HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Correspondence From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 3:14 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: FW: Greenport Medical Offices and Apartments - Residential Site Plan Application
Review
From: Paul Pallas<pjpallas@greenportvillage.org>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 2:09 PM
To:Cummings, Brian A.<brian.cummings@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: FW:Greenport Medical Offices and Apartments- Residential Site Plan Application Review
Dear Mr. Cummings,
Please see the comments below, from the majority of the sitting Board Members of the Village of Greenport
Board of Trustees, with the exception of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor.
Paul J. Pallas
Village Administrator RECEIVED
236 Third St.
Greenport, NY 11944 MAR A. 4 02"1
(631) 477-0248 (o)
(516) 351-5022(c) SouthoUd"" own
Planning Board
To: Brian Cummings, Planner, Southold Town
Herewith please find the comments from the Village of Greenport Board of Trustees
along with the findings of the Village of Greenport Planning Board.
These comments on the aforementioned project are from an interested party due to the
close proximity to, and location at one of the main entrances to the incorporated Village
of Greenport.
These village board comments fall into the following categories:
i. Type of Offices:
There are a number of medical offices that are currently under utilized in the immediate
vicinity of Greenport Village.
New Stonybrook ELIH offices at Peconic Landing.
1
The new Northwell Health medical offices on Main Street within the BID of Greenport
Village.
The ELIH mixed use offices on Manor Place in Greenport Village.
The NYU Langone Medical Offices on Route 25, Main Road at the alternate entrance
to Greenport Village.
2. Restrictions of Non-Residential Development
Retail, residential and hospitality development at this site is a conditional use in the
Town code and is ofsignificant concern to the BID and downtown businesses.
In reviewing the Town of Southold uses in the R/O zone, our business district should
be concerned along with our board. The comments with a previous application to this
site brought to the forefront that any commercial opportunity being brought to the North
Road would create conflict with our downtown businesses.
We request that a covenant or stipulation be attached to this development providing
that no alternate commercial permitted or conditional use be allowed in the future on
this parcel other than for the offices as requested.
3. Affordable Housing
Weconcurthat the need for affordable housing is critical in our area. The HALO
locations in the Town Comprehensive Plans suggest that these types of
developments be located within or near the village and hamlet centers.
Furthermore,pendingNYS legislation suggests that priority be given to areas near
the location of the MTA. This site has County bus service but is about a mile to
the nearest train station.
The review of the site plan submitted to the Southold Town Planning Board for
the apartment dimensions fills a need for a single or double occupancy. We
would rather the plan contain apartments in a variety of sizes and configurations
that would be appropriate for families of all sizes.
The apartments outlined in the Planning documents are not of adequate size to
fully respond to the need in our community. Townhouse options or a mixed size
apartment building from single occupancy to 2 bedroom would better suit or
community needs.
4. Adjacency to Village of Greenport Historic District
2
The location of this planned development is at the entrance to the Village of
Greenport from County Road 48 and as such issues traffic directly into the
Historic District of the village. Respect to the character, architecture and site plan
layout should be given to the village and its historic nature.
The campus style layout comprised in this plan with large central parking areas
and suburban-style landscaping should not be allowed. Other layouts that
respect the residential character of the immediate area should be pursued. The
character of the rural corridor should be respected.
5. Traffic and Noise
It has been noted from residents and board members that there are plans for a
new traffic pattern at this intersection planned by NYS DOT. It would seem
premature to approve plans for this parcel without knowledge of how this new
traffic pattern will affect the proposed increase in density and traffic.
During the Summer months, this intersection has notorious congestion
particularly when the traffic from Cross Sound ferry, along with peak Summer
visitors, cause a long back up of vehicles on Main Street.
6. SEQRA
This agency agrees that your agency, Southold Town
Planning Board, take lead agency status.
3
S•���
ECEIVED
VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
PLANNING BOARD O `7r3j'
,bd h old. 6w' M
MEMORANDUM Planning Board
TO: VILLAGE OF GREENPORT—MAYOR&TRUSTEES
FROM: VILLAGE OF GREENPORT—PLANNING BOARD
PREPARED BY: PATRICK BRENNAN
PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN
DATE: 3/2/2023
RE: GREENPORT MEDICAL OFFICES AND RESIDENCES
160 NYS ROUTE 25, GREENPORT.SCTM#1000-34-2-1
BACKGROUND
On December 51h, 2022,The Town of Southold prepared a NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE A
CONDITIONED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.This notice was issued pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617
of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8(State Environmental Quality Review Act
—SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law.
The notice identified the Lead Agency as Town of Southold Planning Board and the SEAR
Status as an Unlisted Action.
A Conditioned Negative Declaration is used when a lead agency concludes that a proposed
action may have potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment, but the impacts
can be eliminated or adequately mitigated by conditions imposed by the lead agency without
the need for additional environmental studies.
Unlisted Actions do not meet the Type I thresholds but some may still require an EIS. Examples
of Unlisted Actions include:
• Nonresidential projects physically altering less than 10 acres of land
• Adoption of local laws, ordinances, regulations, and resolutions that may affect the
environment
Page 1 of 7
On January 13th, 2023,the Town of Southold Planning Board office sent a memorandum to the
Village of Greenport addressing the following:
• Request for comments pursuant to General Municipal Law Section 239 (as a referral)
and Southold Town Code Section 280-131, and LWRP Coastal Consistency Review
• SEQR Lead Agency Request
• Coordinated Review under SEQR
The memorandum invited a response on the following topics:
1. Comments or requirements the Planning Board should take into consideration while
reviewing the proposed project
2. Issues of concern you believe should be evaluated
3. Your jurisdiction in the action described below
4. Your interest is assuming the responsibilities of Lead Agency under SEQR
Additionally, on January 13th, 2023, the Town of Southold Planning Board office sent a letter
directly to the Greenport Fire Department, briefly describing the project and inviting comment
and recommendations.
On February 26th, 2023, the Greenport Village Board of Trustees,via Village Administrator Paul
Pallas, made a formal request to the Greenport Village Planning Board to provide comment on
the project.
The last day to provide Site Plan Review comments to the Town of Southold Planning Board
was March 11t.The deadline to provide comments to the Town of Southold Planning Board,
related to the Conditional Negative Declaration, is March 61n
SCOPE OF REVIEW
In preparing comments the following resources were taken into consideration:
• Digital project records available on the Town of Southold website,Town Records link,
including;
o SEQRA materials
o Site Plans &Surveys
o Public Correspondence
o Subject Files
• Planning Board member comments (Greenport Village)
• Stakeholder input- Direct conversation with;
o Neighborhood representatives
o Hospital executives
Page 2 of 7
PREFACE TO COMMENTS
The context in which these comments are offered is important. The Village of Greenport
currently has an administrative moratorium in effect(pending the implementation of a new
ordinance), which temporarily limits development projects within its Commercial Waterfront,
Retail Commercial, and General Commercial districts. A draft local law is under consideration
that would provide for a six-to-twelve-month moratorium. The moratorium was created in
response to the community's desire to evaluate and update its planning documents and make
needed code changes to align with and support the planning goals.The planning process,
currently underway,focuses on three areas;
• LWRP-updates & implementation
• Zoning Code- updates & changes
• Infrastructure, Parking, &Traffic—assessment&analysis
While this project lies outside of the Village, and therefore outside of the moratorium impacted
zoning districts,this type of development is of significant concern to Village residents.
Furthermore,the Village of Greenport recognizes that housing has become an acute national,
regional and local crisis that threatens the viability of our community.There is substantial
interest in strengthening the Village by ensuring that safe, comfortable, and affordable housing
opportunities are available to all members of our community.To that end,the Village
endeavors to;
• Safeguard the existing inventory of 1-Family, 2-Family, and Multi-Family dwellings,
dedicated to year-round, long-term occupancy.
• Increase the quantity, quality and variety of housing inventory that is financially
accessible to all members of our community.
• Support the housing needs of individuals,young families, elderly, disabled, and workers.
• Support the employee housing needs of our local business owner/operators.
The Village recognizes the value of affordable housing best practices, including;
• INTEGRATE VS MARGINALIZE—
o Create affordable housing throughout& within existing neighborhoods
o Avoid remote and/or undesirable locations that only serve to further marginalize
and stigmatize residents
• ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL—
o Create a variety of home sizes(individuals&families)
o Create a variety of home types(rentals, First-Tim e-Homebuyer)
o Consider 1, 2, & multi family homes
Page 3 of 7
LOCATION—Locate housing within walking distance to;
o Quality schools
o Public transportation
o Employment opportunities
o Essential shopping needs
o Parks& recreational areas
COMMENTS—CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. The Planning Board has conducted a thorough review...
No comment
2. Members of the Planning Board are familiar...
No Comment
3. One or more potential moderate to large significant adverse impacts...
No comment
4. Impacts on Land
Confirm NYSDEC requirement for SWPPP. Design&implementation of SWPPP can be
a substantial&costly undertaking requiring considerable site work.
5. Impact on Geological features
No comment
6. Impacts on Groundwater
The Village of Greenport Trustees have indicated a willingness to provide sewer
service. However,there is not a consensus among Trustees on formalizing a sewer
service agreement prior to the project being developed in greater detail.
7. Impact on Flooding
No comment
S. Impact on Air
No comment
9. Impact on Agricultural Resources
No comment
Page 4 of 7
10. Impact on Aesthetic Resources
The proposed building quantity, size, and massing will have a negative aesthetic
impact. Recommended reduction in quantity from 4 to 3 buildings will have only a
marginal effect in mitigating this impact. Remaining buildings are disproportionately
large for their context. Massing is not consistent with adjacent development.
Vegetative screening will have limited ability to mitigate this impact. Recommended
evergreen plantings are inconsistent with streetscapes and scenic byways.
Recommended fence (6ft tall max)will be ineffective in mitigating visual impact on
neighbors.
11. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources
No comment
12. Impact on Open Space and Recreation
No comment
13. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas
No comment
14. Impact on Transportation
Potential impacts on transportation systems is significant. Mitigation
recommendations 3&4 will may result in traffic safety hazards,and will negatively
impact secondary roads surrounding the site.As recommended,westbound traffic on
Rte 25 is prohibited from turning left into site.A driver approaching the site will be
required to pass the site and enter the traffic circle.Then,driver must make a
complete 360 transit of the circle to enter eastbound traffic to approach the easterly
driveway. A driver that only transits 270 degrees of the traffic circle will head south,
and when prohibited from turning left into westerly driveway will be required to pass
site for a second time. Ultimately drivers will be forced onto secondary roads to
attempt a third entry into site.
15. Impact on Energy
No comment
16. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light
Campus style building arrangements with parking consolidated into large lots is more
conducive to nuisance noise then distributed parking schemes.
1Z Impact on Human Health
No comment
Page 5 of 7
18. Impact on Plants and Animals
No comment
19. Consistency with Community Plans
Project is inconsistent with stated purpose of RO zoning district, as follows;
• Does not occupy a transition area between business area and low-density
residential area.
• Does not involve adaptive reuse of older residences.
• Does not preserve existing visual character.
Board's recommendation to remove one building does little to improve
development's compatibility with surrounding land uses.
Additional demand for Fire& Emergency Rescue services should be expected. High
density housing and dormitory style apartment configurations both produce high rates
of smoke and CO false alarms. Residents grouped together in large buildings
experience increased inconvenience from normal Fire& Rescue response procedures.
Objective 1.8—The suggestion that building more medical office space will attract
more young professionals is unsubstantiated. Unoccupied medical office space in
proximity to the site suggests that demand for proposed use is currently low.The
demand for such space must be demonstrated, not speculated.
Objective 1.10—Locating'studio' and one-bedroom apartments above medical offices
does not support the stated objective of providing'studio space' and 'live/work'
spaces.The meaning of the term 'studio'with respect to apartment layout is not the
same with respect to a place where art is made.
20. Consistency with Community Character
Characterization of area as"a mix of high-density residential and low-density
commercial uses" is accurate but inconsistent with the stated purpose of RO zoning
district.
Assertion that the"architecture of the three buildings"... "are not discordant with the
area" is false.A large box with a pointy roof, clad in clapboard siding does not make a
home.The overall effect of the building design and site arrangement is not in
character with surrounding neighborhood.
Page 6 of 7
CONCLUSIONS
The Village of Greenport supports the use of its infrastructure resources (like sewer) on
developments outside the municipality when it advances its planning goals. Providing sewer
service to this project supports the following objectives;
• Environmental Conservation—Protects ground water resources
• Affordable Housing—Improves feasibility of creating more affordable housing in close
proximity to Village.
Greenport needs to create safe, secure, and dignified affordable housing. As proposed,the
project provides for a large quantity of very small units.The community's preference is to
create a mix of housing types, including units suitable for families. Additionally, housing
developments should be more in keeping with neighborhood land use patterns and
predominant architectural types.
The financial and legal details of how affordable housing is created and maintained is critical to
achieving successful outcomes. The best projects include legal,financial, development, and
social service resources experienced in the affordable housing arena. As proposed,there is
very little information available to gauge the project outcomes.This developer also has a recent
track record of failing to bring nearby, affordable apartments to fruition. Poorly conceived,
implemented, and managed affordable housing will have a negative impact on the community.
The Village's local economy relies heavily on tourism and related hospitality and entertainment
services. Part of the attraction to visiting the Village is its historic neighborhoods, working
waterfront, and quaint but vibrant downtown. Accordingly, protecting the aesthetics of the
built environment is very important. As this site is immediately adjacent to a primary gateway
to the Village, it plays a significant role in the visitors'visual experience. Poor architectural and
landscape design on this site will result in a significant impact on the community.
Traffic and parking matters are of great concern to Village residents. It is difficult to discern how
the proposed development and the proposed traffic circle will influence each other. If the
combined projects lead to a decrease in service on main roads and a corresponding increase in
thru-traffic on secondary roads,this will result in significant community impacts. Exceptionally
close analysis of this matter is in order.
The Village views SBELIH as a special community asset and has an interest in maintaining its
viability. The effect of bringing medical office space to the market should be looked at very
closely. Currently the hospital is constrained more by the lack of affordable housing than the
lack of medical office space.
Page 7 of 7
From: jarnoldphd@aol.com RECEIVED� _ �
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 8:31 PM V .
To: Michaelis,Jessica �� "�
� P ,
Subject: NON-Support for medical offices and apartments in Greenport
.66inold 'fow n
Planning Board
I
We are writing to voice our non-support for the proposed medical offices and apartments being
considered at 160 Route 25 in Greenport.
There are many reasons for non-support:.
1. This is a busy area for cars and bikes already therefore adding more congestion to the area is
undesirable.
2. This is one of the most - if not the most - dangerous intersections on the North Fork.
3. There is a constancy of speeding traffic in both directions on Sound Avenue from the Orient fer .
4. The risk of accidents given more cars, bikes and pedestrians multiplies and is grave risk to life.
5. The ambiance of the north fork is threatened by unnecessary development.
6. This corner parcel is a gateway to both Greenport Village to the South and the easternmost points
of the North Fork so putting a medical shopping center in where there's now greenery will destroy the
character of this location.
7. Building 350 square foot, non-family apartments is not affordable housing. This developer was also
already given a chance to bring affordable units to Greenport and those units sit empty at 123 Sterling
and he already cashed out and flipped it for a profit before making good on his promise. This
developer should not be trusted again.
8. There are already plenty of commercial vacancies up and down the North Fork— and in Greenport
itself— and we don't need more medical office space, especially so close to a vital community
hospital that doesn't need any more competition than it already has.
Since you are charged with community planning, we hope these reasons for non-support resonate
with the beauty and values we all hope to protect.
Thank you,
Richard and Joan Arnold
350 Osprey Nest Road
Greenport
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
1
Testimony of
Marina C. DeLuca, Environmental Associate RECEIVED
Group for the East End ,.m. ._........... ..... .
Before ° :w: 2 2 2.023
Southold Town PlanningBoard qq „
Regarding �. .. oaat9�odTowni.m. _...w
SEQRA Negative Declaration Proposal Planning Board
for
"Greenport Medical Offices and Residences OR 160 Route 25 LLC"
February 6,2023
Good evening chairman Wilcenski, and members of the planning board. My name is Marina
DeLuca. I am an environmental associate with Group for the East End and a full-time resident of
East Marion. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this proposal.
For the record: Group for the East End is a professional conservation, advocacy, and education
organization founded in 1972.
The Group has been involved in the review of this project since its inception, and in addition to
the comments we have previously submitted to the record, there are two primary areas of
concern that I would like to address this evening.
The first is the proposal's compliance with the property's current zoning.
The purpose of RO zoning, as stated in the Southold Town Code,reads as follows:
"The purpose of the Residential Office (RO) District is to provide a transition area between
business areas and low-density residential development along major roads which will provide
an opportunity for limited nonresidential uses in essentially residential areas while strongly
encouraging the adaptive reuse of existing older residences, to preserve the existing visual
character of the Town and to achieve the goal(s) of well planned, environmentally sensitive,
balanced development, which the Town has determined to be desirable. "
To save time, I have condensed the list of permitted uses—single-family dwellings, meeting
halls, duplexes, bed and breakfasts,professional offices, home offices, galleries, dance studios,
and small businesses limited to 3,000 square feet of floor space.
The code also states the following are allowed pending the applicant receives a special exception
permit from the ZBA: restaurants, funeral homes, apartments over professional offices, and the
conversion of current property to apartment buildings.
Section 280-38 B. 6 b
States that: the number of apartments shall be limited to a maximum of six apartments; when a
building is being converted.
