HomeMy WebLinkAbout4380
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
ZBA Chairman and Members and Town Attorneys
ZBA Office Staff
October 18, 2000
Review of Recent Application of Murrin & Citizens for Safe Roads
Please find attached copies of the above application documents, all of which were
delivered on Friday, October 13, 2000 for review. This appears to be an appeal of
a Memo send to the Planning Board from the Director of Code Enforcement.
This application awaits review as to whether or not the application is properly
before the Board. Thank you.
Enclosures
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR'
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD, NEW YORK 7/~ ~ ' ~ / ..... ~ .
APPEL NO.
OC~OB~ ~2~ ~000
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y.
1, (We) ,q~,E..S,..,.,.M3~. ~;~!..,~T~,..~.0.~..~..0~,P ............. of ..q.0,,%:.~..,T,_.m~.....~,.%~,....~.?.:.O..,..,B,.9~..,7,,%~ ................
' Nome of ippellor~t CITIZENS FOR SAFE Street and Number
' ROADS, INC.
ORIENT & GREENPORT .......... NEW ~.O...R~, .......... ~REBY APPEAL TO
Municipality State
DETERMINATION
THE ZONI~qG BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE ~ OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR]I3[~
· ' AUGUST 14, 2000
' ~ .................................... DATED ..~ .... ~,~ ........................................
' DIRECTOR OF CODE ENFORCEMENTf
WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ~ DETERMINED THAT A PRE-EXISTING USE
EXISTS ON THE "SNACK BAR PARCEL" FOR PARKING, COPY ATTACHED
CRO~S SOUND FERRY sERVICES, INC.
Name of Applicant for permit
of P.O. BOX 33 NEW LONDON CT
Street and Number Municipality State
( ) PERMIT TO USE
( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY
(X) APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR/DIRECTOR OF CODE ENFORCEMENT FINDING
~RESF~NCF~ 09 PRE-~TRTTMC TT~'~ ~'n~R pA~WTMC.
SR 25 ORIENT M II
1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ................................. . .....................................................
Street ~am~.et / Use DLltrlct on Zoning 'M~p
District 1000 Section 15 Block 9 Lot 15.~.lCurrent Owner CROSS SouND FERRY, SERVICES, INC.
Mop No. .Lot No. Prior Owner.
~ 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section; Sub-
section and Pc~rograph of the Zoning Ordinance b.y number. Do. not quote the Ordinance.)
Art'tcle 60 Section 241
3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (p~ease check,appropriate box)
( ) ;~ VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map
( ) A VARIANCE due to lock of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Lows
Art, 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3
(×) APP~JLL OF DETERMINATION 0~ BUTLDING INSPECTOR/DIRECTOR OF CODE ENFORCDI~NT
4. PREVIOUS APPF..~L A previous appeal (]i]~ (has not) been made with cespect to this decision
Of the Building Inspector ,or with respect to this property.
Such appeal was ) request for a special permit
) request for o variance
and was mode in Appeo! No ........................ Doted ...................................................................
REASON FOR APPEAL
( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3
( ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance
(X) APPEAL FROM DETERMINATION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR/DIRECTOR OF CODE ENFORCEMENT
~$ requested ~or the reo~on that SUCH DETERMINATION WAS ERRONEOUS; ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.
SPECIFICALLY, THE DETERMINATION WAS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE, AS CONTAINED IN
THE FII~E (1) AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING A FEW CARS ON THE .~/%ECEL AND (2) AN AFFIDAVIT
WHICH ASSERTS THAT FROM TIME TO TIME THE AFFIANT HAD OCCASION TO PARK HIS VEHICLES AND
THOSE OF HIS EMPLOYEES ON THE PARCEL DURING THE 1950's. THIS SHOWING IS TOTALLY INADEQUATE
AND INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE DETERMINATION APPEALED FROM. THE REASONS FOR THIS
CONCLUSION ARE DETAILED ON OTHER SIDE.
'J"orm ~.~I (Continue on other side)
I. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SUCH USE EXISTED ON THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE ORDINANCE,' ONLY.
SOME VAGUE AND UNDEFINED INTERMITTENT PERIOD. MOREOVER, THERE IS N0 EVIDENCE THAT ANY ~SE
WAS CONTINUING AND SUBSTANTIAL.
2. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AS TO THE SIMILAR INTENSITY OF THE USE PRE-ORDINANCE AS CONTRASTED WITH
POST-ORDINANCE USE. INDEED, THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED THAT POST-ORDINANCEiINTENSITY IS
SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER THAN PRE-ORDINANCE USE. THE APPLICANT APPARENTLY PROPOSED TO CONTINUE
PARKING ON THE ENTIRE PARCEL WHEREAS, ANY PRE-EXISTING USE WAS, AT BEST, LIMITED TO SEVERAL
VEHICLES.
3. SECTION 100-241 PROVIDES THAT A PRE-EXISTING USE MAY NOT BE ENLARGED , ALTERED OR EXTENDED, OR
PLACED IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION. THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THAT THE CURRENT USE OF THE PARCEL
VIOLATKS SECTION 100-241.
REASONS FOR AREA VARIANCE ONLY (to be completed by applicant):
Do not use these standards.for "use variance" or "special
exception." (Also at~ach sheets If necessary, with signatures.)
1. An undesirable change will NOT be produced in the character of
the neig~borhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if granted
BECAUSE:
2. The benefit sought by the applicant CANNOT be achieved by some
method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other ~han an area
.variance BECAUSE:
N/A
3. The amount of relief reguested is not substantial BECAUSE
N/A
4. The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the
physica.! or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district
BECAUSE
N/A
5. llas the alleged difficulty been self-created?
( ) Yes. N/A
( ) No.
6. This is the minimum that· is necessary and adequate, and at the.
same ~ime preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood .and
the health, safety and welfare of the Co~munit¥.
SOUTHOLD C~IZ'ENS FOR SAFE ROAD~, ~NC.
STATE OF NEW YORK) BY: THOR HANSON, PRESIDENT
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
(APplicant) CHARLES MURRIN
Agent must attach written consent from owner.
