S,F. / ~ STEEP SLOPES 229,063 S.F. X 0.167 X 30~= i1.i76 o.r. '] ~l~','"'''"U'///// , BEACHCOMBER MOTEL EXIST. CABANA 1,750 S.F. EXIST. GAZEBO 384 S.F. I ~ ~ ~ I I IJ ~ ~Cl~ 8~p~ CO~Y, ~W YORI( 15.934 S.F. x 0.167 x 100~ = 2,681 C.F. l ifil IflIHJlIIH ~-. ,/ - SIIE[T LANDSCAPED 3~5,345 S.F. X 0,167 X 10~ 5,600 C.F. '1 frllJllllltlll, , TO1AL VOLUME REQ'D 27,012 C.f. ,, , S.,H [ II I -- · ,I / / I / TYPICAL ROAD, SECTION / / / I / RESORT MOTEL ~, RESTRNT. LOCATION MAP SITE DATA TO T'A/- .4.P6'.4 ...................... I¢./-+ ~ ~ (P~oJEcT AmEA~ ~ON/NO ................................ M- I GENERAL NOTES BEACHCOMBER MOTEL .PROPERTY OUTCHOOUE, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW.  8tevon J. Hyman, P.E. aso$ Veterans Memorial Hw~ ' So/la M Consulting Engineer ROD*DO, Omo, ~ E //779 ~,:~ PRELIM/NARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2 OF 2 ' ~XISTING BF--ACHCO~ER MOTEL ANB R~STAURANT' $0ot49 I ~ PROPO~B PROJECT (R-80) / LOCATION MAi= $C~LE:i,I ~ = 3100' t · M~lverne, NY,11565 ' TEL~ (5!6)~9~3~~ ,, "TEL: FAX; (51,e)5~3~§, FAX: I'OWN OF $~dTHOLD CO., PLAN '1 I$0" (100' REQUIRED LAND NOW O~ FI3RMERL Y OF JACK LONDON Applicant: Nicho as SgO0 Duck PogdRoad , =" Cutchogue, N.Y. I SOTM~umber ,~lOOO-OS~-2~(parcdA) ' O~O- O83 ~ 2 - 2 (parcel C~ ~ & ~-E) Zoning: RR (Resort Residential/) a~'~ , Pro~ectAce~: 14.1 ac~e~ ,.,, , : , : ~'~ PROPOSED DRAINAGE DRYWFLLS (TYPICAL) ,, I, All ' an,'dte c~mtructlo~ ~h&ll' ,confoitn ' to the' ','ToWn, ~ ' ~pu~dld , , ~ ' s~at~r ~eE' shall , ba''contam~ , m ~wefl~ ~n accordance i ~'r,WdhTown,~f~OFr~hOl~gnter~8, . ,: , LAND NOW OR FO~MER£Y OF JOHN ZUHO$KI 890.14' $ 44' 41'IO"E 2~' 8UIL~ING SET{ACK' '~ "x x WOODED AREA ~ ~ 867' __ ' PAD TO BE REMOVED PARCEL ~.~1 PARCEL C-2 %i APPROX/MATE ZONING UNE I ~PPROX/MA~ CLE~NG~M]~ . / ~ S~PLY ~ttS I IN ACCORDA~E WITH ALL THE REOUIREMENTE REVISIONS d~ AND ~RY ~B~R PLAN " TJF LEGEND CONTOUR LINE PROPERTY LINE ZONING LINE CONCRETE SIDEWALK ASPHALT~AVEMENT DRAINAGE STBUCTuRE , wATER SUPPL Y WELL BUILDING NUMDE~ ~ NUMBER OF STALLS IN 8AY ,HANDiCAP ~ TALL , UPPER UNIT ~ / LOWER UNIT~f ~ WOOD L~E . ' RENCE ~ ,SHRUB -/7 ~ FLAT r? PROPOSED EX/STING SAkITAR Y SEWA~E FL OW CA~ L CUL A T/ON$ : Totalarea of property 46. f aore~ Mlowable fto~ for ~ite -' , $00 g~llons/day/~bre (gpdpe) dB. I acres x $OO gpdpa = 13 8$O gp~ ' ' ':' , R~quireb' ' Provld~d ' ~ Maxlm~m tot cdFerage...,.,,.,,~ ' 25 % ', '2 o/o Flow, from exi$lln~ cabana ', ' G units x loc gpdpb · GOO gpd ' Flow rom,ex~ ng,~padm~tnt, , nitx35Ogp u. ~ ~, ' Prq~ose'd motet FpftS~ , ' : B~ unit~ x 150 gpdp~ ' ~ 2 ~OO gpd I Totatp~tde~lo~entflow~, , , , , ~OgPd+'350gpd* 12,90,Og~d- 15,7~0~p~ ~ , ,, , PFowd~E s~ I$ ~ suppfted with an adequele '.p~b(ic water ~pty ~tem, , ' Iflq actdrem t 'i rbquir ~ ' · 1~5 Chumh Street ~ 1001 MJddle. Goyntry Read Malveme, NY~1565, ; , Ridge, Ny1196! TEL: (516i599-3663 . q'EL: (S16)924-~230, FAX: (516)593-8160 :F~ (S16)9~-~[557 . 8 EA C tt¢OMB ER s£$OSl' row# OF sour#oLD, aUF~OLg CO., #. Z $0o~° ~u4~to~u~ , consulting engineers ,' ', ". ,.~ .. ,. 3505 Vetetans~Memonal H.w~,, Suite M, PROJ NO."'.;' ' ' / / / / / / TYPICAL ROAD SECTION J / CHCOMBER RESORT MOTEL 8~ RESTRNT. c LOCATION MAP SCALE: I" = $100' -+ SITE DATA ............................... GENERAL NOTES BEACHCOMBER MOTEL PROPERTY CUTCHOGUE~ SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK Steven J. Hyman, P.E, a5o5 I/eterons Memoriol Hw2: Suite M Consulting Engineer Ronkonkomo, N. n//??9 IDArE: I-20-881PROJ. ~IO.: 88- $O SHEET PRELIM/NARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2 OF 2 HYDRANT PROPOSED PUMP STATION PR( POSE[ TANK :3000 GALLONS FLOOR PLAN OF PROPOSED PUMP STATION AND TANK SCALE' 1/4" = 1'-0" SCM WATR 89-07 JAM G F1 W AS SHOWN JULY 1991 JULY 25, 1991 BEACHCOMBER II RESORT PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM 516-756-B000 · 201 575-5400 [] 7.4 ¢: , McLendon & Murrell, P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS - ARCHII~CTS · PLANNERS · SCIENTISTS · SURVEYORS MELVILLE, NY. FAIRFIELD, N,,~ Sheet T~tie. PLATE '~' Sheet SITE PLAN AND DETAILS 1 OF 1