The proposed action is 4 (10,900 sgft) campus-style buildings containing three offices on the
ground floor(6,000 sqft) and ten apartments above. While there are no direct stipulations
regarding apartments over professional offices, we ask that you consider the additional context of
this zoning. Small businesses are limited to 3,000 square feet, there is a limit of six apartments
following a special exception approval. We believe the scale, density, and character of this
project wildly exceed the intent of the zoning, even if the project is scaled down to 3 buildings.
We believe the density proposed far exceeds that which this zone was intended for. We ask the
planning board to consult the zoning board or others to determine if this project truly reflects the
intent of RO zoning.
The second concern; I would like to address this evening is the undeniable need for this project
to receive a positive declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
The purpose of SEQRA is to create a detailed and transparent review process where the entire
scope of an action can be fully understood, at the beginning of the review process.
This project has had different names, site plans, informal comparisons, and submissions of
alternatives. It is currently unclear if there are two distinct site plans up for review and how the
planning board determines which plan will move forward. Ultimately while the developer has
made an effort to adjust their project,the review process has become increasingly disjointed and
convoluted. The purpose of SEQRA was to provide a clear and effective review process rather
than the current horse-trading between the planning board and the developer as to which
proposed project may be the best option. Due to the size, scale, density, visibility, and
complexity of this project, we not only urge the planning board to require a positive declaration
we believe it is an undeniable necessity.
Upon review of the SEQRA handbook, there are a few significant points I would like to bring to
your attention this evening.
First, as stated in section 617.7 (1) To require an environmental impact statement for a proposed
action,the lead agency must determine that the action may include the potential for at least one
significant adverse environmental impact. (2) TO determine that an EIS is not required for action
the agency must determine either that there will be no adverse environmental impacts or that the
identified adverse environmental impacts will not be significant.
The current proposed negative declaration states: This project may result in moderate to large
adverse impacts to aesthetic resources, transportation, noise, odor, and light.
The acknowledgment of multiple, large environmental impacts highlighted within the negative
declaration created by the planning board presents ample reason why a positive declaration, and
environmental impact statement for this project is required. In addition, pursuant to the SEQRA
handbook, "a negative declaration is a determination by the lead agency that an action will not
result in a significant adverse environmental impact". The planning board explicitly states that
this project will have moderate to large environmental impacts. Therefore, a negative declaration
is inappropriate for both proposed actions, according to SEQRA.
If we do not know the significance and magnitude of the main proposal's impacts, how can we
assess the mitigation value of any of the modifications that are now proposed?The comparative
assessment should be clear, detailed, and incorporated into the DEIS. Which is why we believe it
is imperative that the planning board issue a positive declaration on this proposal.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration of these comments.
.............. .....
Marina C. DeLuca
Environmental Associate
Group for the East End
P.O. Box 1792
Southold NY, 11971
Greenport North Neighborhood Association F
p g
c/o 512 Sterling Place MAR 0 2 Z023
Greenport, NY 11944 .n
Planning Board
February 28, 2023
Chairman Donald Wilcenski, Planning Board
Chairperson Leslie Kanes Weisman, Zoning Board of Appeals
Director Heather Lanza, Planning Department
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Apartments (SCTM#1000-34-2-1)
1 am writing on behalf of the Greenport North Neighborhood Association (GNNA) in response to the
draft Conditioned Negative Declaration. Attached are three documents:
• A listing of all requested actions to address the impacts on Transportation,Aesthetic Resources,
Noise/Odor/Light, Human Health and Consistency with Community Character. In addition,
we've outlined a number of additional concerns to be addressed, including proposed covenants
and restrictions, related to several components of the project.
• A panoramic photo of the medical office complex on Manor Lane, across from ELIH. This is
submitted as an example of a construction style and scale that we feel is much more consistent
with the character of the surrounding community. The design and scale of the buildings
proposed by the developer are decidedly not consistent with the neighborhood and, as such,
they do not conform to the RO code which "strongly encourages the adaptive reuse of existing
older residences to preserve the existing visual character of the Town."
w Our recommended modifications to the mitigation plan drawing incorporating the density
reducing actions requested in the Aesthetic Resources section, namely:
1) Reducing the parking area to 50 spaces,with additional space to allow for more
planting beds throughout the lot, improving the residential character and reducing
the impermeable lot coverage
2) Eliminating the westerly driveway
3) Shifting the northerly driveway to the east
4) Expanding the buffers on the east and south perimeters to 100 ft.
5) Eliminating the third building at eastern side
Note: The area labeled "Building Area"represents the area we are recommending
for the buildings to be constructed(we are not requesting the construction of one
long building); this should be broken up according to the allowable footprint).
owl„ _unn.w
February 28, 2023
Page 2
Although we are submitting this package of proposed actions, please know that we remain committed
to our position that the size, complexity and unique nature of this mixed-use development requires a
positive declaration and a DEIS in order to ensure a comprehensive and transparent review of the
project.
Best regards,
a(k
.�Fey _',,,
Carol M. Und
Greenport North Neighborhood Association
Draft Conditioned Negative Declaration — Re nested Actions
Impact on Transportation
1) Incorporation of all recommendations included in the Schneider Engineering traffic
report submitted to the Planning Board at the February 6 public hearing
2) Most important among the report's recommendations is the need for a traffic-count-
based traffic study that is conducted on weekends during the high season (July/August)
and focuses on all affected intersections, including:
■ Route 25/13ailey Avenue
■ Route 25/Sound Road
■ Route 25/northerly driveway
■ Main Street/Knapp Place
■ Main Street/Champlin Place
■ Route 48/Middleton Road
■ Route 48/Madison Street
■ Route 48/McCann Lane
3) Further, we request that this study includes a safety evaluation component that looks at
options for addressing safety issues at all intersections noted above and on the local
roads, considering various options for traffic movement to minimize the spill-over of
traffic onto local roads and to address the impact of spill-over, such as speed bumps and
implementation of one-way directions
4) All studies need to address the possibility that the development is constructed before
the roundabout (or that the roundabout doesn't come to fruition)
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
1) Lot coverage of the mitigation plan submitted by the developer is approximate 2 acres,
43% of the 4.7 acre parcel (building area of.6 acre, impermeable parking area of 1 acre
+ .4 acre of other impermeable surfaces—2 2-lane driveways, loading zones, sidewalks
and exterior entrances)
2) In order to further minimize density and overall impact, we request:
February 28, 2023
• Reduction of parking to 50 stalls (and the required adjustments to the number
and/or size of the buildings, noting that the code guidance on the apartments is that
only one parking space is required for each apartment) with additional space to
allow for more planting beds throughout the lot, improving the residential character
and reducing the impermeable lot coverage
■ Elimination of the westerly driveway and shifting of the northerly driveway to the
east
• Expansion of the buffers on the east and south perimeters to 100 ft.
• Elimination of the third building to the east (see attached revised site plan drawing)
■ Detailed landscaping plan, with a range of plantings that reflects seasonal changes
■ Detailed lighting plan that is Dark Skies compliant (including 2700 K "warm" bulbs)
and addresses the significant impact that light pollution will have on the surrounding
neighborhood (the lighting plan implement at Vineyard View is unacceptable)
■ Detailed fencing plan, including height and fencing material, that mitigates the visual
impact on the neighborhood
Impact on Noise Odor and Li ht
1) The removal of the westerly driveway will significantly reduce the noise/odor/light
impact for the neighbors on Main Street
2) Need covenants/restrictions that do not allow any commercial use that functions
outside of standard 9-5 business hours or on weekends
3) Need a construction noise monitoring plan in place before construction is allowed to
begin
4) Buffering requirements noted under Aesthetic Resources will also mediate the impact
of noise/odor/light
5) In addition to Bailey Avenue and Champlin Place, clearing/grading/construction vehicles
cannot be permitted on Knapp Place (with some clearly defined access allowed to install
water/sewer access) and Sterling Place
February 28, 2023
Impact on Human Health
1) Based on the concerns expressed by the DOT in its final report that the site may contain
hazardous materials, an environmental screening is needed to ensure that there are no
known contaminants on the site and, if there are, a mediation plan needs to be
established prior to granting site plan approval
Consistency with Communit Character
1) Removal of the westerly driveway will have a positive effect on this impact
2) The current design and height of the buildings is inconsistent with the style of
construction in the neighboring communities (predominantly bungalow, cottage and
farmhouse style homes)
Additional concerns to be addressed
1) The medical office use needs to be clearly defined and the necessary covenants and
restrictions need to be put in place to make this the only allowable use in perpetuity
2) All aspects regarding the structure, use and management of the workforce housing
apartments need to be clearly defined, with the necessary covenants and restrictions
put in place in advance of project approval, including:
e The apartments remaining affordable in perpetuity
• Applicants must be registered on the Southold Town Affordable Housing Registry
and eligible for placement prior to possession being taken
• Leases will be on an annual basis only (i.e., no short term or month-to-month lease
provisions)
■ Clearly defined house rules regarding noise, allowable occupancy levels and other
standard use requirements
February 28, 2023
Greenport North Neighborhood Association
c/o 512 Sterling Place
Greenport, NY 11944
February 28, 2023
Visual References/Recommendations Notes
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Residences (SCTM# 1000-34-2-1)
In response to the draft Conditioned Negative Declaration. Attached are two visual references:
1.A panoramic photo of the medical office complex on Manor Lane (across from ELIH).
This is submitted as an example of a construction style and scale that is much more consistent
with the character of the surrounding community. This example integrates reasonably into the
neighborhood, with a scale of 8 units of residential/medical offices.
By contrast,the design and scale of the proposed development, with buildings of aprox. 15,000sf
total, are decidedly not consistent with the neighborhood and, as such,they do not conform to
the RO code which "strongly encourages the adaptive reuse of existing older residences to
preserve the existing visual character of the Town."
Further,this density and its associated Parking area would present excessive light and noise
pollution as well as negative impact on the view shed.
2. A marked up drawing with our recommendations to address the impacts on Transportation, Aesthetic
Resources, Noise/Odor/Light, Human Health and Consistency with Community Character. Our recom-
mended modifications(to the mitigation plan drawing), incorporating the density reducing actions
requested in the Aesthetic Resources section, include:
I. Reducing the parking area to 50 spaces, with additional space to allow for more
planting beds throughout the lot, improving the residential character and reducing
the impermeable lot coverage (which is currently at 42%)
II. Eliminating the westerly driveway altogether
III. Shifting the northerly driveway further to the east
IV. Expanding the buffers on the east and south perimeters as close as possible to a
minimum of 100 ft. (where possible).
V. Eliminating the 3rd Building at eastern side, and adding a minimum of its allowable
square footage (based on 50 parking stalls)to the building area to the North.
VI. Note: that the area labeled "Building Area" represents only the area we are
recommending for the buildings(we are not requesting the construction of one long
building)The area should be divided up into 2 or 3 bldgs. according to SF allowable
for the modified 50 parking stalls)
O
a
C W
W WCL
F
a p O
dZ0 � Z
g W
O W O Q H LU
a U 0 W W
a m G V W
0u= w LL g
c�
W-W d
J WIL X Z N Q p'
211 Z p Z
W W Q
!C W
W Q3 CO
r J
la
74,
� ry F rerepqp l
i
4
�i
r
ti
„rrr rrr,
..rrr
r
"+r
�w
n �
yCl) %r
i
PROPOSED LSD LEGEND
N 61°55'09" E ROUTE 25 NOR TN ROAD p
SIGN h k"ffi IryID�yp�,�""��y,`pgpw'PE 4 90,74 PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT
.........,.�. i... ,.-_;, .......... ..�.� ...w. _ .......m._. ,.... ,,. ,. J 'e - ".y N'F. ItlA•I RIVE WAY W�^TO "04;71IxA I PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK
,�M t�;lbI` RT P'LR'E
NYSDO T PROPERTY ACQUISITION LINE
:m pp' y °^ �PROPOSED CONCRETE OURS
,E':�U.', y ] tr - fiN' ) •w /ITh* � .,r` q �„u a :7bGDi' "'c ... ., "„,z ,.: PROPOSED WHEEL STOP
�if �'6
\ r`. Hwy.. 1. )Y,�I v, ]r✓ wll �L d. upIRC'i Yam+^ �� N F PROPOSED SIGN
y
TIN
u a
Q Y f y
PROPOSED CROSS WALK
e r;"L"•,... ,_..., ,,,,. CK 7r A u d'v"7.a'T',; ,YI"!(.R'r,' J.d,k. E;;;1M ;C'T'"d."a v ';+ Q PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE
r �M a.r.. to N ��/�� ,���✓����I I.,�.l ��J ,f ���� �.,g.,J "�� �� �1 V1Y ��J�11�� i�IrJ��J °?��� `;, g �4 .,;.;.,y. O • PROPOSED 100 LEACHING CATCH BASIN
PROPOSED CATCH BASIN
PROPOSED LIGHT POLE
t= NI
d' (� ^ V• p"/ �')- � ��yy,, � IIFI--I{, PROPOSED TRANSFORMER
LIGHT POLE
POLE UTILITY
MWdLNt'A'N:4fAkdT PQMIE
A—,
O Rfdm.A'7'BD.7a1a'%sF(rv&.YMSLNS
SANITARY VALVE
A GAS
SIGN
�1 �✓ J '^d'A A" „� CONIFEROUS TREE
ID RTANGULAR DRAIN
C7 W....... _... �m .„ • ROUND DRAIN INLET INLET
DRAINAGE MANHOLE
PROPOSED` �. a.Y A:, M �° ,+�,:l.A.` S r i,w
SIDEWALK TO ,'" g � ,1 , u, � N k i ��R.d � fen ..... O FIRE HYDRANT
MEET NYSOOFUr T ".,N N r µ '° q m I u I 0 WATER METER
WATER VALVE
ROUNDABOUT
"'°w, TELEPHONE MANHOLE"'•, y "k w 0 DECIDUOUS TREE
r�
ZJ Ab�'
m
a "
,(MUKA IRR a _
BINP
v X r oo Y a O
`—' i wrrR �. „,.�" �'`�' '"=..ALB y w i ✓"a'�� x'_, � ��w �' -
e
r I x
c "" b "'>' wrlk° ✓ � :,;.. _...., .„.� ,,.,", ". ".. W.,��; an, ...onw,. .,, EI, ,„,.M,a h 1 i N c ..." _.._.,
„
+"~,. i, ,,r�''� r' w�'"4. �. .. "" � .. w,„„w. a=».. � � .. $�✓ "'r»r. a. rB ar raM" .°uw"' j.rrt,
0,
Y ra.� manavvuR y •Mh � � 1 �
do
r ,
a
Is �—'
,,d"
..� pr�rM,Aolgr,Wba D » r I r
,.,,.. P E In"erR.tl AmNo.l',
PROPOSED ":e, rR .,.- I y., wvrrv. "r*v `✓*eV^I: Y'+RaY?a. yd T � „k ^" 'I _�w...
_, m'
L RELOCATEDOCATION NR
i r
fM ��
352,
65'
�
CATCH 51N,
1
62°20'39" W IR S 62"„ '39" W 194,18'
WA G RAT' k
o C3T'n'Iw D Ny,Ame ..... .... .... ... ... ....,..,_...,...nr
E DATA
SM%le.v.DV,. m..... ..,,w �.. .."...
u, i. .,__........ ......�.�.,�,.. ,m....,.,_... ............
., ,.... �I BONING CVS UFFOLK MY TAY NUMBER(S) RESIOTENTIAL OFFICE 20NE
BLE, ......
fiuG.JsL44�d....lwd1!.E'S..L.O«,..r4w flSY.;J. SANITARY CALCULATIONS.
1 ALL CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE wl r S AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION AND •""�....'..' .. ..W... a..... ••• '" •• ••••...•. .�, V )
h r� U .. A Y Ad V!d ICE PG Y 4F"N ""................
RJt1$tV,lr'_ti, 11FI�H:,l'�l _... .. m�. .....�, MARKS ''. � /....IMENOED USE OF PROP�m��"
] AREA OF SITE
2. �R SEQUENCES RR AND PROCEDURES
L.,rOPROCPoEADu rTO IBIV4P EORtld,RNr`pW4'N^ii 00 4VMEW C'Q'v N YI+N:.y�CN.Y1 SYMBOL SECTION/DESCRIPTION RE H ERIY RESIDENDAL OFFICE CAMPUS
6�^i OR TEN q;u;JNA9lr.ElAivU,g1(tla4 NW'k'kn',O.4M1,%.MILINQRI'd AIW'.W bRTEA'MTX^ANCNi%"'W!EtWPo,ETa CYar (15)ONE-BEDROOM UNITS AT 150 CPD/UNR �2,250 GPD -�e.wwT �W .. `.. ." .. eD'T'I'PYTuM k MAIIhIRre9(NR 18l M„az„ ....,.