Sworn to before me this
*******************
txtlk/form.var/temp
D-Oo 0
· l 'day ?., ,: 7't,
· // Notary Public ~ "
-_. _______ ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM
Not'aW Public, State of New York
~.~ No. 52~464287'
Qusllfied in Suffolk County
-~i Commission Expires Sabot. 30, ~
ADDENDUM TO APPLICATION FOR APPEAL IN THE MATTER OF
CHARLES MURRIN AND SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. TO
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Charles Murrin is adversely affected by the decision appealed from because he owns real
property in the vicinity of the property which is the subject of the application (605
Latham Lane, Orient, New York SCTM# 1000-15-9-1.25), the value of which is
adversely affected by the proposed project, and because of the diminution in quality of
life and public health, safety and welfare directly resulting from the project. In addition,
Mr. Murrin's street exits very near the project. Mr. Murrin is a member of Southold
Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc.
Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. is adversely affected by the decision appealed
from because the corporation is comprised of members similarly situated to Charles
Murrin, including Thor Hansen, 900 Birds Eye Road (SCTM# 1000-17-2-1.9), Thomas
Murray, 20075 Main Road (SCTM# 1000-17-3.6.1), F. Wachsberger, 3180 Orchard
Street (SCTM# 1000-27-3-3.1), and Ralph Williams, Main Road, all of Orient, New
York and because the corporation was deemed by the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Suffolk County, to have standing with respect to the Cross Sound Ferry Services,
Inc. operation of its business at that location, a decisio~ upheld by the Appellate Division,
Second Department (copy attached). /}//,, __ ·
.
/ r " -- ---Ill)i! /Ab"tg/Jt(l A'~ W~i~am, as agent
OCT 3 2 00[ !
j/scsratth
S~ COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPgJJATE DIVISION : SECOND R1DICIAL DEPARTMENT
i AD2d__
SONDRA MILLER, J.P.
DAVID S. RITTER
{OHN COPERTINO
MYRIAM L ALTMAN, IJ.
4572D
M~v
Argued - November 17, 1998
9'7-0'7921
98-01455
Town of Southold, plaintiff-appellant,
Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc.,
intervcnor plaintiff-re~ondent, v Cross
Sound Fen'y Services, Inc., defe,d~nt-appellant.
DECISION&ORDER
Esseks, Het~-r & Angel, Riverhead, N.Y. (William W. Esseks and Thomas
F. Whelan of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York, N.Y. (Thomas G. Rafferty, Nina M.
Dillon, Kenneth E. Lee, and Daniel Margolis of counsel), and W~ckham,
Wicklmm & Bressler, P.C., Mauituck, N.Y. (Eric J. Bressler and Janet Geasa
of counsel), for intervenor plaintiff-respondent (one brief filed).
In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendant from operating a.hi..~.-specd
passenger-only ferry service until it seeks and obtains site pi.an alum. val_, (1) the
of Southold and the defendant separately appeal from an or~er o! me ;~upreme i2ourt, ~uHo~
for Safe Roads, Inc., for leave to intervene as a pmumtt tn uae actmn, ann ~z) mc
appeals, as limit, ed by its brief, from so much of an order of tile same cotlrt, elltered November
14, 1997, as, inter _nLCn, denied that branch of its motion which was for renewal of the prior
order, and, upon granting that branch of its motion which was for clarification of the prior
order, atnended the prior order to deem the intervenor's complaint to be served.
ORDERED that thc plaintiff's appeal from thc order entered August 6, 1997,
is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered August 6, 1997, is aff'umed insofar as
appealed from by the defendant; and it is further,
December 14, 1998 Page 1.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD v CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC.
ORDERED that the order entered November 14, 1997. is affirmed insofar as
appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the intervenor is awarded one bill of costs, payable by the
defendant.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion when it granted leave
to intervene to Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. (hereinafter the intervenor), an
organization representing neighboring homeowners who claim to have been adversely affected
by the defendant's operation of a high-speed, passenger-only, ferry service. The intervenor
established that its members, some of whom suffered from an increase in noise, traffic, and air
emissions on the supers upon which they reside, possessed a real and substantial interest in the
outcome of this action (see, CPLR 1013; Patterson Materials Corp. v Town of Pawling,
221 AD2d 609; Matter of Clinton v Summers, 144 AD2d 145).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
MILLER, J.P., RITTER, COPERTINO and ALTMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Martin H. Brownstcin
Clerk
December 14, 1998 Page 2.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD v CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC.
Se~ 1~ O0 10:11~ Fredrloa wach~ber;er
51S-3~3-350!
$outhold, New York
eUII.,DING DEI~A~
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Bennett Orlowski, Cllairman Planning Board
Ed Forrester, 0irector of Code Enfomement
DATE:, August 14, 2000
RE: parking, Cross Sound Ferry
I have received evidence of, and have determined that parking on the parcel
known as'the snark bar pan:er is · pre-existing use. Affidavits eno aeria~ pt~otos
refer to parking there prior to the enactment of Zoning in 1957. Evidence includes
aff~devit dating parking aa eady aa 1951,
CC; Town Attorney
AUG 1 ¢ 20UU
SOtRhold Town
P/annirng Board
QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION
A. Please disclose ~e names of the owner(s) and any other
individuals (and entities) having a financial interest in the
subjec~ premises and a description of their interests:
(Se..parate sheet may be attached. }
B. Is the subject pr~mises listed on the real estate market for
sale or being shown to prospective buyers? { } Yes
{~f} No. (If Yes, please attach copy of "conditions" of sale.)
Do
Are there any proposals to change or alter land contours?
} Yes {~} No
1. Are there any areas which contain wetland g~.asses?..
2. Are the wetland areas shown on the map submitted wits
this application? __ .
3. Is the prope~y buLkheaded between the wet!anes area and
_t~h~e upland buil'~eing area? __
4. I~ your property co~.t~!ns wet.lands or pond areas, have
you contacted the Ozfice of the Town T-~astees for i~s
determination of jurisdiction?
E. Is there a depression or sloping elevation near the area of
proposed cgnstruction at or below five feet above mean sea
level? ~ (If not applicable, state "N.A.")