� A�1 .-y 6 DATUM USC k C S OR TDB. USC h C"w dA4AUk&5(.N'%
Gk&AW "W' ApP„ry dVYIT alhlTE PKaIrwU s0 RR,H:.FfuA�IEER. O W4LEAD CA*41PVgP1^a
E1M'CIX#AtlYBT.7,1':IS At bkdE°nt OD:WR 1Knb CWA+rR MATERIMW.Y GM IWL'KM.4.'a'1"ROM d�K+"*.'d:.,,,, (15)ONE-BEDROOM UNITS AT 110 GPD/UNIT 1.650 GPD q"*�L aAww*r.nol TER 96 +/
La"rArETK reN TIE a ,¢'Qr«;ru ers.rnz'enrrvmta7'"� PA("0744 enee Aaer,.�.,mrccl r7—
ZONING IMMEDATELY 16,380 SF MEDICAL OFFlCE SPACE AT 0.10 CPD/SF = 1,638 GPD COMPLIANCE T DEPR1 TODRAWINGS SINLL NOT BE SCALED IF A DISCREPANCY EXISTS OR A DIMENSION IS OMITTED, "'� �E W"` N&41.�Ki'dl RRE'Cm,.+YiWCIG) 1 d1E71"O'ET'N ""
.�
SANITARY FLOW .5.538 GPD ` a �. ` MNIMUM LOiSIZE 4OGNb"SG 204701 .P".{A FQ ACNMT.:p
tR5 R,'!'31A K'e.1OR%.0"NOT"THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY. 1 " .mm
=3 BS GPM ....�......__ w .. .��,.�....�_ ,�_....._ —�..,........� .--I � ....... . .m..._..... ...,.,.. ..,.,.,. ..
4 AL DEMOLITION SHALL LfS�PF.PN4dNanNd9 WP,WY klMj,ffle'o WILL PN0'$190 ESAMARR TO AREAS )( ~
M MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 150 V.
595 FT
THAT ARE IXIS'fING TO'vML.IMWVMd Drip OL1w9JfCM,drOnM6$Im",;T{'SR.SHA1 T^RrftlYQP:TT.V iRARY SITE I^P'�^T mama ` ' �' MA%INUM LOT COVERAGE 20x SEA w�� 12.fi2x(25,8]6 SF)
PROTECTION AS REQUIRED lD 116E AREAS DAMAGE THAT GOES OCCUR.SHALL E YWrrl WM»'W'n M N NUM ERO"Ni YIARD SETBACK IT. y�N+M1/�^y•� ... �,�
CORRECTED TO THE ENGMEERS SATISFACTION.AT THE GENERAL CONTRACTORS EXPENSE AND 73.84 CAPITA G 1"Ia Nu o 39B SF)
POPULATIO
AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE O Ei- 4 "14b 4+
5538 GPD 75 CPD/CAPITA FYrwA.A:I,a••'w:4Wv,�rY! xwxAed0. � II �� o 41NIMUM SIDE YARD I'+'"
� � )L d1�11 11;
Dzx 10z
w CT AND M WAIN TEMPORARY BARRIERS AND _73..84 CAPITA 1.009 0,07 •••�� mow ... AW�,w
S. THE GETlE7L1l CONTRACTOR SWILL PNOVIOE ERE _ p�
GUARDS AND/OR 9R�W/,Wrr(.IWIMG AND WWANG IU ACCMN't WpINN T'M EW[W'YOR K 0 , m Y.. WId NkUM IANM.N WAR be •a,• .
STALE BUILDING CODE EEIIGE TO E 6 FEET GNAI11 UNK AND OSHA APPROVED. PEAK FLOW RATE: e•IANA rsl mrarz ` ' M VAA Mg1M BUAk,dAND MdEpG,N 4'6 YY nwPq""" m
Y Tyy p wwr�
-4.2B @� f .'1.➢,,., .� }NH: MPoYIWIIM rP 1WMQ AWA N/A & NR'JTI;WWM1T"J''a .... BA Dix W(3)" 1/D SitlPod44M
fi WHEN REQUIRED FOR THE WORK.THE ffNERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE PEAK FLOW RATE FACTOR(PF) 1+(14 (4+P-05)] ,,,gym ' _z
WEATHER PROTECTION DLR THE fDIiH OF WORK .95 ACRES)
4.20%5.538 GPD 23,702.69 GPD''�, PAB�P(9F1 .....m.,„�-..•�•..�,� ,,,,,, �.
7 Tw,p'ur'c6RwYAa>: YRACar Mwacr.FZW.aR.ON WAft�OU"WhO".NLMMIEtJO AND' � � 9. 3 MEDICAL REP�llIREt6E.�tt
1fi 48 GPM ......... ....... ....,. ,.W-...
q/p',IrCY 'Ad.&IM.vwo'M'I"a Pr dB%'tI0CD BV SACIMFALTr44 FryT'M4'mMTU r>vIsTS%?awX,d,Y.W'QMi 1YA A
m..K eWn'• ry OFFICE RLOG5.16,380 SF(9 PHYSICLWS OR DENTISTS)5 STALLS EACH 45 STALLS
v''Cp Nd B)1P C4k1W„ZAEAKNT dR"410s«"WI KU ON rXISNLPJ"xM1,AraX5,J040 SuAy L DO PAl10PEMX """' mm••••••,,, �"••••","•.•••"""'"•.•.,•""•,•,._..."•"",•,,,,, �—,,•,•µµ�••�� mff�
wdlADIR A"W1nrM4dNe.G.M CG'+EJ I.nM1:V"..AtiY;NA k1E.GUWI+LS'MN1 v —,i(.,n W TF?NMsaBe YO Ate'Lam,J OmuwR,C.II$CWRW SOU NE5flLam[fdopMD,M,4'" ,LIRC4W9'flow P PA KIIWGAAd;ER ORN HMId h;F.'Sk",M;E AC.W,.DUE CAE TO ENSm R AA A4k 44MD",G. II PARKING PROVIDED m+NAB}
F�AuMAMPAd'ICAY*A%y'N'RREV 10 Df ' ,:.......�..�, ,....,, -.... REGULAR STALLS B4 STALLS
®. ALL GOMRACf ENSURE THAT THERE WILL BE NO —..,...,.-......."-.�.,.,._ ,�......,.. •^�•- �� '
Aw TOTAL' ...9 STALLS
DLWr ON IN UZCU'pIP.k,OWS.,-7,R''OR COMMUNICATING SERVICE TO SURROUNDING AREAS _
rA ..,, PANrR'1D� � �
AApAA _
94~DEMOUigN _.. w?b �� AS PFR COMMENTS FROM TOS.
SITE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS 2.2723
RESPONSE TO ITI TI —
Greenport North Neighborhood Association
c/o 512 Sterling Place
Greenport, NY 11944
February 28, 2023
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Residences(sCTM#1000-34-2-1)
Defenition of Medical Offices—for inclusion in Covenant
We understand that all Offices included in this proposal are indicated as Medical Offices.
As no defenition for Medical offices in Southold Town code exists,we request that the following be
included as part of a covenant in perpetuity for the proposed development:
MEDICAL OFFICE:Any facility providing health service and/or medical, surgical, or
dental care. "Medical office" shall include a doctor's office, chiropractor's office, dentist's
office, or any office offering professional medical therapeutic service or care.
"Medical office" shall not include a "medical laboratory", urgent care, a "cosmetic spa",
fitness studio, pharmacy or @ny other Find of dis arr a
Michaelis,Jessica
From: Carol Lindley <cmlindley@outlook.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 12:45 PMRECEIVED
To: Michaelis, Jessica; kim.fuentes@southold.town.ny.us _.. "
Subject: Letter In opposition to Pawlowski development 1 � pp � P MAR .4, 23
tauth i d T6 rI
Planning Board
Hi Jessica and Kim,
Below is a letter to the Planning Board and ZBA from one of our neighborhood association members. Please forward to
the board members and post online.
Thanks,
Carol
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Pi Waller<pi.waller@icloud.com>
Date: March 1, 2023 at 11:21:01 AM EST
To: Carol Lindley<cmlindley@outlook.com>
Cc: Kristie.lutz@gmail.com
Subject: Letter in opposition to Pawlowski development
To: Southold Town Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals
We are writing to share our concerns with the proposed development on the comer of Main Street
and Route 25.We live on Knapp Place and Bailey Avenue,the corner adjacent to where Paul
Pawlowski's new development project is proposed.While we see the value of affordable housing
for our area,we have a number of serious concerns about the questionable nature,purpose
and plan of this development.
Firstly,the intersection of Route 25 and Main Street is overly congested today;exiting from the
town when the ferry traffic is in full flow has become a risk to all drivers.It's inconceivable that this
intersection and our small neighborhood block could withstand the influx of traffic that 40
apartments and 120 parking spaces would bring.
Secondly,the proposed development is built on the premise that Greenport needs more medical
office space.Has the developer provided any evidence that Greenport needs additional medical
buildings or office space or is this an approach to gain approval?We have a large hospital three
blocks away with offices and medical buildings directly across from the hospital on both Manor
Place and Atlantic Avenue that sit mostly vacant.There are medical and office units across from
the train station,and further along down Front Street.We fail to see how our town is in need of
more of these spaces,especially when the ones we already have are mostly vacant and in an era
where many companies have shifted operations to virtual spaces like Teledoc and Zoom.
Then there's the matter of the developer,Paul Pawlowski,who is responsible for building the
"luxury condo"units at 123 Sterling Avenue.This was approved on the basis that 5 units would
fall under the guise of affordable housing but those units are reportedly"on hold"while needy
families sit by and the rest of the units remain vacant because they are wildly overpriced and/or
not desirable.This alone begs the question of accountability of Pawlowski to follow through on
the stated use for his developments.He has also shown disregard for the character of the village
with,what looks like,a cost-effective,institutional architectural design that has no regard for the
historical,residential buildings around it.Frankly it's an eyesore and blight on Greenport's
character.
The location,the poor justification,the low probability that it will actually end up serving as either
affordable housing or a medical office,the impact to the town traffic and initial negative aesthetic
it will present to anyone entering historic Greenport should be enough to see that this is a poorly
conceived and unwarranted proposal.
We sincerely hope that the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals consider the public's
opinion in these matters,and we all hope that the many many residents of this town who have
1
spoken out in opposition to this development will give you pause in approving any aspect of a
plan to move this project forward without serious revision and oversight from those most affected.
Kristie&Pi Waller
202 Knapp Place
609.432.6998
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
2
Cara Galowitz and Anders Goldfarb
465/6o2 Bailey Avenue
Greenport, NY 11944
" 2023
dinar.._.. .,
February 26, 2023 Pla
[...."_nning Board
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson, Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Donald Wilcenski, Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board
Heather Lanza, Director, Southold Town Planning Department
Town of Southold
P.O. Box ii79
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Apartments (SCTM#ib00-34-2-1)
Dear Ms. Weisman, Mr.Wilcenski, and Ms. Lanza,
As members of the Greenport North Neighborhood Association and nearby residents of the proposed Greenport Medical
Offices and Apartments (SCTM#i000-34-2-i), we are writing to bring our traffic concerns regarding this proposed project,
traffic circle, and new increased traffic patterns to your attention.
We are residents of Bailey Avenue, (one block east of the site of i6o Rt. 25 Medical LLC).There are several conditions that
we confront on a regular basis, and increased traffic that the Greenport Medical Offices and Apartments would introduce
would greatly impact the safety of drivers, pedestrians and bikers traversing immediate streets and intersections.
Two houses west of Bailey Avenue, on the south side of Rt. 48/25, there are typically a number of parked
yj cars and or trucks which create a blind-spot to oncoming cars and bicycles (see photo). Increased traffic
and a possible traffic circle would pose the potential for a greater number of accidents near this corner.
We often have trouble making a left (westbound) turn from Bailey Avenue when confronted with streams of
eastbound traffic that we have trouble seeing.The residents of this home also sell firewood and plants, and
cars often stop short to pull over there. In addition, on the north side of Rt.48/25, is Kontokosta Vineyards.
Weddings, parties, and wine tastings take place there regularly, and drivers coming from Kontakosta are often inebriated.
A bit further east is Peconic Landing, where there are many elderly adult drivers who may have compromised vision and
or acuity, encountering the already confusing traffic. There have been several accidents in this very area. One resulting in a
death on our corner.
As much as we support affordable housing, we are concerned that the location of this project is on a congested and
complex intersection and poses a great risk to the safety of our community and our visitors. We hope that you will consider
these conditions in assessing potential traffic risks.
Sincerely,
Cara Galowitz and Anders Goldfarb
JR 1 2023
ABIGAIL A. WICKHAM aut9i-.m 1d 6W6
P.O. Box 1424 13015 Main Road Planning Board
Mattituck,N.Y. 11952
631-298-8353 Fax 631-298-8565
awickham(a),wbalawyerscorn
February 27,2023
Southold Town Planning Board
Via Email: heather.lama@town.southold.ny.us
Re: 1000-34-2-1
Dear Board Members:
I am writing regarding the Greenport Medical Offices and Residences project. I have no
personal interest in or business relationship to this project or the applicant.
As a zoning and land use attorney in Southold Town for over 40 years, I believe that the
location of this proposal is squarely within the parameters of the Town's Code and Plan, in terms
of design, scale and uses, as well as addressing the undisputed dearth of workforce housing in
this Town. The property is in a developed area with mixed residential and commercial uses,
within walking distance of the Village business center,the train station, the hospital,places of
worship, and the school; and on a public bus route. The block contains many very small lots so
density already exists in the immediate area. The combination of office and workforce housing
mitigates the difficulties experienced with recent rental-only affordable projects and spaces out
the traffic flow in and out of the property.
Affordability of the apartments should be a deeded restriction on the property for workforce
housing in perpetuity.
Even if the traffic increase is appreciable,this should not preclude development of a parcel
for professional office and residential uses, which are allowed of right by the Code subject to
Special Exception conditions.
Since SCDHS will oversee the sanitary and water considerations, and providing that the
workforce housing affordability is perpetual, I see no reason why this project should not receive
a negative declaration under SEQRA.
Very truly yours,
Abigail A. Wickham
Cc: Jessica Michaelis via email
Martin Finnegan,Esq. via email
Leslie Kanes Wiseman, Chairperson, Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals MAR 1 2023
Donald Wilcenski, Chairperson,Southold Town Planning Board m 6uthold Town.._.
Heather Lanza, Director, Southold Town Planning Department Planning Beard
Town of Southold
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY. 11971
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Apartments (SCTM#1000-34-2-1)
1 am writing this letter because I am very concerned that the proposed Paul Pawlowski
development will greatly increase the existing traffic problem we already have in
Greenport where the north road meets Main Street.
According to your records, the traffic study on the proposed roundabout was not done at
the times of peak traffic in this area. It must be redone to monitor ferry exiting flow,
weekends, holidays, and warmer months.
We foresee major backup with people trying to enter and exit a roundabout from the
proposed development. It would be unethical to proceed with this plan before a proper
and accurate study is done.
For the record, I am in favor of affordable housing, but not at the expense of creating a
dangerous intersection.
Lori Hollander
22 Sound Rd.
Greenport, NY 11944
G . r
Leslie Kanes Wiseman, Chairperson, Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Donald Wilcenski, Chairperson,Southold Town Planning Board IthIol- ,.
Heather Lanza, Director, Southold Town Planning Department Planning Board
Town of Southold
PO Box 1179
Southold, NY. 11971
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Apartments (SCTM#1000-34-2-1)
i am writing this letter because I am very concerned about the development in
Greenport where North Road meets Main Street. This is a dangerous intersection now
with too many past accidents. This will make matters much worse.
I feel that this project is much better suited for the vacant southwest corner of North
Road and Manhanset. The egress in and out will be much safer.
Scott McIntire
22 Sound Road
Greenport, NY 11944
RE
Jurgen Riehle
mmµ
MAR 023
February 27, 2023d6ldo
Planning Board
Southold Planning Board
and
Zoning Board of Appeals
Re: 160 Route 25, LLC, Medical Offices and Residences/2 Attachments
Dear members of the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals,
This letter is to request your interpretation, and reduction, of the proposed lot coverage of
the 160 Route 25 development. Southold code mandates a maximum lot coverage of 20%
in the RO district.The developers's contention that his site plan's lot coverage is a mere
12% is absurd on the face of it. He clearly arrived at it by not including the parking lot or
driveways.
The NY DOS defines lot coverage as follows:
"Maximum lot coverage is a zoning standard that limits the amount of land in a developable lot that
can be covered by buildings, structures and impermeable areas such as asphalt driveways and
concrete patios." (source: NY Department of State, "Basic Land Use Tools for Resiliency", p.33)
Similar definitions are found in legislations across the country, especially in coastal areas
such as ours whose water quality is threatened by stormwater runoff. Even landlocked
communities such as Universal City,TX follow this standard in a definition that may serve
as an example: "Maximum Lot Coverage is computed as the total amount of impervious surface
on the lot divided by the total lot area. Impervious surfaces on a lot include, but are not limited to,
building driveways, garage, porches, patios, private walks, accessory building, and any other
impervious surfaces constructed on the lots."
Southold doesn't use the term "impervious/impermeable surfaces" in its definition of"lot
coverage", but"building area",which includes "tennis courts and other similar
structures". In addition, Southold's stormwater management legislation stipulates that
"Site designs shall minimize impermeable paving." "Minimize", as a mandate, is only
meaningful when tied to maximum lot coverage. Conversely, by the developer's own
assertion,the lot in question could be covered up to 70% in a combination of buildings,
driveways and parking lots—setting a nightmarish precedent that would fly in the face of
Southold 's Comprehensive Plan goals regarding open space, environmental protection,
and community character.
I respectfully request that the developer's ominous interpretation of the code's definition
of"maximum lot coverage" be corrected and the density of his site plan reduced
accordingly.
With best regards,
Jurgen Riehle
1200 MAIN STREET, GREENPORT, NY 11944
,r
f�
go
A,
s /rra jJ' G f r r"
,r
io
q
0
qy ,
s
•��, r,. l�r�E er r� ,u a��.
Bas�ioc Land use Took for Resiliency
ro r
4, ( uu IIMI G M9Y I
9
a r )< w udr
r 1
F
I IV,i °
"„
114lMOOR d..` R d ..
0
„aq
p ... �' I,w
oa; q y
DWf
fir(%
u� a ,'"""
r
i
III°��/� c^'„w ,, �.,''k;,� a �rdl3 „;" �', m' ,✓ qua ,r
w r g Zoning Map from, the Town i ram,
� Y
Southampton Riverside Revitalization A,ctio
Plan (2015)
m,
�ww r ,
Rossana Rosado, Secretary o,f StetsNEW YORK
State
Andrew M, Cuomo, Govemor of
.;;
1.2.3 Maximum Lot Coverage
Maximum lot coverage is a zoning standard that limits the amount of land in a developable lot
that can be covered by buildings, structures and impermeable areas such as asphalt driveways
and concrete patios. An impervious surface is land cover that cannot effectively absorb or
infiltrate water, such as non-porous asphalt or asphalt sealants, non-porous concrete, roofing
materials, and certain gravel surfaces used in roadways or parking lots. Some municipalities
require a certain percentage of planting area, with the remainder available for pavement and
buildings installed pursuant to zoning.
Hove Development Affects Runoff
qpx klyA, f4;;�°
..t A Mich IYu � Ytlu rIk .p�- u
iu,l ikvq 7° xt;o-",Iil ,Y,;. O
dy N
a dC(aa''"t f
Q
,
ri
a iA a h NO,
m,S
r
qw `
� roLwr^,ur� rdiP:F
J it v,A'p w ( 1
iv
RunCA��
�ourae: tp://pl�irsnsn �Aaestchester ov.cor`n tnaa es/stor€es re..��..��..._�
f
The "maximum lot coverage for structures" requirement ensures open space on a lot which helps
to maintain a consistent land use pattern in residential neighborhoods, provides for adequate
light and air to all properties, and prevents public nuisances like increased storm water runoff
and other environmental hazards.
Lot coverage regulations vary on the types of impervious surface which is factored into the
coverage equation. A less restrictive approach for residential properties would only be to count
permanent structures such as homes, garages, porches, and sheds. A moderate approach would
add to the list sidewalks, driveways, paved patios, sport courts, and other impervious surfaces.
Model Local Laws to Increase Resilience: Chapter 1 33 1 Page
Michaelis,Jessica
From: Carol Lindley <cmlindley@outlook.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 12:45 PMRECEIVED
To: Michaelis, Jessica; kim.fuentes@southold.town.ny.us _.. "
Subject: Letter In opposition to Pawlowski development 1 � pp � P MAR .4, 23
tauth i d T6 rI
Planning Board
Hi Jessica and Kim,
Below is a letter to the Planning Board and ZBA from one of our neighborhood association members. Please forward to
the board members and post online.
Thanks,
Carol
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Pi Waller<pi.waller@icloud.com>
Date: March 1, 2023 at 11:21:01 AM EST
To: Carol Lindley<cmlindley@outlook.com>
Cc: Kristie.lutz@gmail.com
Subject: Letter in opposition to Pawlowski development
To: Southold Town Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals
We are writing to share our concerns with the proposed development on the comer of Main Street
and Route 25.We live on Knapp Place and Bailey Avenue,the corner adjacent to where Paul
Pawlowski's new development project is proposed.While we see the value of affordable housing
for our area,we have a number of serious concerns about the questionable nature,purpose
and plan of this development.
Firstly,the intersection of Route 25 and Main Street is overly congested today;exiting from the
town when the ferry traffic is in full flow has become a risk to all drivers.It's inconceivable that this
intersection and our small neighborhood block could withstand the influx of traffic that 40
apartments and 120 parking spaces would bring.
Secondly,the proposed development is built on the premise that Greenport needs more medical
office space.Has the developer provided any evidence that Greenport needs additional medical
buildings or office space or is this an approach to gain approval?We have a large hospital three
blocks away with offices and medical buildings directly across from the hospital on both Manor
Place and Atlantic Avenue that sit mostly vacant.There are medical and office units across from
the train station,and further along down Front Street.We fail to see how our town is in need of
more of these spaces,especially when the ones we already have are mostly vacant and in an era
where many companies have shifted operations to virtual spaces like Teledoc and Zoom.
Then there's the matter of the developer,Paul Pawlowski,who is responsible for building the
"luxury condo"units at 123 Sterling Avenue.This was approved on the basis that 5 units would
fall under the guise of affordable housing but those units are reportedly"on hold"while needy
families sit by and the rest of the units remain vacant because they are wildly overpriced and/or
not desirable.This alone begs the question of accountability of Pawlowski to follow through on
the stated use for his developments.He has also shown disregard for the character of the village
with,what looks like,a cost-effective,institutional architectural design that has no regard for the
historical,residential buildings around it.Frankly it's an eyesore and blight on Greenport's
character.
The location,the poor justification,the low probability that it will actually end up serving as either
affordable housing or a medical office,the impact to the town traffic and initial negative aesthetic
it will present to anyone entering historic Greenport should be enough to see that this is a poorly
conceived and unwarranted proposal.
We sincerely hope that the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals consider the public's
opinion in these matters,and we all hope that the many many residents of this town who have
1
spoken out in opposition to this development will give you pause in approving any aspect of a
plan to move this project forward without serious revision and oversight from those most affected.
Kristie&Pi Waller
202 Knapp Place
609.432.6998
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
2
Greenport North Neighborhood Association
d o 512 Sterling Place
Greenport, NY 11944
February 28, 2023
Chairman Donald Wilcenski, Ranning Board
Chairperson Leslie Kanes Weisman,Zoning Board of Appeals
Director Heather Lanza, Ranning Department
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, W 11971
Ike: Greenport M edical Offices and Apartments(SCTM#1000-34-2-1)
1 am writing on behalf of the Greenport North Neighborhood Association (GNNA) in response to the
draft Conditioned Negative Declaration. Attached are three documents:
■ A listing of all requested actions to address the impacts on Transportation,Aesthetic Resources,
Noise/Odor/Light, Human Health and Consistency with Community Character. In addition,
we've outlined a number of additional concerns to be addressed, induding proposed covenants
and restrictions, related to several components of the project.
■ A panoramic photo of the medical office complex on Manor Lane, across from BJ H. This is
submitted as an example of a construction style and scale that we feel is much more consistent
with the character of the surrounding community. The design and scale of the buildings
proposed by the developer are decidedly not consistent with the neighborhood and,as such,
they do not conform to the RD code which"strongly encouragesthe adaptive reuse of existing
older residencesto preserve the existing visual character of the Town."
■ Our recommended modifications to the mitigation plan drawing incorporating the density
reducing actions requested in the Aesthetic Resources section, namely:
1) Feducing the parking area to 50 spaces,with additional space to allow for more
planting bedsthroughout the lot, improving the residential character and reducing
the impermeable lot coverage
2) Biminating the westerly driveway
3) Sifting the northerly driveway to the east
4) Expanding the buffers on the east and south perimetersto 100 ft.
5) Biminating the third building at eastern side
Note. The area labeled'Building Area"represents the area we are recommending
for the buildings to be constructed(we are not requesting the construction of one
long building);this should be broken up according to the allowable footprint).
February 28, 2023
Page 2
Although we are submitting this package of proposed actions, please know that we remain committed
to our position that the size, complexity and unique nature of this mixed-use development requires a
positive declaration and a DBSin order to ensure a comprehensive and transparent review of the
project.
Best regards,
Carol M. Lindley
Greenport North Neighborhood Association
Draft Conditioned Negative Dedaration- Requested Actions
Impact on Transportation
1) Incorporation of all recommendations included in the Schneider Engineering traffic
report submitted to the Planning Board at the February 6 public hearing
2) Most important among the report's recommendations is the need for a traffic-count-
based traffic study that is conducted on weekends during the high season (July/August)
and focuses on all affected intersections, including:
■ Fbute 25/Bailey Avenue
■ Fbute 25/Sound Fbad
■ Fbute 25/northerly driveway
■ M ai n a reet/Knapp Place
■ Main Street/Champlin Place
■ Fbute48/Middleton Fbad
■ Fbut e 48/Madison Street
■ Fbut e 48/M cCan n Lane
3) Further,we request that thisstudy includesa safety evaluation component that looks at
options for addressing safety issues at all intersections noted above and on the local
roads, consi d eri ng vari ous opt i ons fo r t raff i c m ovem ent to m i n i m ize t he spi I I-over of
trafficonto local roads and to add ressthe impact of spill-over, such as speed bumps and
implementation of one-way directions
4) All studies need to address the possibility that the development is constructed before
the roundabout (or that the roundabout doesn't come to fruition)
Impact on Aesthetic Fbsources
1) Lot coverage of the mitigation plan submitted by the developer is approximate 2 acres,
43%of the 4.7 acre parcel (building area of .6 acre, impermeable parking area of 1 acre
+ .4 acre of other impermeable surfaces—2 2-lane driveways, loading zones, sidewalks
and exterior entrances)
2) In order to further minimize density and overall impact,we request:
February 28,2023
■ Fbduct ion of parking to 50 stalls(and the required adjustments tot he number
and/or size of the buildings, noting that the code guidance on the apartments is that
only one parking space is required for each apartment)with additional space to
allow for more planting beds throughout the lot, improving the residential character
and reducing the impermeable lot coverage
■ Elimination of the westerly driveway and shifting of the northerly driveway tot he
east
■ Expansion of the buffers on the east and south perimeters to 100ft.
■ Elimination of the third building tot he east (see attached revised site plan drawing)
■ Detailed landscaping plan,with a range of plant ingst hat reflects seasonal ranges
■ Detailed lighting plant hat is Dark Skiescompliant (including 2700 K"warm" bulbs)
and addresses the significant impact that light pollution will have on the surrounding
neighborhood (the lighting plan implement at Vineyard View is unacceptable)
■ Detailed fencing plan, including height and fencing material, that mitigates the visual
impact on the neighborhood
Impact on Noise. Odor and Light
1) The removal of the westerly driveway will significantly reduce the noise/odor/light
impact for the neighborson Main Street
2) Need covenant s(rest rict ions that do not allow any commercial use that functions
outside of standard 9-5 business hours or on weekends
3) Need a construction noise monitoring plan in place before construction is allowed to
begin
4) Buffering requirements noted under Aesthetic Resourceswill also mediate the impact
of noise/odor/light
5) In addition to Bailey Avenue and Champlin Place, clearing(grading(construction vehicles
cannot be permitted on Knapp Place(with some clearly defined access allowed to install
water/sewer access)and Sterling Place
February 28,2023
Impact on Human Health
1) Based on the concerns expressed by the DOT in its final report that the site may contain
hazardous materials, an environmental screening is needed to ensure that there are no
known contaminants on the site and, if there are, a mediation plan needs to be
established prior to granting site plan approval
Consistency with Community Character
1) F;bmoval of the westerly driveway will have a positive effect on this impact
2) The current design and height of the buildings is inconsistent with the style of
construction in the neighboring communities(predominantly bungalow, cottage and
farmhouse style homes)
Additional concerns to be addressed
1) The medical office use needs to be clearly defined and the necessary covenants and
restrictions need to be put in place to make this the only allowable use in perpetuity
2) All aspects regarding the structure, use and management of the workforce housing
apartments need to be clearly defined,with the necessary covenants and restrictions
put in place in advance of project approval, including:
■ The apartments remaining affordable in perpetuity
■ Applicants must be registered on the Southold Town Affordable Housing Registry
and eligible for placement prior to possession being taken
■ Leases will be on an annual basis only(i.e., no short term or month-to-month lease
provisions)
■ Clearly defined house rules regarding noise, allowable occupancy levels and other
standard use requirements
February 28,2023
rGiffinpod North NeiAorhoodksodation
Name Address Email Phone
David Berson and Meg Bennett 508 aerling Race dbersoal&Lhoo.com 631477-2515
rnbenn47219@gol.corn 631-664-6728
fbbert Corwin Sound fbad reoorwia@2ptmum.net
,byte Covello and Peter Maltese 506 Bailey Avenue Loic nac.com 917-597-7875
2&K tonline.net
Deb Cutler and Ray Norton Sound fbad mqgffi222ail.com
Margaret fbse de Cruz 25 Washington Avenue mrdecruz&JI.com 917-865-4655
Nrsten Droskowski 531 aerl i ng R ace 631-831-7582
Petrina Engelke and'hmas Halaczinsky 1116 Main areet etrina Jetrina.v 646498-6198
thornas.hg2gtk@gmail.com 347-985-6885
Lucy and bhn Eustice 305 Bridge areet leustice a�Ilape.comn 917-756-5186
917-6994566
Mary Gabriel and Adrian Greenberg Sound fbad R92��line.net
Cara Galowitzand AndersGoldfarb 465 Bailey Avenue miatk= 917-887-8787
Bruce Garritano and Peter Harbes 619 Bailey Avenue LuceLarritano5&ffeil.corn 631-745-0289
631-617-8552
Tammi and Ti m Grattan 69305 fbute 48 631495-9110
,banne Greenbaum 495 aerling Race ionnegreenbaum e.com 917476-8652
Carolyn and aeve Greer 260 Sound fbad aLer3339 mail.com
Carol-anne I-Ornann 307 Champlin Ram choffman242 Lrnal.corn 631-553-3930
Lori Hollander and Scott McIntire 22 Sound fbad lorihollanklLmail.00m 917-697-5986
scot and nti re(cart h I i nk.net
Cheryl Horsfall 295 Bailey Avenue chor4g.&ac.00m 917-763-0364
-Gregory Hugunin and Laura Raps 504 aerling Race laurar50&Lc.com
Greg Humphreysand Ribina Costabile Sound fbad LumjhreLs.Lreg�mJl.com
ZL22LLm
Cynthia Ickes 631-766-0233
,ban Kart 611 BaileyAvenue
Anthoula Katsimaticles 335 aerling Race anthoulg��ma�il.com 917-770-7004
fbry Hinge and Carol Lindley 512 aerling Race Mkge(a�mail.com 631433-2236
631433-2237
,%e Krei ling and Paul Henry 820 Main Greet sueOtgkghooM
asof 2/20/2023
Gkffinpod North NeiAorhoocllksDdation
2Lul michael henr got mail.corn
aephenK,u�era and BizabethTalerman 304 aerling Place skust era @Kail.00rn 848-219-3980
etalerrnaa@LnLail.00rn 917-674-6202
Adriene Lakowitz 324 Knapp Ram es31(a��tonline�.net
Chris La* 765 Cedarfields Drive chrijarkia5�ail�.00m
Helena Ludrosky and aephen Worsham Manhanset Avenue helena.Ludro§l@gmaii.com 631479-7951
scuvworjgT@gmail.00rn
Ksistie Lutz and R Waller 202 Knapp Ram kri iejutz gLmail.00rn 609432-6998
Lwaller&cloud.00rn 917-913-3457
Carol Marker 526 Bailey Avenue c.rnarkgfka.ng
Cathleen Marshall cat h I een ELr�all(a mail.�rn
Carole and Rchard Mavity Sound fbad 29��nk.net
ChrisMcGinchey 735 Champlin Ram 2Ml±t2&E4LmM 917-957-5970
David Mendelsohn 455 Knapp Ram davernenk� hn( yahoo.com
LeslieMerinoff Kuasniesc and Brian 455 Rbut e 25 646-879-0875
Kuasnieski Brian natchbookny.corn
fah-Mai Miller 1155 Main Greet sarahrnai(a�hallQ42.�rn
Paula Muth 213 Knapp Ram 2Lulamuth@lmaii.com
Jamesand Kathleen Nenopoulos 317 Knapp Ram k2poulo mail.com 917-583-8413
kathleent2&l.corn
Gerald O'Neill 623 Bailey Avenue 917-299-2784
631477-9629
Tom Padden 435 aerling Race 2na.19 r mail.com
Margot Perman and Irgen Rehle 1200 Main Greet 222d= 917-660-3727
LurTnLdan .corn
Isan Rnkwater and 111y%arby 675 Champlin Race jEkt!21ergroup.net 917-864-5531
allure mail.�rn
Roth 9hank backstreLetLdesi L1 ahoo.corn 631-291-2245
@y
,bnathan$erling 503 Main Greet !Lhyber95 , I.corn 703402-5075
DavidVincents 900 Bailey Avenue kkk92292m
Rena and Barry Wiseman Sound fbad wisebo
Jackie Wolfson 509 aerling Race kkn , ptonline.net
asof 2/20/2023
Greenport North Neighborhood Association
d o 512 Sterling Place
Greenport, NY 11944
February 28, 2023
Town,Supervisor Scott Russell, Deputy Sipervisor Kevin Foote& Members of the Town Board
Board of Trustees President Glenn Goldsmith and Membersof the Board of Trustees
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Residences(SCTM#1000-34-2-1)
1 am writing on behalf of the Greenport North Neighborhood Association, a group of 47
individuals and familieswho reside in the immediate area surrounding 160 Faoute 25(a copy of
our membership list is attached). Snce the subject site plan was submitted in the fall of 2021,
we have been advocating for the appropriate use of this parcel, a 4.7 acre piece of vacant land
that is located at a significant crossroads—the entrance to Greenport Village and to the North
Fork.
Attached for your review is the package of requested actions that we submitted today in
response to the draft Conditioned Negative Declaration that's under consideration by the
Planning Board. The Board's decision to move forward with drafting a CND was in response to
a mitigation plan submitted by the applicant. The original site plan application, and the
possibility of a positive declaration, requiring a D8E� also remains under consideration. Also
attached for your review is a traffic report that we commissioned in response to a faulty traffic
impact assessment that was included in the applicant's mitigation submission.