F. Are~.there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences~
which exls~ a~d are not show~ on the s%~rve~ ~ap ~h~t yOU are ~
submite{ng? If none .~s~, please state "none."
G. Do ~o~ have an~ construction ~-g place at ~h{~ t/me
concer~-g Four premises? If yes, please ~,hm~t a c~
Of ~our build{ng pezmit and map as appro~=d by the Building
Department. If none, please state.
H. Do you or any co-owner also own other land close to ~h~
parcel? If yes, please explain where or s~lit copies
of deeds.
I. Please list present use or operations conducted at this
parcel and
proposed use
Authorized Si~naturm amd Date
3/87, IO/90Ik
The ~.Y.S. Environmental Qualit-; Review Act re=u!res submission
befor~ any action is ~aken.
INSTRUCTIONS:
(a) £n order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed
that the preparer will use currently available information concerning the
project and ~e likely impacts Of the action. It is not expected
additional studies, research or other investigations will b~ undertaken.
(b) If any question has been answered Yes the oro]ect may be sig-
nific~-n: and completed Emvironmental Assessment Form' is necessary.
(c) If all questions have been answered No ih is Likely that the
project is not significant.
(d) Environmental Assessment
1. Will project result in a large physical change
to ~he projec~ site or physically'alter more
than l0 acres of land? ~'~es ' NO
2. Will there be a major cha~ge to any unique or
un~ual land fornl on ~e site? Yes
3. Will project alter or have a large effac: on
7. Willair quality? project result in a major adverse effect on ~.Ves ____NO
knowI% to be i~portan: to the community? ~Yes ____.No
9. Will project adversely impact any site or struct-
ure of b-tstoric, pre-historic, or paleon~oioqical
importance or any site designated as a critical
i0. Will project have a major effect on existing or
ii. Will project result in majcr traffic ~roDiems or
The Town of Sou~hold's Code of Ethics prohibibs conflicts of
in~eres~ on the part of town officers and employees~ The
purpose of this form is to provide information which caD
alert the town of possible c'onflicbs of interest and allow
. it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same.
YOUR
SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS~ INC/CHARLES MURRIN
(Last name, first name, middle initial, unless
you are applying in the name of someone else or
other entity, such as 9 company. If so, indicate
the other person's or company's name.)
NATURE OF APPLICATION, (Check all that apply.)
Tax grievance
Variance
Change of zone
Approval of plat
Exemption from plat or official map
Other
(If "Other," name the activity.) APPEAL FROM ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
Do you personally (or through your company, Spouse, sibling,
parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or
employee of the Town of $outhold? #Relationship" includes
by blood, marriage, or business interest. 'Business
interest" means a business, including a partnership, in
which the town officer or employee has even a partial
ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which
the town officer or employee owns more than 5~ of the
shares.
YES NO X
If you answered 'YES,".complete ~he balance of this form and
date and sign where indicated.
Name of person employed by the Town of Sou~hold
Title or position of that person
Describe the relationship between yourself (the applicant)
and the town officer or employee. Either check the
appropriate line A) through D) and/or describe in the space
provided.
The town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling,
parent, or child is (check all tha~ apply),
A) the owner Of greater than 5% of the sh~res of the
corporate stock of the applic~nt (when the applicant
is a corporation);
__B) the legal or beneficial owner
noncorporate entity (when bhe
corporation);
C) an officer, director, partner,
applicant; or
D) the actual applicant.
of any interest in a
applicant is not a
or employee of the
DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP
Signature
Print Name THOR HANSON, PRESIDENT
Submitted this /~day ofO0~~_~
Signature
Print name CHARLES MURRIN
SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC.
FOR BOARD AND STAFF USE ~'~~~
Updated New Information
~ ~- , ] ! O '''
· APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
Lora S. Collins
George Horning
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064
Telephone (631) 765-1809
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
December 29, 2000
Abigail A. Wickham, Esq.
Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C.
10315 Main Road
P.O. Box 1424
Mattituck, NY 11952
Re: Application Request of Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc.
SCTM #1000-15-9-15.1 (Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc.)
Dear Ms. Wickham:
With regard to your submission for a possible appeal, this will confirm that
the documents are at this time pending reviews by the Zoning Board's Special
Counsel.
Gerard P. Goehringer
Chairman
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
James Dinizio, Jr.
Lydia A. Tortora
Lora S. Collins
George Homing
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064
Telephone (631) 765-1809
October 18, 2000
Ms. Fredrica Wachsberger
Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc.
P.O. Box 797
Greenporl, NY 11944
Re: Your Recent Letter with Enclosure
Dear Ms. Wachsberger:
This is a follow-up to let you know that Zoning Appeals Board Members
have been furnished with a copy of your letter dated September 29, 2000. received
October 2, 2000.
At this time the Board does not have a complete application authorizing
appellate jurisdiction. Without proper jurisdiction, the Board is not authorized to
provide input or comments.
Very truly yours,
GERARD P. GOEHRINGER
CHAIRMAN
SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR)
P.O. BOX 797
GREENPORT, NY 1 t944
September 29, 2000
Town of Southold
Zoning Board of Appeals
P.O. Box 1655
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Members of the Board:
Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from Southold
Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. (SCSR) to Mr. Bennett
Orlowski, the Chairman of the Planning Board of the Town of
Southold. As detailed in the letter, SCSR is extremely
concerned about a SEQRA Lead Agency Coordination Request
being circulated by the Planning Board in connection with
the Cross Sound Ferry facilities at Orient Point.
Although the Planning Board has prevailed in every lawsuit
brought by Cross Sound to avoid comprehensive environmental
review of its Orient Point operations--a review
necessitated, in our opinion, by Cross Sound's substantial
yet unapproved expansion of those operations through the
introduction of high-speed passenger-only ferry service--the
Planning Board now inexplicably appears to be acceding to an
segmented review in the face of SEQRA's admonition against
such an approach. Despite the fact that, in our view, the
increased traffic, parking and environmental stresses at
Cross Sound's facilities are largely, if not entirely, the
result of the new ferry service--a change of use that has
never been subject to a comprehensive environmental
review--the Board now appears to be going along with Cross
Sound's attempt to cast the matter solely as a minor parking
lot modification. In addition, we believe that the
classification of the review as "unlisted" rather than "Type
I" is incorrect under the governing regulations.