We recognize that the Town Board does not typically get involved in the review of site plan
applications. However, in this instance, we recently learned that two Town Board members
initiated the applicant's consideration of purchasing and developing this property and the
Town's Government Liaison Officer and members of the Town's Housing Advisory Commission
subsequently toured the property with the applicant. Thiswasall revealed by the applicant and
one of the Housing Advisory Commission members at the Planning Board's public hearing on
February 6tn
Given this early involvement in the process, we feel that it's critical that the Town Board
assume some responsibility for what may be the end result —a strip-mall-style development
that offers motel-size apartments for transient workers that are not affordable and medical
offices that aren't needed, and turns an already dangerous intersection into a more dangerous
community-wide traffic nightmare. This development will forever change one of the most
visible locations on the North Fork into a little slice of Fbute 347 in Stony Brook or Sunrise
Highway in Patchogue.
At a point in timewhen the Town isembarking on significant changes in itsoode and
invigorating itscommitment to implementing the Comprehensive Plan, we sincerely hope that
you will get involved in what's happening at 160 Route 25 and support our efforts to effect a
development that providestrue affordable housing to ourTown's familiesand respectsthe
rightsof the existing community.
Best regards,
Carol M. Lindley
cc: Chairman Donald Wilcenski, Southold Town Planning Board
Chairperson Leslie KanesWseman, Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Planning Department Director Heather Lanza
RE
Jurgen Riehle
mmµ
MAR 023
February 27, 2023d6ldo
Planning Board
Southold Planning Board
and
Zoning Board of Appeals
Re: 160 Route 25, LLC, Medical Offices and Residences/2 Attachments
Dear members of the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals,
This letter is to request your interpretation, and reduction, of the proposed lot coverage of
the 160 Route 25 development. Southold code mandates a maximum lot coverage of 20%
in the RO district.The developers's contention that his site plan's lot coverage is a mere
12% is absurd on the face of it. He clearly arrived at it by not including the parking lot or
driveways.
The NY DOS defines lot coverage as follows:
"Maximum lot coverage is a zoning standard that limits the amount of land in a developable lot that
can be covered by buildings, structures and impermeable areas such as asphalt driveways and
concrete patios." (source: NY Department of State, "Basic Land Use Tools for Resiliency", p.33)
Similar definitions are found in legislations across the country, especially in coastal areas
such as ours whose water quality is threatened by stormwater runoff. Even landlocked
communities such as Universal City,TX follow this standard in a definition that may serve
as an example: "Maximum Lot Coverage is computed as the total amount of impervious surface
on the lot divided by the total lot area. Impervious surfaces on a lot include, but are not limited to,
building driveways, garage, porches, patios, private walks, accessory building, and any other
impervious surfaces constructed on the lots."
Southold doesn't use the term "impervious/impermeable surfaces" in its definition of"lot
coverage", but"building area",which includes "tennis courts and other similar
structures". In addition, Southold's stormwater management legislation stipulates that
"Site designs shall minimize impermeable paving." "Minimize", as a mandate, is only
meaningful when tied to maximum lot coverage. Conversely, by the developer's own
assertion,the lot in question could be covered up to 70% in a combination of buildings,
driveways and parking lots—setting a nightmarish precedent that would fly in the face of
Southold 's Comprehensive Plan goals regarding open space, environmental protection,
and community character.
I respectfully request that the developer's ominous interpretation of the code's definition
of"maximum lot coverage" be corrected and the density of his site plan reduced
accordingly.
With best regards,
Jurgen Riehle
1200 MAIN STREET, GREENPORT, NY 11944
,r
f�
go
A,
s /rra jJ' G f r r"
,r
io
q
0
qy ,
s
•��, r,. l�r�E er r� ,u a��.
Bas�ioc Land use Took for Resiliency
ro r
4, ( uu IIMI G M9Y I
9
a r )< w udr
r 1
F
I IV,i °
"„
114lMOOR d..` R d ..
0
„aq
p ... �' I,w
oa; q y
DWf
fir(%
u� a ,'"""
r
i
III°��/� c^'„w ,, �.,''k;,� a �rdl3 „;" �', m' ,✓ qua ,r
w r g Zoning Map from, the Town i ram,
� Y
Southampton Riverside Revitalization A,ctio
Plan (2015)
m,
�ww r ,
Rossana Rosado, Secretary o,f StetsNEW YORK
State
Andrew M, Cuomo, Govemor of
.;;
1.2.3 Maximum Lot Coverage
Maximum lot coverage is a zoning standard that limits the amount of land in a developable lot
that can be covered by buildings, structures and impermeable areas such as asphalt driveways
and concrete patios. An impervious surface is land cover that cannot effectively absorb or
infiltrate water, such as non-porous asphalt or asphalt sealants, non-porous concrete, roofing
materials, and certain gravel surfaces used in roadways or parking lots. Some municipalities
require a certain percentage of planting area, with the remainder available for pavement and
buildings installed pursuant to zoning.
Hove Development Affects Runoff
qpx klyA, f4;;�°
..t A Mich IYu � Ytlu rIk .p�- u
iu,l ikvq 7° xt;o-",Iil ,Y,;. O
dy N
a dC(aa''"t f
Q
,
ri
a iA a h NO,
m,S
r
qw `
� roLwr^,ur� rdiP:F
J it v,A'p w ( 1
iv
RunCA��
�ourae: tp://pl�irsnsn �Aaestchester ov.cor`n tnaa es/stor€es re..��..��..._�
f
The "maximum lot coverage for structures" requirement ensures open space on a lot which helps
to maintain a consistent land use pattern in residential neighborhoods, provides for adequate
light and air to all properties, and prevents public nuisances like increased storm water runoff
and other environmental hazards.
Lot coverage regulations vary on the types of impervious surface which is factored into the
coverage equation. A less restrictive approach for residential properties would only be to count
permanent structures such as homes, garages, porches, and sheds. A moderate approach would
add to the list sidewalks, driveways, paved patios, sport courts, and other impervious surfaces.
Model Local Laws to Increase Resilience: Chapter 1 33 1 Page
FR E
Sarah-Mai + Heath Miller J ,, E
1221 Main St F-
Greenport NY 11944 FEB
566t'uoid i own
Planning Board
February 6, 2023
Thank you for having us today.
My husband, Heath Miller, and I, Sarah-Mai Miller, moved into our home on the corner
of North and Main 2 years ago.We fell in love with everything Greenport stood for, an
authentically beautiful village that had a connection to a fishing and beach community,
with homes that were both original and quirky, but all had an aesthetic that felt in and of
the community.
We spent time, money, and love, to try as hard as we could to create a welcome corner
for all that may come and go from the north side of Greenport.We are immensely proud
every time someone stops and mentions the work we've done and what it has done to a
home that has been there since the 1830s.We truly fell in love with the corner we have
come to call home and are excited to welcome a circle that should help mitigate the
traffic clusters, back ups, and noise that have become commonplace at this already
busy intersection.
This brings us to why we're here.We have concerns around the speed and quality of
development being planned across the street from us. From the aesthetic value of the
designs (that feel of the Riverhead ilk), the "affordable housing" (that makes us question
exactly who they're affordable for), the self submitted traffic analysis, proposed medical
use (when there are already vacant and underused medical offices in the area), the lack
of environmental impact studies to understand the impact on air, water, soil, land, and
wildlife, the removal of mature trees and growth, and the light and sound pollution.
We are always open for change and progress in our beautiful community as long as it's
done thoughtfully and with a proper end goal in mind, and it doesn't feel as though this
project has gone through the correct paces.
We are again here to simply make a case for a slower, more thoughtful approach to
everything we've previously stated as to not do long term harm for what seems like a
short term benefit for the developer, and not the community at large.
sincerely thank you for hearing our concerns.
i
°C,
F IIm.B 0 7 Z023
�ou. .rho2 Gown
a 'ng Board
live on Knapp Place right off Main Street. The intersection of Rt. 25 & Main eve y �--
from Memorial Day to the 1st weekend in November has traffic backed up to The Patriot Gas
Station ... I know, I see it. People who are familiar with the neighborhood will take a right on
Champlin or Knapp to avoid the back up. Mr. Pawlowski's expert on traffic told us that there
would be no more than a 6% increase in our traffic. I think it is imperative that a traffic study
be conducted at this intersection during the summer months and on the weekend, only then
would there be an accurate determination of the amount of traffic we really have.
Another concern is the structures and their purpose; medical offices on the 1st floor and 30
residential units on the 2nd floor, 10 apartments for each building,four of which will be 350 sq.
ft. and 6 at approximately 411 to 545 sq.ft. A one bedroom unit at 411 Sq. ft.—really! That's a
studio with an additional closet. I believe the details on these units are extremely vague and
more specific information should be revealed about these residential units. At the Planning
Board work session, it was said that this would benefit seasonal workers too. Certainly, couples
or families could not live in such a small living space. I see this as a plan to turn these units into
an AirBNB rentals.
Another question of concern: Is Greenport in need of more medical office space? Peconic
Landing just completed a new medical facility run by Stony Brook with 5 examining rooms and 5
physicians who offer different specialties and practice on different days. What research has
been done that tells the community that a 15,000 sq. ft. medical facility is needed and WHAT
will happen to the space if they can't be rented as medical offices? Our quiet community could
possibly see the likes of a hair salon,tattoo parlor, UPS store or maybe even a restaurant. I say
that because we are now seeing an eyesore built by Mr. Pawlowski at 123 Sterling and then
sold to someone else. As of today, those units are still empty. A personal note, before that
building was put up it was one of my favorite spots in Greenport. It seems to me we are
rewarding Mr. Pawlowski with another opportunity in our neighborhood when his last project
hasn't served us well at all. We don't need another empty building in Greenport!
Jim Nenopoulos
317 Knapp Place
Greenport, NY 11944
RECEIVED
To all members of the Planning board:
rnal"
- -__...
Plann�nrg Board
Seems like I struck a nerve in Mr. Pawlowski last night.
Please note that I stand behind every word in my presentation to the planning board but I have
crossed off one sentence. When I walked through the property (123 Sterling) with a realter
about 18 months ago, as a potential investor, we were told that the affordable housing units
were behind a wall and that they would have a separate entrance. That might have changed or
been altered since then so I withdraw that sentence. The rest is a matter of record. Enclosed
is the full version of my presentation last night.
Thank You
Paul Henry
In support of afforda a housing
In regard to Paul Pawlowski's so called affordable housing application, on the SE corner of Main
Street and the North Road in Greenport.
We can all agree that affordable housing remains a primary concern and major challenge. For
the record, I am in favor of affordable housing on this property and support such.
Despite Mr. Pawlowski's claims, there is nothing here that is consistent with our community or
it's character, on the contrary, this mixed-use, high-density project is unique and inconsistent
with anything else in the town. So tired of hearing developers pitch their projects as if they
were some sort of saint, come to save the day.
Just because one calls their project "affordable housing" does not make it so. It has become all
too common for developers to throw the magic words "affordable housing" into the mix,just
like Abracadabra, Alakazam or more likely, Hocus Pocus.
This project is neither affordable nor decent "housing". A 350 sgft unit is the size of a motel
room. The developer recently stated at a town meeting that rents would start around $1500.
In addition, it's no small matter that this project will be adjacent to the worst traffic
intersection on the North Fork.
The pending one lane traffic circle at that corner is certain to slow down the long lines of ferry
traffic and back up the North bound traffic on Main Street trying to get onto the circle, which
will clearly block the exit and entrance to this project. In fact, there are usually lines to get
through that intersection already which are backed up past the proposed entrance. The DOT
traffic circle project was studied without knowledge and consideration for this project;
therefore a new, extensive, detailed and un-biased traffic study is in order and should be
required.
This developer has a history of changing his mind and not doing what he says. Please note that
at 123 Sterling Street, Greenport, (the last project this developer built),the final approval was
contingent on 5 affordable housing units, which are yet to materialize, despite completion of
construction over a year ago. This developer went to great efforts to try to exclude the agreed
upon affordable housing units from the building. iselatingthe
housing seetiens behind walls te sepaFate them fFem the Fest a. *e 446t GlaSS
and thiFd-eh He also originally agreed to allow public access to the waterfront which gained
him concessions and support, but in the end, he just changed his mind. By the way, he also
claimed at a village meeting I attended that the 123 Sterling project would be in character with
the neighborhood and fit in. Please drive by if you're not familiar with it.
There is an abundance of medical space already in the town. I know of some medical space that
has sat vacant for almost a year with no prospects. The existing zoning will allow for other
uses that no doubt, will be coming into play. If Mr. Pawlowski chooses to sell his project, what
will the next owners envision?
As you are aware,the property is zoned RO (Residential Office District). The Legislative intent
of RO is very clearly defined in its first sentence of purpose, and I quote:
"The purpose of the Residential Office (RO) District is to provide a
transition area between business areas and low-density residential
development along major roads which will provide opportunity for
limited nonresidential uses in essentially residential areas while
strongly encouraging the adaptive reuse of existing older residences,
to preserve the existing visual character of the Town and to achieve
the goal(s) of well-planned, environmentally sensitive, balanced
development, which the Town has determined to be desirable."
Please note the key phrases: "low-density residential development", "limited nonresidential
uses" and "to preserve the existing visual character of the Town" and "Balanced
development".
This project conforms to none of this.
In addition, everywhere that the RO zone statute specifies specifics of size and quantity,there
are limits defined which are consistent with the stated purpose, such as:
The permitted residential uses are restricted to:
• One-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one dwelling on each lot.
• Owner-occupied two-family dwellings.
• Permitted uses for professional and office space are limited to overall floor space of
3000 sgft.
In addition,All the permitted uses by special exception that specify any extent of usage
express limits which are also consistent with the stated purpose:
• "The number of apartments shall be limited to a maximum of six apartments"
So, it is clear,that by intent, all the provisions of RO zoning code, specifically restrict and limit
the size and amount of any buildings to comply with the stated purpose,which once again,
reads:
"low-density residential development"
"Limited nonresidential uses"
I'm pretty good at math, please help me to understand how one gets to 3 mixed use buildings,
15,000 sqft of commercial space and 30 residential units from anything that this code
specifically allows. One would have to jump through hoops to take any of this language and
interpolate it to allow the density and scope of this project. The spirit of the RO zone is clear, it
was never meant to allow a project of this scope, nor should the Town.
I have no problem with building affordable housing on this site, it would be very desirable and
appropriate. I could easily get behind it if done in consideration for the neighborhood,
community and especially the recipients, with reasonable total density, and a balanced
development, as outlined in the RO code.
This corner is not the backyard, of NIMBYism. it's the front yard,the corridor to the village of
Greenport and Orient. Allowing Mr. Pawlowski to build a mixed use, 3 building complex, with
15,000 sqft of commercial space, packing in 30 units above, some of which will be 350 sgft is a
mis-guided attempt to address our affordable housing crises. It's clear that the legislative
intent of the RO zone was never intended to produce such a dense, mixed-use travesty.
If affordable housing is really the priority,then let's slow down and make whatever land use
changes are necessary in order to do away with the commercial space and produce something
that makes sense for everybody in the community, especially those who will end up living here,
something that we can all be proud of. I'm sure that the community and the Town could and
would get behind that.
Thank You
Paul Henry
Greenport, NY
The first item I want to address before going into the impact of this project on the neighborhood is
The construction Staging :
see in the proposal that there is a sentence saying that "no clearing grading or construction
vehicles shall travel over Bailey avenue or Champlain place during the construction period. I live on
Sterling place between Knapp and Champlain. Why isn't Sterling place listed as a prohibited area of
travel during the construction phase? I work at home and the sight and sound of any construction
vehicle is reprehensible to me and my neighbors. Sterling place is a very narrow street with
small homes and cars parked along the street. There is no room for any construction vehicle to
pass. I envision cement trucks backed up on sterling place waiting to get int' s VED '
�"`
cannot happen. ��
Mi-V\v% I'D 0 " pi a
r�,2-
rnG I.
rt��f 6
Furthermore The impact on traffic in our neighborhood will be very detrimental ` � 1g Beard
construction of the 01MMMfuture traffic circle I do not believe that an additional development at
that site is tenable. The immediate neighborhood will be severely impacted by all this. The
additional traffic on our quiet streets will be greatly impacted. Cars and trucks will avoid the
traffic circle and travel around to Knapp place and Q~Sterling place and the other
neighboring streets. This site at 496616440 the intersection and entrance to the town of
greenport is a terrible place for a development. Especially in the warmer months this problem will
be greatly felt.
As to the proposed medical offices I do not see any need for more empty dr offices. I experience
first hand a multitude of empty storefronts and empty medical offices around town and the other
towns on the north fork. Once these offices can't be rented and sit empty other businesses will
move in. Nobody but nobody is against workforce housing. However the scale and high rent of
these small apartments will not solve the problem of workforce housing on the north fork.
Ultimately these apartments will become b and b rentals or sit empty.
These are not family apartments. Also the presence of p a 24 hour lighted parking lot will
permanently alter the character of the neighborhood with the lighting visible all night long. From
where I sit the negatives highly overshadow any good
In terms of the neighborhood character this development will forever change it. The single homes
and quiet streets are what drew me to this part of greenport as well as its proximity and walking
distance to the town and the beach. With the addition of this unneeded and supremely
unattractive development you will forever change and alter this quiet part of greenport. It's just a
terrible idea from all aspects that I can,see. Saying that something is " campus style" does not
have any meaning some campuses are(strip malllis this what you mean? What campus are you
talking about?
As a neighbor I am deeply concerned that this project will alter the current quality of life and I hope
it doesn't get built. i p
Greenport Medical Offices&Apartments: Determination of Significance
The NYSDEC provides recommendations to reduce noise to receptors. The Planning
Board requires the following as conditions to mitigate the noise impacts:
1) Construction noise from heavy machinery.
Reduce noise frequency and impulse noise at the source of generation by using
machinery with strobe lights or other options instead of back-up beepers (subject
to other requirements, e.g., OSHA and Mine Safety and Health Administration,
as applicable). This eliminates the most annoying impulse beeping;
Reducing noise duration by limiting noisier operations to normal workday hours
will reduce impacts.
Noise duration shall be reduced during construction activities capable of
generating noise. Outdoor construction can occur between Monday through
Friday, 7 am to 3:30 pm, and will not occur on Saturday, Sundays and holidays.
2) Reduce noise sound pressure levels by:
a. Increasing the setback distance.
• A minimum 50' wide vegetated buffer shall be installed on the south,west
and east property hour_doxies. The only exception being where the western
driveway is required to be a certain minimum distance from the
roundabout intersection, in which case the buffer should be as wide as
possible,using a curve in the driveway to expand the buffer as much as and
as soon as possible.
• Within the 50' wide buffers in the west and east, existing trees occurring
on site 6" DBH that are native to the area shall be preserved to the extent
feasible.All exotic and nuisance vegetation and trees can be removed from
the buffer to allow supplemental planting of native, drought-tolerant and
deer-resistant tree species.
b. Moving processing equipment during operation further from receptors.
• All construction equipment and tools capable of generating noise on site
shall be stored and started in a designated area as far from the residences
as practicable. The area shall be located near the wash-down area and
shown in the SWPPP.
• A construction and heavy equipment staging area shall be identified on the
final site plan at the maximum distance from noise receptors on abutting
properties improved with residences.
• No clearing, grading, or construction vehicles shall travel over Bailey
Avenue o1• Champlin Place during the construction period.
Page 11
0
IL ' � i al' '.A,gt',I:dmt art ow
Nhhh,Immf ei � S S da,P.E.
.,..w.w.wrw...rrr.r rr�rr
En ` n ,PL1,.0 pfindpall
� w
February 3, 2023
Donald Wilcenski, Planning Board Chair FEB 0 7 2023 �
Town of Southold Planning Board
54375 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179 �°MPi �ai1.." '
Southold, NY 11971 Planr-ring Boa rd
Re: Proposed Greenport Medical Offices and Apartments
160 Route 25, Greenport
SCTM#1000-34-2-1
Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Planning Board Members:
Schneider Engineering, PLLC has been retained by the Greenport North Neighborhood
Association (GNNA) Group to evaluate the traffic impacts associated with the proposed
Greenport Medical Offices and Apartments located at 160 NYS Route 25, Greenport, New
York.
As part of our evaluation, we have reviewed the following materials:
1. Town of Southold Draft Notice of Intent to Prepare a Conditioned Negative
Declaration, dated December 5, 2022
2. Town of Southold Planning Board Work Session Notes, dated December 5, 2022
3. Group for the East End letter to Town of Southold Planning Board, dated
November 18, 2022
4. Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by LKMA, dated October 26, 2022
5. Proposed Site Plan prepared by LKMA, dated October 26, 2022
6. NYSDOT Final Design Report, dated July 2022
7. Group for the East End letter to Town of Southold Planning Board, dated April 22,
2022
8. NYSDOT Draft Design Report, dated January 2022
9. NYSDOT Roundabout Site Plan prepared by GPI
10.Town of Southold Planning Department Draft Impact Assessment
11.NYSDOT letter to residents, dated June 15, 2021
12.AKRF Memorandum to the Town of Southold, dated September 15, 2018
In order to properly evaluate the anticipated impacts of a newly proposed development,
it is critical to perform a traffic impact study that is based on the most up-to-date
information including but not limited to site description details, existing peak traffic
volumes, traffic volumes associated with the proposed development, traffic volumes
43 Seacliff Avenue • Miller Place,New York 11764 • 631 698-6200
www.schneiderengineering.com New York - New Jersey - Florida
associated with other proposed developments in the vicinity, and roadway design features
that are reasonably expected to exist when the proposed site is built. The Traffic Impact
Assessment prepared for this proposed development prepared by LKMA dated October
26, 2022 fails to incorporate the up-to-date details, and therefore the traffic impacts are
not appropriately evaluated for use as a traffic study to support the proposed new
development.
Based upon our review of the Traffic Impact Assessment and the above listed materials,
the specific concerns with the Traffic Impact Assessment are summarized in the following
points:
1. The existing conditions traffic volumes taken by NYSDOT for their Design Report
for the proposed roundabout at the intersection NYS Route 25 and CR 48 are the
basis for NYSDOT's calculations for future traffic volumes. The Traffic Impact
Assessment did not obtain its own traffic volumes but instead relied on the
NYSDOT traffic volumes for its LOS analyses. The NYSDOT traffic volumes were
taken in pre-COVID. Since then, traffic volumes have resumed to more normal
conditions, if not have even increased from re-emerging activity associated with
nearby farms, vineyards and other tourist attractions. Thus, we recommend new
traffic counts be taken to reflect the increases in existing traffic volumes on the
roadway.
2. The Traffic Impact Assessment solely relied on the no-build future traffic volumes
calculated by the NYSDOT. However, as addressed in section 2.3.1.7 (2) of the
NYSDOT Draft Design Report and Final Design Report, the no-build traffic
volumes do not include traffic volumes associated with other proposed
developments in the vicinity because none were identified (for the next 20 years)
at the time of the report, including, and importantly, this subject develop-
ment, directly adjacent to the proposed roundabout. Recently, other
developments/applications in the Town of Southold have developed which will
increase traffic volumes on the roadway system and which will contribute to
creating new, unknown at the time impacts that the NYSDOT did not have
available when they prepared their study. In addition, there are sites that were
existing when the NYSDOT took traffic counts but that were not fully
being utilized in the way they are anticipated to in the future that should
be re-accounted for. These developments include the following:
a. The Enclaves Hotel, located at 56655 NYS Route 25, Southold. The
application is for the conversion of an existing 3,026 sq. ft. residence with a
584 sq. ft. addition into a 74-seat restaurant and the construction of a hotel
with 44 units and an outdoor pool.
b. The Mattituck Hotel, located at 9025 NYS Route 25, Mattituck. The
application is for the re-development of an existing commercial site
including the demolition of the existing building, and the construction of a
hotel with 121 rooms, restaurant, catering facility and indoor recreation
totaling 200,087 sq. ft.
c. Silver Sands Motel & Cottages, located at 1400 Silvermere Road,
Greenport. The application is for substantial renovations to the existing site
which will contain 30 motel rooms, 20 cottages and a new restaurant.
d. Vineyard View Affordable Apartments Complex, located at 6200 North
Road, Greenport. The site was constructed in 2020 as an apartment
complex with 50 one-to-three bedroom apartments. The initial lottery for
apartments was held on July 27, 2020, after the NYSDOT took traffic
counts.
e. The Sound View Motel and The Halyard, located at 58775 CR 48,
Greenport. This is an existing site containing 55 motel rooms and a
restaurant which was accounted for by the NYSDOT traffic counts, however
there has been post-pandemic upgrades and expansion of its wedding and
events business which may account for higher occupancy rates.
Thus, clearly shows the need that new traffic counts be taken, and the future no-
build conditions be recalculated to include these other identified proposed
developments in the area.
3. A Saturday peak hour count was not analyzed in the LOS analysis. The reason
given in the Traffic Impact Assessment is that "the medical offices generate the
majority of trips, and that their anticipated usage on a Saturday would be
significantly lower (ITE, which McLain used) actually stated with an insufficient
sample size for Medical Office Buildings on Saturdays), a Saturday peak hour was
not necessary to analyze." The Saturday peak, is a critical peak period for the
area. ITE provides that the average rate per 1000 square footage for a Medical
Office Building on a Saturday is 3.10 spaces, which is based on 4 studies, and is
comparable to the AM peak rate of 3.53 and PM peak rate of 4.10 which indicates
that the Saturday rate may be consistent with the other peak periods. If the ITE
rate is unacceptable, another industry acceptable method to obtain a rate is by
researching past studies that have been performed for a similar site, or, obtaining
trip generation rates at a similar site to determine an appropriate rate. Because
traffic volumes are highest in the area on Saturdays, especially during the summer
months, it is critical the Saturday peak LOS be analyzed.
4. The Traffic Impact Assessment only analyzed the site driveways in an LOS
analysis and did not analyze any intersections. Because traffic volumes are likely
higher in the area from when the NYSDOT took traffic volumes and because there
are several other developments that have been unaccounted for by the NYSDOT
analysis, it is essential an updated LOS analysis be performed at the intersection
of NYS Route 25 and CR 48. In addition, the intersection of NYS Route 25 and
Bailey Avenue, and Knapp Place should be analyzed since it is other primary
intersections in the immediate vicinity that residents are directly impacted by.
5. The Traffic Impact Assessment should include an alternative analysis of the
intersection of NYS Route 25 and County Road 48 without a roundabout, for two
reasons. Reason one is the roundabout is one of four locations for the NYSDOT
improvements project in which the contractor(after the project is awarded) has the
freedom to complete in whichever order they desire, and therefore this
development may be constructed before the roundabout is constructed. This was
confirmed in our conversations with NYSDOT Design Leader Vinicio Lora. Reason
two, an event can occur related to the project's funds that can potentially delay the
roundabout from being constructed on-time or prevent it from being constructed
all-together. It is critical that the alternative analysis be conducted because without
the roundabout constructed when there are no other proposed developments
accounted for in the area, the northbound movement operates at unacceptable
LOS F during the Saturday peak and LOS C during the Midday and PM peak which
may be worsened with the additional currently unaccounted for traffic volumes.
6. The Traffic Impact Assessment LOS analysis is based on 4 buildings being
constructed at the proposed development. As proposed mitigation by the
developer, the westerly building will not be constructed and there will be a total of
just 3 buildings on-site. Therefore, the LOS analysis in the study should be
updated to reflect updated trip generation numbers for the proposed development.
7. The applicant's engineer should also consider removing the westerly curb cut
completely and having everyone enter and exit directly onto the northerly curb cut
on County Road 48. This would reduce a large safety hazard that would be created
by people attempting to make turns out of the westerly driveway to head on Main
Street southbound. It would also remove a curb cut so close to the residential
neighborhood near Knapp Place. By having all enter and exit onto a major
highway, away from residential streets, would be a highly improved traffic safety
alternative. Permitting a left turn out of the site onto County Road 48 would be a
safer alternative then allowing cars making a left turn out of the proposed westerly
driveway while cars are just leaving a roundabout to head southbound, fairly close
to the westerly driveway exit. It is just a safer traffic alternative.
8. With the new development being placed at the corner of the location of the
roundabout, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement may need to be prepared to
address the traffic safety issues at the intersection as well as other environmental
issues discussed in the New York State Department Of Transportation Report.
In conclusion, in addition to the concerns outlined above about the Traffic Impact
Assessment, we also recommend the westerly curb cut and driveway be relocated further
to the north, because its proposed location is just 12.5 feet from the southern property
line abutting the residential neighbors.
Based upon our review, it is our professional opinion the applicant be subjected to an
updated traffic impact assessment that should be part of an issuance of a positive
declaration for a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) pursuant to the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for a more in-depth review of traffic
impacts.
Further, because the subject development abuts NYS Route 25, the developer will have
to apply for work permits through the NYSDOT. As part of the permit process, a traffic
impact study will be required. The study submitted should be an updated study, at a
minimum addressing the concerns discussed in this report.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,
Steven Schneider, P.E,
Principal
u
e � Qvfl En�:r� .Traffic-M�� �&mt Tnves..� .. _ S1w Scfincickx,P.E.
E"gfficering,PLLC Pe dpaJ
Steven Schneider, P.E.
Principal
As Principal of the firm, Mr. Schneider has 50 years of experience in the Civil Engineering field. Mr.
Schneider's experience and expertise includes all aspects of traffic engineering, traffic accident cases
(including reconstruction), intersection design, traffic signal design, roadway design and maintenance,
parking lot design, industry and local standard policies and procedures, condemnation cases, site
plan development, storm and sanitary sewer design, traffic impact studies, construction site safety
analysis, building inspection, regional planning, and general traffic and transportation engineering.
In the traffic engineering field Mr. Schneider has prepared Traffic Impact Studies, parking evaluations,
design and construction of roads, shopping centers, traffic signals, etc. This includes project
coordination, field inspection of on-site and off-site drainage and paving and parking lot design. He
has represented many municipalities throughout New York State including the Towns of Huntington,
Brookhaven, Islip, Southold, Oyster Bay, Hempstead and North Hempstead, and the Villages of
Patchogue, Great Neck, Valley Stream, East Hills and Lake Success.
Mr. Schneider's expert witness testimony on all zoning cases is widely known throughout the industry.
He has represented major national chains, municipalities (including Counties, Towns and Villages)
and a State Attorney General's Office. Schneider Engineering's state-of-the-art computer expertise is
used extensively in Mr. Schneider's testimony for presentation purposes. He is also a building
violations expert.
As a forensic traffic accident expert, he has provided technical analyses for accident reconstruction
including determination of vehicular speeds, skidding properties, hydroplaning, sight lines and
identification of deficiencies in geometrics, banking, drainage, signing, pavement markings, pavement
design and condition, edge drop-offs, traffic signals, guide rails and other safety devices. As a traffic
accident expert, he has represented the Towns of Brookhaven and Hempstead on Long Island and
many counties throughout New York State, including Erie County in Upstate New York. Half of his
cases have been representing plaintiffs. In addition, he has provided technical analysis for
construction site safety, concerning equipment and techniques, in addition to being an expert witness
on trip and falls.
Previously, Mr. Schneider was Director of Engineering for a Fortune 500 engineering firm where he
was responsible for senior management duties including surveying, site development, roadway
design, and traffic and transportation engineering.
During his career, Mr. Schneider has worked on behalf of a variety of public agencies including the
New York State Department of Transportation, the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, and the
Long Island Rail Road. His duties have included full project development and implementation,
securing public funds, presentations to public boards and community groups, and coordination with
other governmental agencies and jurisdictions.
43 Seacliff Avenue - Miller Place,New York 11764 - 631 698-6200
www.schneiderengineering.com New York • New Jersey • Florida
Mr. Schneider has represented many insurance companies including Aetna, Allstate, Cigna, Country-
Wide, GEICO, Guide One, Liberty Mutual, Metropolitan, Nationwide, Prudential, State Farm,
Travelers and Zurich.
In addition, he has also developed and taught courses for major universities in New York and New
Jersey on such topics as traffic and transportation engineering, engineering economics, mechanics
for engineers, and cost estimates for construction equipment. Mr. Schneider has also taught a
Professional Engineering License Review Course.
EDUCATION
1970 - B.S. Civil Engineering, Ohio State University
1974 - M.S. Transportation Planning and Engineering, Polytechnic University of New York
LICENSES
State of New York Professional Engineers License #51977
State of New Jersey Professional Engineers License #34249
State of Florida Professional Engineers License #46083
RECEIVED
Jurgen Riehle FEB 0 7 202
1200 Main Street
Greenport, NY 11944 Planning Board
Statement regarding the Site Plan Application by 160 Route 25
LLC/Paul Pawlowski
My name is Jurgen Riehle and I live at at the Northeast corner of Main
Street and Knapp Place in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
project.
Previous speakers have brought up numerous deficiencies in Mr.
Pawlowski's application. I will focus on two points:
1. Possible Presence of Hazardous Waste at the Site
Mr. Pawlowski's Environmental and Traffic Assessments rely heavily
on the DOT's Report on the planned roundabout adjacent to his
development.
However, his assessment does not address a key part of the DOT's
report. It is the part that deals with the possible presence of
Hazardous Waste on the parcel Mr. Pawlowski is planning to
develop.
The DOT conducted a screening that included Mr. Pawlowski's parcel
and found:
[quote:]
"An earthen berm comprised of unknown fill materials was identified
within the southeast portion of the proposed project site.
Additionally, concrete headwalls, electrical conduits, drainage pipes,
and utility lines were observed near the intersection. Utilities installed
prior to the 1980s have the potential for asbestos containing materials
(ACM) to be present."
The DOT recommends the following mitigations:
[quote:]
"As a mitigation measure, a Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials
Site Assessment is recommended [. . .] in order to assess potential
impacts to the project. If necessary, a remediation plan will need to be
developed after review of the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated
Materials Site Assessment."
I request that the DOT's findings and mitigations be included in any
Environmental Impact Study for Mr. Pawlowski's project..
2. oathoId Town Code P v no Defl i i n of "Medical
Offices"
r. Pawlowski describes his project as "medical offices".
However, Southold's code contains-no definition of what a medical
office is. Other town codes take pains to define the term and
disallow certain uses such as "medical laboratory" or "cosmetic
spa". (examples attached)
Would the Southold code allow a medical lab, a cosmetic spa, a
medical weed dispensary? Suitable definitions and restrictions should
be added to any permits this project might receive.
Mr. Pawlowski's own Traffic Impact Assessment draws significant
conclusions from the designation, "medical offices", and winds up
making statements that are unsupported by facts:
[quote from LKMA's traffic assessment:]
"Given that the medical offices generate the majority of trips, and
that their anticipated usage on a Saturday would be significantly
lower (...), a Saturday peak hour was not necessary to analyze."