We welcome any comments or input you or your agency might be
able to offer in this matter.
Sincerely,
Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc.
by Fredrica Wachsberger
Contact No. (631) 323-3501
SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR
A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY
SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR)
P.O. BOX 797
GREENPORT, NY 11944
September 29, 2000
Re: Lead Agency Coordination Request
Cross Sound Ferry
Dear Mr. Orlowski:
More than six years ago, Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. ("Cross
Sound") abruptly introduced a high-speed passenger-only ferry service at its terminal in
the Town of Southold. Once the Town and the Planning Board demanded that Cross
Sound comply with applicable local and state law by filing a new site plan covering the
entirety of Cross Sound's operation at Orient Point, Cross Sound responded by engaging
in a continuous pattern of litigation and delay to avoid such compliance. Despite its
maneuvering, however, Cross Sound has lost every challenge it made to the Town's
authority to require submission of a comprehensive revised site plan for the entire ferry
terminal operation, and to the Town's obligation to conduct a detailed environmental
review of that site plan. In light of this history, it is therefore impossible to understand
why the Planning Board is now circulating a Lead Agency Coordination Request that, on
its face, appears to be incomplete and at odds with both the law and with the positions
that have been repeatedly and forcefully taken by the Town and the Planning Board itself.
A brief review of the procedural history of this matter may be useful. After
Cross Sound introduced its new passenger-only ferry service, the Planning Board
resolved in July 1995 that operation of the new ferry service and the resultant use of the
snack bar parcel as a parking lot for customers of the new service required re~qsed site
plan approval. Cross Sound did not challenge this resolution. Instead, Cross Sound
began to submit piecemeal site plans in an attempt to &couple the passenger-only ferry
service from the all of the changes accompanying introduction of that service, among
them a manyfold increase in the numbers of cars driving to and parking around the ferry
terminal. The Planning Board, however, stood firm in requiring a comprehensive
integrated site plan that would address both the introduction of the new ferry service and
its effect on all of Cross Sound's Southold facilities. After representing to the state
Supreme Court that it would comply with the Planning Board's request, on July 29, 1996,
Cross Sound submitted for approval a comprehensive site plan for the entire ferry
terminal area.
The submission of Cross Sound's comprehensive site plan for approval
automatically triggered the Planning Board's obligation to apply the provisions of the
State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"). In accordance with the relevant
state regulations, the Board determined on July 30, 1996, that review of Cross Sound's
comprehensive site plan was a "Type I" action, i.e., one presumptively requiring an
Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS"). On September 16, 1996, the Planning Board
issued a Positive Declaration, which made an EIS mandatory. On December 16, 1996,
the Planning Board adopted a Scope Outline for the required EIS.
SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR
A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY
SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR)
P.O. BOX 797
GREENPORT, NY 11944
2
Cross Sound's response was to file a series of lawsuits challenging
(1) the Planning Board's Positive Declaration; (2) the Planning Board's adoption of the
Scope Outline; and (3) the constitutionality of those provisions of the Town Code of
Southold that required Cross Sound to submit a site plan to begin with. Cross Sound's
challenges were rejected by the state Supreme Court in every instance. As a result of
those court proceedings this Planning Board has the authority (and we believe the
obligation) to require a comprehensive site plan from Cross Sound and, pursuant to
SEQRA, to require an Environmental Impact Statement of the extent set out in the 1996
Scope Outline. One would think that the Board, having won on all counts, would now
resume an environmental review of the same scope and character as the one interrupted
by Cross Sound's failed legal actions.
Yet, incomprehensibly, despite a successful four-year battle to vindicate
the Town's legal authority and obligations, the Planning Board now appears to have
reversed course and acceded Cross Sound's defective view of the SEQRA review
process: that the only issue involved is parking lot alterations. This is contrary to the law
and to the position the Town has consistently maintained before the courts.
The controlling state regulations make it clear in no uncertain terms that:
[a]ctions commonly consist of a set of activities or steps. The entire set of
activities or steps must be considered the action, whether the agency decision-
making relates to the action as a whole or to only a part of it.
Considering only apart or segment of any action is contrary to the intent of
SEQR. Ifa lead agency believes that circumstances warrant a segmented review,
it must clearly state in its determination of significance, and any subsequent EIS,
the supporting reasons and must demonstrate that such review is clearly no less
protective of the environment. Related actions should be identified and discussed
to the fullest extent possible. 6 NYCRR §§ 617.3(g), 617.3(g)(1) (emphasis
added).
While the Planning Board properly followed this mandate in its abortive review of Cross
Sound's 1996 integrated site plan, its latest action disregards it. Moreover, in improperly
disregarding the presumption against segmentation, the Lead Agency Coordination
Request provides no hint why the Planning Board now apparently considers a partial and
disjointed review "clearly no less protective of the environment", especially given that it
reached the opposite conclusion four years ago, and nothing has changed. Nor could such
a review be "no less protective", since the substantial increase in the intensity of use of
Cross Sound's facilities, along with the new environmental stresses created by this use,
stems from a obvious common source--introduction of the passenger-only ferry service
and the associated traffic, parking and usage demands it creates. The effects of this new
service must be considered in any proper environmental review, a stance the Town has
consistently and correctly maintained in its litigation with Cross Sound.
As counsel for the Town affirmed to the state Supreme Court while
successfully moving to dismiss two of Cross Sound's meritless lawsuits:
SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR
A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY
SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR)
P.O. BOX 797
G REENPORT, NY 11944
3
Cross Sound has apparently adopted the position that the applications pending
before the ZBA and the Planning Board only apply for proposed parking on the
Trust parcel. That these applications were simply filed as a normal business move
and that SEQRA review should focus solely on the parking lot .... This defies
reason, is contradictory to the record and is contrary to the definition of "action"
subject to SEQRA review. Reply Affirmation of Francis J. Yakaboski, ¶¶ 19, 20.