The contention that "anticipated usage on a Saturday would be
significantly lower" is of course not a "given". Urgent Care
centers such as CityMD centers are certainly "medical offices". Most
are open 7 days a week, 8am to 8pm. A Saturday peak hour IS
necessary to analyze since, by the applicant's own assessment,
"the medical offices generate the majority of trips." Peak traffic
times at this intersection ARE on summer weekends. (Relevant
data are included in traffic engineer, Steven Schneider's, report.)
If conclusions rest on false assumptions, the conclusions are wrong.
The applicant's self-serving assertions — and their potential
consequences — underline the risks of allowing a developer to
apply his own interpretations of a poorly defined use.
I request that the Planning Board formulate a clear definition of
"medical offices" for this project. The Planning Board should also
require the applicant to conduct a traffic impact study specific to this
defined use and restrict the offices to this use in perpetuity.
,June 2022 Final DeligU ag2od EIN Q11,0491
encountered during project construction should be sampled and tested by a NYSDOL qualified
asbestos inspector.
4.4.19.3 Mitigation Summary,
Determination has not been made on the need for mitigation, if any it will be based on Asbestos
Screening Assessment.
4.4.20 Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials
4.4.20.1 Screening
A Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials (HWIGM) Screening was conducted for each project site
and vicinity. This screening involved site walkovers of each of the project sites and a review of available
records to provide information concerning historical ownership and use of the sites as well as local, state,
and federal record sources. The historical records reviewed included aerial photographs, Sanborn fire
insurance maps, local property tax files and land use records to help Identify potential environmental
concerns. The government record sources reviewed relate to the presence or occurrence of facilities or
spills involving solid or hazardous waste and petroleum products within each of the current project
corridors as well as in the general vicinity of each of the current project corridors. An environmental
database service company, Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), was contracted to provide an
environmental database search report for the review of government record sources as well as historical
aerial photographs and Sanborn fire insurance maps (i.e., mapping produced for commercial, industrial,
and residential properties that would have been underwritten by insurance companies) for each project
site and vicinity. For purposes of these screenings the project sites which consisted of the following
intersections and approaches; NYS Route 25 (Middle Country Road) at Edwards Avenue located in the
Hamlet of Calverton', NYS Route 114 (Sag Harbor East Hampton Turnpike) at Stephen Hands Path
located the Town of East Hampton, NY; NYS Route 25 (Main Street) at County Road 48 (North Road)
and Sound Road located in the Town of Southhold, NY; and NYS Route 114(Sag Harbor East Hampton
Turnpike)at Goodfriend Drive located in the Town of East Hampton, NY;were evaluated separately.
The database search report ordered from EDR provides a comprehensive review of Federal, State and
locally listed data on sites of potential concern within the project vicinity.This data search was performed
in general accordance with ASTM E-1527-13 standards. The use of the EDR resource allows for a
comprehensive listing of sites of potential concern. Searched federal government records included:
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), National Priority List (NPL), Comprehensive
Environmental Response and Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), USEPA
Resource Conservation and Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) list of hazardous waste
generators. Searched state and other government records included New York State Department of i
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) inactive hazardous waste sites, New York State Solid Waste
Facilities/Landfill (SWF/LF) sites and state registered recycling facilities (SWRCY), Petroleum Bulk
Storage database (PBS), Chemical Bulk Storage database (CBS), Major Oil Storage Facility database
MOSF ,and New York Spills information (Spills). These databases identify known or suspected inactive
( ) P� . f P )• �Y P
and other hazardous waste sites; registered petroleum and chemical bulk storage tank sites; reported
spills,including leaking underground storage tanks; hazardous waste generators; and treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities.Additionally, local records reviewed on the Suffolk County GIS website Included tax
parcel information regarding current land use in the vicinity of each project site.
A review of standard local, state and federal record sources relating to the presence or occurrence of
facilities or spill sites involving solid and/or hazardous wastes and petroleum products indicated that a
minimum number of sites occur within the general vicinity of each project site. Most of these sites are not
expected to have environmental impacts on the project sites based upon the current remedial status,
separation distance and/or hydrogeological position relative to the sites. The full Hazardous
Waste/Contaminated Materials Screening Reports are available upon request. Sites with the potential to
have environmental impacts on the project sites are described below in the following subsections.
®24
- .
01.
Thie HWICM Screening trutrdd a walkover of theproject site and vicinky wwtwiu*b was conducted
on November 12,20201,An.earthen berm comprised ofunknown 01 materials was identifted within
the southeast portion the proposed pro u t t .
wdditi nat x concrete iw r dww i , electtical condufts, drainage poes,, and ut0by three were
observed raver the Intersection.,tirn., Utilities instaOed prior to the 1980s have the otent l fw asbestos
containing materials(ACM)to be present.
Based on 'the findings of the 1..iazardous 'Waste/Containiinated Matefials screening, the foilowing r enis of
environmental ental rr "cttw were id rmtrtr d8 and stoutd. blue further investigated to better understand their
potential effects as related to the project,
1. NYS.Route 25 at Edwards Avenue.,
UEC SpM No, 9909339, Wealit"aed In the FDR report at
kxa,tion approximately 140-feet southwest of the project site s id'errtitled as a site
where ftee trailer loads of contaminated scarf were dumped, A Freadom of InIbiv ti n
Letter request. was sent t SDE1C on the specifics of fts splill site; turwewrerr the
information provided by NYSDEC did not coMain any new information,on this Matti. twee
to the prrw irruitttr to the project site, ttwie ske may pose environmental ooncems for the
project.
2. NYS Route 114 at Ste0en t•tands Path,.,
No situ specift concems were identified through the site reconnaissance,, FOR review„ or
historical records review.
3- NYS Route 114 at Good'ftiend Drive,
,o site-specific concerns r identified through site reconnaissame, EDR review,
taistoricat records review.
,. tN I rt The southeast prairtion r ttwe proposed pr t site has an earthen berrn
Bch will likely have to It ;excavated andfor removed under the proposed enhancements
for this intersection. The ri in of these teri i risirwp thils berm is unknown,
Indicating that potentlaily contaminatedfil materials do exist fit'huts site.
b. , ` �.rpp p" IMlet lid p pip`. - Three s ii tanks d era rt house were depicted
on the adjoining property to the northwest on the 11928 and '1940 Sanborn reaps.
Rernoval documentation for these tanks was not identified. The Bureau County Health
Department was contacted on December 16, 2020 and a FOIL roquest was submitted 5
ber, 2t 2,020 to deterrrwine I there is removal documentation file for these threei
gasoline tans„ To date a response has,not been received tr ern this office. Based the
absence of removal documentation, kt is possible that this sito ffmy have had
environmental impacts ctts the project site. There is the potentW encounter subsurface
contamination w the vicinity this site during excavation activities,
I
Jgng,M— 2 PIN .28-102-91
4.4.20.4 Mitigation Summary
Two of the project sites (Le�, NYS Route 25 and Edwards Avenue and NYS Route 25 at County Road
48) with the potential to contain hazardous wastakontaminaled materhOs in the subsurface, wero
i'denitified as a result of the liazw,dous Wasle/Ccx4arninated Materials. Site Screening, As a mifigalion
measure, a Hazardous Waste/Conlaminated IMaterials Site Assessment is recommended at these two
sit as,in order to assess potential Impacts to the project. If necessa;y,a remediation plan will need to be
developed after review of the Hazardous Wasle/Contam nated Materials Site Assessment.
As an altemative, to pre-construction Hazardous Wasle/Contaminated Materials Site Assessments, ft
potential 'to encounter subsurface contamination at these, two sites could be identffied in the Contract
Documents for project construction.. This would include a summary in the General Notes of the project
plans tMt Indicates the potential to encounter subsurface contamination at these sites as well as
Including a depiction, on the plans the areas at these sites where suspected hazardous
waste/contaminated materials could be encountered, During r4nstruction, should signs of contamination
be encountered soil and fill materiaLs excavated IrDrn these two project sites it may need to be segregated
Into appropriate waste streams, chemically analyzed to facilitate disposal profiling, and disposed of site in accordance with appNicable regulaWns,
4.5 Construction Effects
4.5.1 Construction knpacts
There will be no Impacts due to the construction work on this project, on any of the ablove socW,
economic or environmental conditions-
4.5.2 Mitigation Measums
No mitigation will he nieeded,
From: Jurgen Riehle N �
Subject: "Medical Office"zo ng °
Date: Feb u r C7 3 at 10:29 CAM
To:
Medical Service—Doctor Office. A facility other than a hospital where medical,
dental, mental health, surgical, and/or other personal health care services are
provided on an outpatient basis, by primary practitioners and/or medical specialists
by appointment (for example, chiropractors, dentists, medical doctors, optometrists,
prescription opticians, psychiatrists, etc.). May include a lab, radiology, pharmacy,
rehabilitation, and other similar services as accessory uses. Counseling services by
other than medical doctors or psychiatrists are included under "Offices—
Professional."
20-70.020 Definitions of specialized
terms and phrases.
library.gcode.us Gi
MEDICAL OFFICE: Any facility providing health service and/or medical, surgical, or
dental care. "Medical office" shall include, but not be limited to, a health center, health
clinic, doctor's office, chiropractor's office, dentist's office, or any office offering
therapeutic service or care. "Medical office" shall not include a "medical laboratory" as
defined in this section or a "cosmetic spa" permitted pursuant to section 10-3-1620.2 of this
chapter and as defined in this section.
Ameri I can Legal
Publishing
ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS
codeiibrary.am legal.corn
My name is Carol Lindley and I live at 512 Sterling Place, about
a block from the proposed development. I am a member of the
Greenport North Neighborhood Association, which consists of
44 homeowners and their families, in the immediate
neighborhood of the 160 Route 25 property. Many of our
members are here today — and others have provided
statements that I will read into the record at the conclusion of
my remarks.
A lot has transpired over the past 5 months since the ZBA's
public hearing on September 1. And today, the first
opportunity we've had to address the Planning Board, we're
faced with the challenge of addressing our concerns on 2 fronts
— the original site plan application and the proposed mitigation
vlp
plan. IVED
"7 2023
�_h"oimr6wn
Planning Board
The traffic report that we commissioned and presented today
completely discredits the traffic impact assessment that was
submitted as part of the mitigation plan and clearly describes
why a new traffic-count-based study must be done during peak
summer months prior to granting approval of this project in
any form — original, mitigated or mitigated further. We
believe that the only course of action that the Planning Board
can take is to return to the determination that traffic is a
moderate to severe impact and declare a positive declaration.
Moving to the draft Conditioned Negative Declaration, the
mitigation plan does not satisfy our concerns about the square
footage of the offices (approximately 15,0000 sf), the number
of apartments (30) and the number of parking spaces (90). We
would like to see additional mitigation that addresses the
overall density of the project. In addition, we would like to see
the size the apartments increased to make them family-
friendly, not just transient, workforce dormitories.
In addition, we will want to include covenants and restrictions
across a wide range of issues, including, but not limited to:
0 Keeping our neighborhoods free of construction vehicles
N Defining the permissible use of the commercial space,
present and future
Defining the permissible use of the apartments, present
and future, including keeping them affordable in
perpetuity
0 Structuring the process for setting income levels with
appropriate rental rates and determining the eligibility of
candidates
0 Implementing changes in traffic movement on local roads
to minimize the spill-over of traffic into our neighborhoods
As I understand it, today's hearing will likely be our last chance
to communicate directly with the Board other than submitting
written comments, a process that will close on March 6. At
that point the Planning Department and the Board will compile
and review all input, and a final decision to move forward,
either with the Conditioned Negative Declaration or with a
positive declaration, could possibly happen as early as the
Board's April work session.
At the conclusion of tonight's public comments, we would
greatly appreciate it if the Board could clarify what the next
steps will be and how we can continue to participate in the
review process.
As I mentioned, I now have several statements to read into the
record.
I am the owner of two properties within 150 yards of the proposed
development at the intersection of the North Road and Main Street, 1115
and 1117 Main Street. Both of these rental properties are affordable
housing. I am strongly opposed to the proposed project for the following
reasons:
- I believe the increase in traffic that will result from the development will
create an intolerable situation at a road juncture that is already
overburdened. I do not think the traffic analysis presented at the last
planning session on this property is credible. I am convinced that an
independent traffic study by a reputable firm in needed before any decision
to proceed is made.
-The property across the street from the proposed project is extensive
wetland which extends to the property behind both of my houses. It is
teeming with wildlife. I believe the paving and construction on the site will
cause increased water runoff that will negatively affect both of my
properties as well as be harmful to the wildlife in the area. A thorough
environmental assessment of these matters by an independent party is
required prior to approval.
-The intensity of development on the site will negatively affect the quality of
life of any tenants on my properties through increased traffic and noise.
- There does not appear to be identified demand for additional medical
offices in the community.
Jonathan Sperling
503 Main St.
Greenport, NY 11944"
We are opposed to the proposed project for multiple reasons:
1) The developer has a history of flipping development properties (123 Sterling)
instead of creating a mix of viable, affordable housing and market rate
apartments as promised.
2) At this time there are no restrictions for future uses of the property (e.g., high
impact services/business could be placed in the development that would not
maintain the viability and perpetuity of the affordable housing apartments that
are currently the stated plan and stated reason for town approvals). Basically,
Pawlowski could again build/flip the property to his own advantage instead of
community needs or desires.
3) Traffic considerations (see the traffic consultant report submitted by our
group).
4) Affordable housing is needed and should be planned so they are actually
affordable and have living spaces that are in line with Southold township
regulations (not variances to smaller apartment sizes). Random developer driven
solutions, conceived for profit - are not the solution to the workforce/affordable
housing needs and in this case seems more like a loss leader for the commercial
opportunity.
Steven & Carolyn Greer
16 Sound Road
Greenport, NY
As a resident on Bailey Avenue, and I am concerned about the increase of traffic using Bailey as
a cut through to avoid the blinking light (or the future proposed roundabout). It is already used
as such without the added traffic from a mixed-use medical building. (Which we don't need)
The corner is a gateway to Greenport and needs to be protected as such. As we know,tourism
contributes greatly to the small businesses in Greenport, and tourists come to feel the nostalgia
and experience a quaint maritime village, not to be reminded of their podiatrist appointment
with a medical building greeting them.
Additionally, I do agree that affordable housing is needed on the East End and most people
have a knee-jerk positive reaction to hearing affordable housing will be offered. However, the
current project is offering, according to site plans, units that are less than 450 square feet.This
is student dorm size. Not much bigger than an old New York City tenement. It's not family-
friendly and too small for a couple.
I believe further study is warranted as well as revisions to the concept of the proposed building.
Cheryl Horsfall
Bailey Avenue, Greenport
ndle @outlook.com
From: recorwin <recorwin@optimum.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 10:33 AM
i'o: Carol Lindley; anthoulakats@gmail.com; brian@matchbookny.com;
c.marker@verizon.net; Carole and Richard Mavity; Carolyn and Steve Greer; Cathleen
Marshall; cgalowitz@nyc.rr.com; choffmann4@gmail.com; chorsfall@mac.com; chris
mcglinchey; chrislarkin55@gmail.com; cynthia ickes; Dave Mendelsohn; dberson1
@yahoo.com; Deb Cutler and Ray Norton;debra.silber@verizon.net;
etalerman@gmail.com; Greg Humphreys (humphreys.greg@gmail.com);
heath @chalk242.com; Heidi and Scott Vayer; helena.ludrosky@gmail.com;Jackie
Wolfson;Jde@spartacycling.com;Jim Nenopoulos;joankrt@hotmail.com;
joannegreenbaum@me.com;jtvoice@mac.com;Jurgen@rdany.com; kathleenbb2
@aol.com; khyber95@aol.com; Kirsten Droskowski; Kristie.lutz@gmail.com; Laura Raps;
leslie@matchbookny.com; leustice@mzwallace.com; lorihollander1 @gmail.com;
maltesep@optonline.net; margot@rdany.com; Mary Gabriel and Adrian Greenberg;
mbenn47939@aol.com; mrdecruz@gmail.com; Paula Muth;
paulmichaelhenry@hotmail.com; petrina@petrina.tv; Pi.waller@me.com; Rena and Barry
Wiseman; roryklinge@gmail.com; Rubina Costabile (rmc_77@hotmail.com);
salsearby@gmail.com; sarahmai@chalk242.com; scopes31 @optonline.net;
scotmcintire@earthlink.net; sduvworsham@gmail.com; skustera@gmail.com; Sue
Kreiling; susan@pinkwatergroup.net;tgratt10@yahoo.com;
thomas.halaczinsky@gmail.com;Tom Padden
Subject: RE: Important Planning Board public hearing -- Monday, February 6, 6:00 pm at Town
Hall, Southold
I'm sorry I cannot make the meeting on Monday. One of my biggest concerns is the added stress on an already taxed
F?re Department/EMS. If one of the buildings house a walk in clinic, the emergency call volume is going to rise. Look at
what CityMD is doing to the Cutchogue Fire Department.Volunteerism is down with the influx of 2nd and 3rd
homeowners, and this complex is not going to help our Emergency Services with added call volume.
136b Corwin Esq.