While the Trust parcel is no longer formally included in Cross Sound's latest
submissionS--although we believe it remains, contrary to its residential zoning status, a
repository of dredge spoil for other of Cross Sound's parcels--Mr. Yakaboski's statement
is equally true regarding the current site plan, which has been classified on the Lead
Agency Coordination Request as "approval of design & layout at three properties zoned
Marine I [sic] and used in the ferry terminal operation (staging and parking).''2 In the
words of the Town's counsel to the state Supreme Court, "[t]be comprehensive site plan,
High Speed Ferry and ZBA applications regarding parking are inescapably linked. They
are the 'activities or set of activities' which comprise the 'action' subject to SEQRA
review in this case" and "Cross Sound's position would result in a segmented review
which is contrary to the purpose and intent of SEQRA." Even the 1996 Preliminary Site
Plan Study submitted by Cross Sound confirms that increased parking demands were
linked to the introduction of the new ferry service. According to Cross Sound's
consultants, "the principal users of the proposed parking facility will be the users of the
High Speed Ferry when that service is in use." Given these facts, we cannot understand
how the Planning Board can now decide to ignore its prior and correct determination of
the law, particularly when the alternative being circulated by the Board, in the words of
the Town's counsel, "defies reason" and is "contrary to the purpose and intent of
SEQRA".
Furthermore, the Narrative submitted by Cross Sound begins with the
sentence, "Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. requests site plan approval from the Southold
Town Planning Board for the existing and on-going operations currently occurring at the
project site". It does so despite providing no details or site plan covering those
operations---only an incomplete proposal for parking modifications. If Cross Sound is
truly requesting approval for "existing and on-going operations", as it must under the law,
it has no justification for shielding such operations from comprehensive SEQRA review.
The materials submitted by Cross Sound are plainly insufficient for such a comprehensive
review, however, and the Lead Agency Coordination Request does not characterize the
SEQRA action as covering "existing and on-going operations". Nonetheless, given Cross
Sound's prior tactics, it is fairly predictable that Cross Sound will later attempt to argue
that SEQRA review of its parking plans somehow constituted SEQRA review of its
existing and on-going operations.
~ Given Cross Sound's prior shell-game tactics, it would not be surprising if the Trust
parcel becomes the subject ora later, piecemeal application by Cross Sound for even
more parking. The current application confirms that the Trust parcel is still "controlled"
by Cross Sound. Narrative, p. 12.
2 The properties are actually zoned "Marine II".
SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR
A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY
SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR)
P.O. BOX 797
GREENPORT, NY 1t944
4
In addition to improperly segmenting review, Cross Sound's current
application is inexplicably classified as an "unlisted" rather than "Type 1" action. This
classification ignores the criteria for a Type I action set out in Section 617.4 of Title 6 of
the Official Compilation of Coes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York,
which, incidentally, provides that "[a]ll agencies are subject to this Type I list.''3 In 1996,
the Board correctly followed these criteria and classified Cross Sound's application as a
Type I action because it "exceeds 25 pement of the threshold of a project or action
involving the physical alteration of 10 acres and occurring substantially contiguous to any
publicly owned or operated parkland. The property subject to alteration is 3.93 acres and
is contiguous to County owned parkland." (Southold Town Planning Board Resolution,
July 29, 1996.) The project is still contiguous to County owned parkland and a National
Natural Landmark, and the project size is now 4.06 acres. Therefore, the provisions of
6 NYCRR § 617.4(b)(10) again require that Cross Sound's application be a Type I action
presumptively subject to a Positive Declaration and a full environmental review.
Moreover, the materials prepared and submitted by Cross Sound in
connection with this review are being circulated even though they are obviously
incomplete and/or erroneous. For example, despite the fact that this submission is
ostensibly, if improperiy, directed towards parking, Question B(1)(f) of the Long
Environmental Assessment Form, which asks for the existing and proposed number of
parking spaces, is answered, "Refer to Narrative." The Narrative contains absolutely no
such information. Furthermore, there is no answer to Question A(7) ("Is the project
substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks?").
In contrast to previous Cross Sound submissions, Question A(6) ("Is the project
substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site or district, listed on the State or the
National Registers of Historic Places?") is answered "yes".4 Finally, the Narrative parrots
Cross Sound's legally untenable position that parking on the Snack Bar Lot is a "pre-
existing, non-conforming use".
In connection with this last issue, it is still another matter of concern that
the Town is now apparently joining Cross Sound in its unwarranted position concerning
the zoning status of the Snack Bar Lot. We have only recently seen a copy of a
memorandum dated August 14, 2000, from Mr. Forrester to you, in which Mr. Forrester
claims to "have received evidence of, and have determined that parking on the parcel
known as the 'snack bar parcel' is a pre-existing use". We understand this "evidence"
consists of aerial photographs from sometime in the 1950s showing a few vehicles on the
snack bar lot, as well as an affidavit from a single individual stating that during the 1950s
"[f]rom time to time, we had occasion to park our vehicles and the vehicles of our
employees east of the north/south extension of the present State Highway at the site of the
present parking area now employed by patrons of the Cross Sound ferry".
3 The term "agency" is defined in the regulations as "a state or local agency". 6
NYCRR § 617.2(c).
4 If this answer is correct, it automatically leads to a Type I classification, regardless of
the acreage involved. 6 NYCRR § 617.4(b)(9).
SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR
A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY
SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR)
P.O. BOX 797
GREENPORT, NY 11944
It is our understanding that the courts of this State have held that a
non-conforming use must be substantial, not merely incidental, and must be proven as of
the effective date of the zoning ordinance, not merely prior to that effective date. On both
of these issues the burden ofproofis~on the property owner. Furthermore, we understand
that the courts have held that "overriding public policy" favors reasonable restriction and
eventual elimination of pm-existing nonconforming uses, and that such uses may be
enlarged only in rare cimumstances not present in this case. It is also our understanding
that a nonconforming use may not be established through activities begun or continued in
violation of a zoning ordinance. None of the "evidence" submitted byCross Sound
addresses the actual use of the snack bar parcel on the date Southold's zoning code went
into effect, or proves anything more than that a few cars were once occasionally located
on the snack bar parcel--hardl~, the substantial use required to establish a non-
conforming use. Given the legal framework, is it really the Town's position that sporadic
parking vaguely alleged to have taken place sometime in the 1950s now gives Cross
Sound the fight regularly to maintain a developed commercial parking lot for hundreds of
vehicles in violation of the Town's zoning ordinance?
Finally, it is our understanding that the Planning Board intends to leave the
October 2, 2000, Public Heating open so that Cross Sound can fill in the many defects in
its current proposal. We believe that the Planning Board should schedule a further public
hearing after Cross Sound has filed a complete and accurate application.
The land and waters surrounding the Cross Sound terminal at Orient Point
are among the important natural and recreation resources of Southold, and their protection
is far too serious a matter to allow anything less than a full and fair review by the
Planning Board and the citizens of this Town. We urge the Planning Board to reject this
latest in a long series of efforts to segment the review of Cross Sound's application for a
new site plan and instead to insist upon a non-segmented review of all of Cross Sound's
operations including the high-speed ferry service and the new parking traffic and
pollution concerns created by that service. The Planning Board should again require
Cross Sound to submit a complete site plan application covering all of the properties it
makes use of at Orient Point for a full environmental review as required by law and by
the prior determinations of this Planning Board.
Very truly yours,
Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc.
by Fredrica Wachsberger
Bennett Orlowski, Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
BY EXPRESS MAIL
SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR
A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY
SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR)
P.O. BOX 797
GREENPORT, NY tt944
6
Copy to:
Town of Southold
Town Board
P.O. Box 1655
Southold, NY 11971
Town of Southold
Building Dept.
P.O. Box 1655
Southold, NY 11971
Town of Southold
Zoning Board of Appeals
P.O. Box 1655
Southold, NY 11971
Town of Southold
Board of Trustees
P.O. Box 1655
Southold, NY 11971
Town of Southold
Transportation Committee
P.O. Box 1655
Southold, NY 11971
Kim Shaw, Environmental Analyst
Department of Ecology
Department of Health Services
County Cemer
Riverhead, NY 11901
Stephen Jones
Council for Environmental Quality
Department of Planning
P.O. Box 6100
Hauppauge, NY 11788
James Bagg, Director
Council for Environmental Quality
Departmem of Planning
P.O. Box 6100
Hauppauge, NY 11788
SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR
A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY
SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR)
P.O. BOX 797
GREENPORT, NY 1 t 944
John C. Murray, Planner
Transportation Division
Department of Public Works
335 Yaphank Avenue
Yaphank, NY 11980
William Sickles, Superintendent
Department of Parks, Recreation & Conservation
P.O. Box 144, Montauk Hwy.
W. Sayville, NY 11796-0144
George Stafford, Director
Coastal Resources & Waterfront Revitalization Division
New York Department of State
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
John P. Cahill, Commissioner
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 11233
Roger Evans, Director
NYSDEC
Bldg. 40, SUNY Rm. 219
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Darrel Kost, Regional Env. Coordinator
Dept. of Transportation
State Office Building
250 Veterans Memorial Hwy.
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Barry Hecht
Passenger Transportation Division
NYS Dept. of Transportation
W. Averell Harriman State Office Building Campus
1220 Washington Avenue
Floor & Rm. 4-i 15
Albany, NY 12232
Thomas Lyons, Director
Environmental Management Bureau
Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation
Bldg. 1, 13th Floor
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12238
SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR
A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY
SOUTHOLD CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS, INC. (SCSR)
P.O. BOX 797
GREENPORT, NY 11944
Dr. David Huysoll, Director
Division of Agricultural Research-Plum Island
U.S. Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 848
Greenport, NY 11944
US Army Corp. of Engineers
NY District
Jacob K. Javits Federal Bldg.
New York, NY 10278-0090
Arm: Regulatory Branch
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
26 Federal Plaza
Room 1338
New York, NY 10278
Attn: Response & Recovery Division
Debm O'Kane, Executive Director
North Fork Environmental Council
P.O. Box 799
Mattimck, NY 11952
Mr. Gerald Newman, Chief Planner
Suffolk County Planning Commission
H. Lee Dennison Bldg. - 4th Floor
100 Veterans Memorial Highway
P. O. Box 6100
Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099
BY EXPRESS MAIL
SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR
A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY
WILLIAM WlCKHAM
ERIC J. BRESSLER
ABIGAIL A. WiCKHAM
LYNNE M. GORDON
JANET GEASA
LAW Offices
WICKHAM, WICKHAM & BRESSLER, p.c.
10315 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 1424
mattltUCK, lONg ISLAND
NEW YORK II952
631-~ 98-8353
TELEFAX NO. 631-298-8565
July 27, 2001
Zoning Board of Appeals
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Attn: Gerard P. Goehringer,
Chairman
MelVille OFFICE
BROAD HOLLOW ROAD
SUITE III
MELVILLE, N.~E.W.~f.I~RK. r ~1747
Re: Appeal of Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc.
dated October 12, 2000 from the determination of
Building Inspector dated August 14, 2000 concerning
alleged pre-existing use of parcel
SCTM #1000-15-9-15.1 (Cross Sound Ferry Service, Inc.)
Dear Mr. Goehringer:
I am advised that at a public hearing conducted on
Monday, July 16, 2001 by the Southold Planning Board on
Cross Sound Ferry's current Site Plan Application, ZBA
member Jim Dinizio, Jr. encouraged the Planning Board to
decide the issue in favor of Cross Sound Ferry (the
~Ferry"). I am further told that Mr. Dinizio said that
requiring an environmental review of the Ferry's plan would
set a bad precedent for other businesses in Southold (this
is noted in the July 19, 2001 issue of the Suffolk Times
article on the hearing). I am advised that Mr. Dinizio made
this and other statements following presentations by
Southold Citizens for Safe Roads and its traffic consultant
and other statements by the Ferry's lawyer and consultant.
I am advised that Mr. Dinizio has spoken in this vein before
the Planning Board on at least two other previous occasions.
On behalf of our client, Southold Citizens for Safe
Roads, we request that Mr. Dinizio be recused from any
Zoning Board of Appeals actions concerning the Ferry because
he has publicly taken this position on behalf of the Ferry.
This would apply particularly to our client's referenced
appeal to the ZBA from the August 14, 2000 memorandum from
the Southold Town Director of Code Enforcement to the
Zoning Board of Appeals
July 27, 2001
Page -2-
Chairman of the Planning Board concerning Snack Bar Parcel
parking.
By copy of this memorandum, the Chairman of the
Planning Board is requested to provide a transcript of Mr.
Dinizio's full statement at the July 16, 2001 session to the
Chairman of the ZBA and to us on behalf of our client.
Also, concerning our referenced appeal, enclosed are a
series of dated aerial photographs of that area taken over a
period of years. You will note that the photos in 1955,
OE69, OE78, OE80, and OE88 show from 0 to a maximum of about
5 vehicles in the Snack Bar lot. It is only in the OE96
photo that substantial numbers appear. The Planning Board
has been provided copies of these.
Yours truly,
JG/amb
encs .--~ ~-kf~5~
cc: Bennett Orlowski, Chairman
of Planning Board
Thor Hanson, President, SCSR
WILLIAM WICKHAM
ERIC J. BRESSIER
ABIGAIL a. WICKHAM
LYNNE M. GORDON
JANET GEASA
LAW OFFICES
WICKh^m, WICKhAm ~ BRESSLER, p.c.
10315 MAIN ROAD, P.O. BOX 14~4
MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND
NEW YORK 11952
631-298-8353
TELEFAX NO. 631-298-8565
October 12, 2000
MELVILLE OFFICE
275 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD
SUITE I1~
MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747
Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals
53095 Main Road
Post Office Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Re:
Application of Southold Citizens For Safe Roads, Inc.
Premises: Route 25, Orient, New York
SCTM# 1000-15-9-15.1
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Enclosed are the following documents inseonnection with the above application for an
appeal from decision of the building inspsqc~or:
1. Application and copy of decisian for which appeal is taken;
2. Questionnaire for filing with Z~BA application;
3. Short Environmental Assessment form;
4. Transactional Disclosure form;
5. Application fee in the amount of $400.
Please contact the undersigned if anything further is required.
AAW/dc
encl.
30/shdtnzba
cc: Town of Southold Building Department w/encls.
Very truly yours,
Abigail A. Wickham
P.O. BOX 797
GREENPORT, NY 11944
August 10, 2001
AbG I 3,'.,,.I
Bennett Orlowski, Chairman
Town of Southold Planning Board
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Cross Sound Ferry Site Plan Application
Dear Mr. Oflowsh:
On behalf of Southold Citizens for Safe Roads, Inc. ("SCSR"), I submit
this information for the Planning Board's consideration in connection with its review of
the Site Plan Application of Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc. ("CSF"), as requested in
your letter of July 17, 2001. This letter should be read to incorporate SCSR's previous
statements and submissions concerning CSF's most recent Site Plan Application,
including those made at the July 16, 2001, hearing. In addition, we believe that much of
what SCSR has submitted to the Planning Board concerning CSF's previous Site Plan
Application is germane to this application, particularly as it relates to traffic, water quality
and the environmental impact of CSF's activities and its proposed projects. Because the
revised Site Plan Application does not meaningfully address the environmental and other
concerns raised by the previous application, SCSR's previous submissions concerning the
environment surrounding the site and how it may be affected by CSF's activities and
projects should be considered by the Planning Board at this juncture as well.
SCSR strongly believes that CSF's Site Plan Application is clearly a Type I
action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and therefore the
Planning Board has no alternative but to make a determination that a proper
environmental review must be conducted before further consideration of the Site Plan
Application. In its application, CSF contends that the 10 Reasons for the Original
Positive Declaration no longer apply. In fact, the contrary is true--all 10 Reasons
continue to be relevant to the Site Plan, which is why this is a Type I action.
Reason #I : "The project is a Type I action" and it "is located adjacent to
the surface waters of Gardiners Bay, which comprises a portion of the Peconic Bay
Estuary, and lies within the Orient Point Critical Environmental Area". "In addition, the
project is in proximity to the Orient Beach State Park and 48+ acres of County Owned
Land".
Simply removing the Trust Property from the Site Plan Application
changes none of this. Thus, the current proposal, like the previous one, may very well
"impair the environmental characteristics of this CEA". It is also clear that because the
site is "substantially contiguous" to "any publicly owned or operated parkland, recreation
SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR
A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY
sou'r .D cmz .s Fo. s^F .o^Ds, Iscs.I
P.O. BOX 797
GREENPORT, NY 11944
2
area or designated open space", if the project impacts only 25% of any of the SEQRA
thresholds, it is a Type I action.
Reason #2: "The proposed action will cause a significant increase in the
intensity of land use on the project site, as a function of the expanded parking, demand
for parking in connection with ferry operations and on-site traffic circulation for parking
access."
CSF contends, misleadingly, that because the proposed action consists
only of "improvements" to the site and not "expanded parking", the action should be
approved without any environmental review. CSF neglects to mention that the West lot
had been approved in 1995 for 69 spaces, and that there has never been any approval for
any parking on the Snack Bar lot. The Site Plan Application seeks to legitimize the
current levels of parking on both the West lot and Snack Bar lot--which dramatically
exceed anything that has ever been approved before. If the Site Plan Application were up
front about what it was hoping to achieve, it would state that it seeks to expand the
approved parking on those lots from a total of 69 to current levels. Notably, the Site Plan
Application deliberately omits any reference to the number of parking spaces involved.
Field investigations by Schneider Engineering have shown the following
numbers of parked cars at the respective lots:
Date Snack Bar West 2 Hour SR 25
7/6/01 235 72 8 36
7/15/01 283 80 12 71
7/20/01 249 63 9 21
7/28/01 226 85 21 26
The total number of cars at the Snack Bar and West lots was 307 (Friday,
July 6, 2001), 363 (Sunday, July 15, 2001), 312 (Friday, July 20, 2001) and 311
(Saturday, July 28, 2001). In addition, a significant number of cars were parked on SR 25
on those days, and it would be reasonable to conclude that the overwhelming
preponderance of those cars were associated with CSF's business as well. These numbers
represent dramatic increases in the amount of parking at the site, and are more than
enough to meet the 25% threshold under SEQRA to be deemed a Type I action.
Reason #3: "The proposed action may change the need and use of public
and pedestrian transportation services (including existing bike trail), and may increase
the demand for other community services including fire, policy, recreational facilities and
utilities."
Nothing has changed in the revised site plan with respect to the plan's
potential impact on these items, which is self-evident given the sheer magnitude of the
increase in traffic and parking, as described above.
SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR
A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY
SOUTt~LD
CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS,
P.O. BOX 797
GREENPORT, NY 11944
(SCSR)
3
Reason#4: "The proposed action will cause a significant increase in the
number of vehicle trips which utilize off-site infrastructure facilities primarily including
existing transportation systems".
Nothing has changed as a result of the revisions to the site plan; the
increase in traffic parallels the increase in parking at the site, as described above, and the
removal of the Trust Property from the plan does nothing to address the traffic concerns.
Reason #5: "The project may adversely change noise and air quality as a
function of increased traffic, and/or may substantially increase solid waste generation".
Again, the revisions to the site plan do nothing to address these issues.
Reason #6: "Increased intensity of site use for high speed ferry service
will increase the use of on-site facilities, particularly sanitary flow and water use, and
may result in an adverse impact on the environmenL "
Again, the revisions to the site plan do nothing to address these issues.
Reason#7: "The project may impact visual and aesthetic resources,
particularly as regards lighting, and use during both daytime and night time hours."
The Site Plan Application contemplates increasing the amount of lighting
at the site.
Reason #8: "The proposedproject may cause growth inducing aspects
associated with the proposed project. In addition, the study of mitigation of potential
environmental impacts and alternatives would be facilitated by the preparation of a Draft
ElS."
This continues to be true for the current Site Plan Application. A proper
environmental review would aid in the study of the impact the projects would have and
potential alternatives.
Reason #9: "The project involves multiple agency jurisdictions and
permits, and the comprehensive review of potential impacts would be facilitated through
the preparation o fa Draft ElS."
CSF concedes that NYSDOT and the Town Trustees may be involved in
addition to the Planning Board in this proceeding, and certainly a Draft EIS would pose
no impediment to any regulatory process.
Reason #10: "Impact of passenger only jet boats on marine environment."
Nothing in the revised Site Plan Application addresses this concern.
Without a Draft EIS, there will be no way to determine whether the quality of the water in
this Critical Environmental Area is adversely affected.
SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR
A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY
SOUT~OLD
CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS,
P.O. BOX 797
GREENPORT, NY '1'1944
(SCSR)
4
In conclusion, the revised Site Plan Application barely addresses the 10
Reasons for the Original Positive Declaration. CSF is attempting to seek hack-door
approval of the dramatic increase in parking at the West and Snack Bar lots without the
appropriate environmental review that without question would have been required had it
openly requested the kind of expansion in parking that is contemplated here. The
Planning Board should not reward CSF for neglecting to include the number of parking
spaces in its Site Plan Application, when it knows full well that had CSF included that
number, there would be no question that the project is a Type I action.
Sincerely,
Thor Hanson, President
Copy to:
Town of Southold
Town Board
P.O. Box 1655
Southold, NY 11971
Town of Southold
Building Dept.
P.O. Box 1655
Southold, NY 11971
Town of Southold
Zoning Board of Appeals
P.O. Box 1655
Southold, NY 11971
Town of Southold
Board of Trustees
P.O. Box 1655
Southold, NY 11971
Town of Southold
Transportation Committee
P.O. Box 1655
Southold, NY 11971
SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR
A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY
sou ,D cmzE.s Fo. s^FE .o^Ds, Iscs.}
P.O. BOX 797
GREENPORT, NY '11944
5
Kim Shaw, Environmemal Analyst
Department of Ecology
Department of Health Services
County Center
Riverhead, NY 11901
Stephen Jones
Council for Environmental Quality
Department of Planning
P.O. Box 6100
Hauppauge, NY 11788
James Bagg, Director
Council for Environmental Quality
Department of Planning
P.O. Box 6100
Hauppauge, NY 11788
John C. Murray, Planner
Transportation Division
Department of Public Works
335 Yaphank Avenue
Yaphank, NY 11980
William Sickles, Superintendent
Department of Parks, Recreation & Conservation
P.O. Box 144, Montauk Hwy.
W. Sayville, NY 11796-0144
George Stafford, Director
Coastal Resources & Waterfrom Revitalization Division
New York Department of State
162 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
John P. Cahill, Commissioner
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 11233
Roger Evans, Director
NYSDEC
Bldg. 40, SUNY Rm. 219
Stony Brook, NY 11790
SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR
A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY
P.O. BOX 797
GREENPORT, NY 11944
6
Darrel Kost, Regional Env. Coordinator
Dept. of Transportation
State Office Building
250 Veterans Memorial Hwy.
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Barry Hecht
Passenger Transportation Division
NYS Dept. of Transportation
W. Averell Harriman State Office Building Campus
1220 Washington Avenue
Floor & Rm. 4-115
Albany, NY 12232
Thomas Lyons, Director
Environmental Management Bureau
Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation
Bldg. 1, 13th Floor
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12238
Dr. David Huysoll, Director
Division of Agricultural Research-Plum Island
U.S. Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 848
Greenport, NY 11944
US Army Corp. of Engineers
NY District
Jacob K. Javits Federal Bldg.
New York, NY 10278-0090
Attn: Regulatory Branch
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
26 Federal Plaza
Room 1338
New York, NY 10278
Attn: Response & Recovery Division
Debra O'Kane, Executive Director
North Fork Environmental Council
P.O. Box 799
Mattituck, NY 11952
SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR
A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY
SOUT~OLD
CITIZENS FOR SAFE ROADS
P.O. BOX 797
GREENPORT, NY '1'1944
(SCSR)
7
Mr. Gerald Newman, Chief Planner
Suffolk County Planning Commission
H. Lee Dennison Bldg. - 4th Floor
100 Veterans Memorial Highway
P. O. Box 6100
Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099
BY EXPRESS MAIL
SOUTHOLD TOWN: A DESTINATION, NOT A CORRIDOR
A GATEWAY, NOT A THRUWAY