-------- Original message--------
From: Carol Lindley<cmlindley@outlook.com>
Date: 1/31/23 09:42 (GMT-05:00)
To: anthoulakats@gmail.com, brian@matchbookny.com, c.marker@verizon.net, Carole and Richard Mavity
<rmavity@earthlink.net>, Carolyn and Steve Greer<cgreer3339@gmail.com>, Cathleen Marshall
<cathleenmarshall@gmail.com>, cgalowitz@nyc.rr.com, choffmann4@gmail.com, chorsfall@mac.com, chris mcglinchey
<cwmcglinchey@gmail.com>, chrislarkin55@gmail.com, cynthia ickes<cynthiaickes@gmail.com>, Dave Mendelsohn
<davemendelsohn@yahoo.com>, dbersonl@yahoo.com, Deb Cutler and Ray Norton <rnorton90l@hotmail.com>,
debra.silber@verizon.net, etalerman@gmail.com, "Greg Humphreys (humphreys.greg@gmail.com)"
<humphreys.greg@gmail.com>, heath@chalk242.com, Heidi and Scott Vayer<hvayer@yadway.com>,
helena.ludrosky@gmail.com,Jackie Wolfson <jwolfson@optonline.net>,Jde@spartacycling.com,Jim Nenopoulos
<jnenopoulos@gmail.com>,joankrt@hotmail.com,joannegreenbaum@me.com,jtvoice@mac.com,jurgen@rdany.com,
kathleenbb2@aol.com, khyber95@aol.com, Kirsten Droskowski<droskdk@aol.com>, Kristie.lutz@gmail.com, Laura
Raps<Iaurar50@mac.com>, leslie@matchbookny.com, leustice@mzwallace.com, lorihollanderl@gmail.com,
maltesep@optonline.net, margot@rdany.com, Mary Gabriel and Adrian Greenberg<agreenberg825@optonline.net>,
t
.... ........ ...
Victorian Bay LLC-
PO Box 413
East Marion NY 11939
1.215 Main Street
Greenport NY 1,1944
February 6, 2023
Town of Southold Planning Board
Donald Wilcenski, Chairperson
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Letter of Protest to Southold Planning Board
160 Route 25, LLC
160 Route 25 Greenport, NY 11944
SCTM# 1000-034-.00-02.00-001-000
Dear Chairperson;
As owner of the western property directly across the I street on Main Street, please accept this letter in
response to notice to construct apartments over businesses and professional offices request by 160
Route 25 LLC. This letter is a letter of protest and application should be denied. As I understand that
the Current zoning is RO ( Residential Office)AND R40 ( One Family on One Acre). Therefore must be
first a one family on one acre and secondary a residential office option.
The proposed far exceeds and is not in harmony with the zoning or the neighborhood.
As this is a 4.69 parcel, there should be no more than 4 homes not exceeding 5,100 square feet each.'
If one or any of the homes are sold to a professional, then at that time, that homeowner should be
all6wed to use the home as a Residential Office. RO is not often used in Southold and all the RO zoned
properties are homes used as a home office. I highly doubt that any of these zoned parcels started out
as RO but instead as R40 with special permission to also be a home office.
The key to this denial is that the residential office is actually maintained and used by the resident and not
a tenant or unrelated residential end user. Residential Office is directly hinged on being a one family
home on one acre R40.
Sadly, although the application is proposing 30 affordable housing apartments as encouraged by Chapter
7 Economic Development to "reverse 'brain drain'and retain'of recent collage graduates and young
professional to the Town's diverse workforod' also so provide affordable senior and local,worker
housing, This is a romantic notion as•Fair Housing Laws will be outright violated thus impossible to
implement. Additionally, all new housing must be open to everyone and not limited to the Town of
Southold current residents.
The proposed Medical Offices and Residences would not preserve the existing visual character of the
Town or Village. The proposed would bean overbearing complex that would"create higher incidences of
accidents in an already troublesome intersection.
This development is very dense for the land and we protest any and all apartments at this location.
There was no Health Department Approvals and we also protest to this complex tying into the Village of
Green port sewer system. It will become a burden.
We respectfully ask the Board to review all information carefully but be sure to preserve the safety of our
pedestrians, drivers and wet lands surrounding the nearby homes.
This project is not in harmony with the intent of the code, zoning or the community.
We disagree on the impacts and disagree that it is not consistent with community and comprehensive
plans. It will be an eyesore at the entrance to Greenport and infringement on our quality of life and
negatively impact our property and be a huge burden on our community.
Respectfully,
Victorian Bay LLC
Statement from Carol Marker
526 Bailey Avenue
Greenport, NY 11944
I am sorry I cannot attend the meeting tonight, but I am away on a long-
planned vacation. I have owned my house on Bailey Avenue since 1991 and
believe the proposal for the corner of Main Street and the North Road is
unacceptable.
The most troubling part of the proposal before the board for me is the issue
of traffic. If cars exiting onto the North Road will not be able to turn left to go
west, and cars exiting onto Main Street will not be able to turn left, the only way to
get into Greenport or to the South Road (Route 25) will be by driving past my
home. As a result, many of the cars exiting the parking lot of this proposed
development will be driving on Bailey Avenue, Knapp Place and Champlain
Avenue. Every resident of the apartments will need to drive past our homes to go
to town, to the post office, to go grocery shopping, to take their kids to school, etc.
That just makes no sense.
At the last meeting I attended, it was said that everyone would exit onto
Main Street and go around the future traffic circle, which will take them back to
Main Street heading south. That is not a reasonable expectation. What is more
likely to happen will be a back up of cars on Main Street, which will cause a jam
exiting the parking lot onto Main Street, so people will go out the North Road exit,
turn right, then turn right onto Bailey Avenue, drive past my house and continue
South. There might as well be no other exit except one past my house. I will not
be able to back out of my driveway safely. There will be a lot of noise and
pollution. The average doctor probably sees a patient every 10 or 15 minutes.
When you multiply that number, four per hour, by the number of planned medical
offices, not to mention the residents who will need to take their kids to school or go
to the supermarket, it is just too many cars.
Please require the developer to have a complete environmental impact
assessment done. His proposal is not an accurate assessment of the traffic, not any
time of year, but most particularly in the summer, when it is impossible to get onto
the North Road or Main Street without a long wait.
Sincerely,
Carol Marker
North Fork Environmental Council
12700 Main Road
PO Box 799
North Fork Mattituck, NY 11952
Environmental It .
Council
n it Phone: 631.298.8880
`•-�' Fax: 631.298.4649
mom Web: www.NF
ECI.org EC1.org
February 3, 2023 RECEIVED
Chairman Donald Wilcenski & FEB 6 N
23,
Members of the Southold Town Planning Board I_ S-Quthcld Tovvrimmm
Town of Southold Planning Board
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Residences (SCTM# 1000-34-2-1)
The North Fork Environmental Council previously submitted comments regarding the Greenport Medical
Offices and Residences site plan application in our letter of May 17, 2022 requesting an in-depth review in the
form of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS) pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality
Review Act (SEQRA).
We appreciate the fact that the Planning Board has requested, and the applicant has submitted, plans that
appear to mitigate some of the impacts of this development. We believe, however,that the full permanent
environmental impacts of this proposal on traffic, density and the two scenic viewsheds in comparison with
the original proposal cannot be sufficiently evaluated without a DEIS and full SEQRA review.
We still believe it would be in the best interests of the town if the Planning Board issued a Positive Declaration
under SEQRA which will examine the critical issues we have mentioned as well as others that continue to be
raised by the community.
For example, community character was noted as of utmost importance in the adopted Comprehensive Plan ,
and one key aspect of that is our scenic viewsheds. Once this development appears within the two scenic
byways in Greenport they will be forever altered.
In addition, while it is true that Southold Town is in dire need of affordable housing, we believe affordable
proposals should have covenants that guarantee affordability in perpetuity, which is not reflected in the
current mitigation proposal.
Thank
you, n
ITT
Mark Haubner
President NFEC
The NFEC is a 501(c)(3)non-profit organization which works to increase public awareness of key issues,educate the
public and public officials about important environmental and quality of life issues,and works to make sure that the
public's voice is heard as we try to protect and preserve the land,waters,air,wildlife and way of life on the North Fork.
Greenport North Neighborhood Association
c/o 512 Stirling Place
Greenport, NY 11944
February 3, 2023
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson, Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Donald Wilcenski, Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board
Heather Lanza, Director, Southold Town Planning Department F 03 0 6 2
Town of Southoldo , ilown
P.O. Box 1179 Planning Board
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Apartments (SCTM# 1000-34-2-1)
Dear Ms. Weisman, Mr. Wilcenski and Ms. Lanza,
On behalf of the members of the Greenport North Neighborhood Association, I am writing to
express our concerns and questions regarding several inconsistencies in the Residential Office
District zoning code that governs the 160 Route 25 parcel. We are sending this input to you
now as it's not especially public hearing-friendly material given the level of detail, although we
intend to reference these inconsistencies in our remarks on Monday.
3,000 s.f. limitation for offices
As the 4/22/22 letter from the Group for the East End to the Planning Board previously pointed
out, section 280-38A(g) of the code specifies a maximum of 3,000 square feet for offices:
"Small business offices such as insurance agencies, real estate agencies, computer software
services, financial planning securities brokers and like-kind small business establishments
excluding retail sales of any kind or nature and limited to overall floor space of 3,000 square
feet."
The intent is clearly to limit the total square footage for offices in one building, not to impose a
maximum size per office, which would allow a potentially unlimited building size. Each building
in the applicant's original site plan shows an office square footage of 4,847. It's not clear in the
mitigation plan what the revised square footage of the office space will be, but certainly it will
not conform with the 3,000 s.f. limitation. We would greatly appreciate an explanation of why
this limitation has, so far, been overlooked.
Definition of a medical office
Currently there is a very basic definition in the General Provisions section of the code for a
Professional Office: "The office of a member of a recognized profession or occupation,
including architects, artists, authors, dentists, doctors, lawyers, ministers, optometrists,
engineers and such other similar professions or occupations ..." However, there is a fairly large
range of medical-related practices involving doctors resulting in a correspondent wide range of
operational impacts, particularly on traffic and noise, such as hours of operation, number of
doctors and other employees staffing the office, volume of patients served, waste products
generated and so on. Would the code allow a medical lab, dermatological/cosmetic spa or a
medical marijuana dispensary? Without clear definitions of permissible uses, a CityMD walk-in
clinic could lease an office, resulting in a virtual 24/7 operation.
Inconsistency in the RO code regarding uidance for the ZBA
The section of the code that has been referenced by the ZBA as the guiding language for its
consideration of a Special Exception for the affordable apartments is section 280-45C(2).
However, that piece of the code is not referenced in the RO code (it references section 280-
45b(4)(a)through (f) which refers to a completely unrelated use—"fraternal or social
institutional office or meeting halls"). Although it may seem obvious that an error was made in
drafting the RO code, how can it be assumed that the intention was to cite 280-45(c)2? Doesn't
there need to be an amendment of the code to allow the Special Exception review to proceed?
We look forward to the opportunity to speak on these issues, and many others, at Monday's
Planning Board public meeting.
Best regards,
Carol M. Lindley
ANN10k4
ro u P FOR November 18, 2022
F
Donald Wilcenski, Chairman
East End Planning Board, Town of Southold
54375 Main Road
0..�...... ......... ,, P.O. Box 1179
Southold,New York, 11971
Robert S.DeLuca
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Residences
PRE°"00 160 Route 25, Greenport
BOARD OF MRIECT:aRS SCTM#1000-34-2-1
Katherine Leahy Bkc.h
(.;HAW
Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board,
William Ryall
VICE CHAIR Group for the East End has been engaged in the review of this proposal since its
Susan AL)dalla inception. We previously submitted a letter to the Planning Board(received April
Lou Laavouaelua 26th, 2022) and oral and written testimony to the Zoning Board of Appeals
W.Marco Birch (September 1st, 2022)regarding this proposal. Both are attached. Despite the
Kristen Briner changes made by the applicant, we continue to assert the need for this project to
Graciela Dauhairu receive a positive declaration pursuant to The State Environmental Quality
Andrew Goldstein Review Act(SEQRA).
Stuart Goode
Nestor Gourraris In addition to our previous comments, SEQRA creates clarity and
Sanc.im R.Meyer transparency surrounding the details of a project throughout the entire review
John .Shea process. This proposal has not maintained a consistent name, scale, density, visual
Kimberly Snijih Space=k � appearance, landscape plan, and more. SEQRA provides an opportunity for the
Mary Walke:° applicant to create a clear vision of their project and a thorough comparative
Donna VVira""t`.a"' assessment of this proposal and potential alternatives. It is imperative to maintain
clarity and transparency regarding the specifics of this proposal, so all
RO, Box 1792 stakeholders reviewing it can clearly understand what the project will entail.
Saulhold,NY 11971
P.O. a We recognize the effort by the applicant to mitigate potential significant impacts
Erid <alaamlatc ra, NY 11932of the proposed development; however, the value of these mitigation measures
631765,6450 � cannot be appropriately valued without a comprehensive environmental review of
GeoupfortheEastEnd,r„aey the applicant's current proposal compared to their previous submission. Although
we appreciate the applicant's desire to mitigate the potential impacts, the value of
such mitigation is not clear absent the information provided through a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement.
Due to the size, scale, visibility,potential environmental impacts, and
affordability aspect of this project, we encourage the Planning Board to adopt a
positive declaration pursuant to SEQRA.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Marina C. DeLuca
Environmental Associate
Testimony of
Marina C. DeLuca, Environmental Associate
Group for the East End
Before
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Regarding
Special Exception Permit and Comments
for
"Greenport Medical Offices and Residences OR 160 Route 25 LLC"
September 1,2022
Good afternoon chairwoman Weisman, and members of the zoning and planning boards. My
name is Marina DeLuca, I am an environmental associate with Group for the East End and a full-
time resident of East Marion. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this proposal.
For the record: Group for the East End is a professional conservation, advocacy and education
organization founded in 1972.
I would like to begin by stating that The Group is aware that there is a need for workforce
housing in Southold. I am a starting professional—and I know firsthand the challenge of trying
to find suitable, affordable housing. I have been privileged enough that my parents will still have
me but I would like to move out to start my life.
However, if you try to develop yourself out of the problem it is only a matter of time before
Southold looks more like Riverhead, Riverhead more like Western Suffolk and the cycle
continues—and oftentimes the crisis remains the same. More development and more building
cannot be the only way in which we address OUR local housing challenges.
Beyond that, any project that offers SOME affordable units should not be exempt from a
thorough and substantive review process. Short-term, narrowly focused decision-making
continually leaves the general public bearing the costs or unintended consequences.
The State Environmental Quality Review Act, or SEQRA, states that if an action may include the
potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact then an Environmental Impact
Statement must be prepared.
Based on our review of this proposal we believe this project is:
• significantly unaligned with the parcels RO zoning,
• will negatively impact traffic,
• will negatively impact the viewshed along two state designated scenic byways due to
insufficient buffering,
• will negatively affect surrounding wetlands and groundwater specifically through excess
nitrogen loading given the project's density.
Due to these potential implications, this project is a prime candidate for a full SEQRA review.
There is no reason that a project of this size, scale, visibility, and complexity should be exempt
from conducting a complete environmental impact statement.
Right now, this project does not even have a consistent name between the boards reviewing it. At
least SEQRA would provide a consistent name.
SEQRA allows the developer to put their best foot forward, it provides the public with clarity
about what a project actually is, offers the chance to determine all the potential impacts of a
project and looks for ways to mitigate or adjust based on these impacts. It just makes sense.
We believe this project requires a full environmental review under SEQRA, and the planning
board should issue a positive declaration.
In addition to the need for a positive declaration, we believe that this project should not receive a
special exception permit in its current form.
The current zoning of RO on the parcel where this project is proposed clearly states that the
purpose of this zone is to create "well-planned, environmentally sensitive, balanced
development", we do not feel the project embodies this standard.
While apartments over buildings are permitted in the RO zone, the code states that no more than
6 apartment units are permitted— and while this aspect of the code pertains to the conversion of
pre-existing buildings, it is clear that 40 units is drastically out of line with the intention for the
density this zone.
In addition, it is clearly stated that, "The apartment use may not be changed to another permitted
use for a minimum period of eight years from the time the use receives a certificate of
occupancy." There is nothing to stop the developer from changing the use from affordable units
to something else in 8 years. They should not receive any approvals until the question of"will
these apartments be affordable in perpetuity?" is determined and finalized.
This project strays significantly from the intention and requirements of the RO zoning. Based on
the information available we do not believe that this proposal can meet the criteria for a special
exception permit in this zone.
Conducting a full environmental review of this project will provide a detailed and transparent
review of this proposal. This level of assessment can help the public and the Town's land use
boards determine this proposal's compliance with the current code requirements. As well as
understand the project's overall impact on the surrounding environment.
In closing, we ask that the zoning board in its referral of comments to the planning board,request
that a positive declaration be issued and a draft environmental impact statement is required.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration of these comments.
Marina C. DeLuca
Environmental Associate
Group for the East End
P.O. Box 1792
Southold NY, 11971
AnWt
F{)�R Aoh122. 2022
Chairman Donald VW|cenaki &
East
End
��ernbenaofthe@outho|d7l>vvnP|onningBoard
Town ofSouthold
RC). Box 117S
Southold, NY11971
Re: Gmaemport Medical Off ices and Residences (SCl[MN# 100Q-04-2-1)
Robert S
Dn behalf of <�roup for the East End, please accept the fo||ovvingcomments and
S.DeLuca pxss|uewr recommendations regarding the Greenport Medical Offices and Residences site
plan application. file,
BOARD orDIRECTORS warrants a more in-depth review in the form of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review
Katherine Leahy Birch Act (SEQRL\). Therefore, we would support the Town Planning Board's issuance
cnmR of a Positive Declaration to ensure that the promect is given an appropriate review
vviUmmKy"U that provides for an opportunity to address potential impacts and discuss
VICE CHAIR possible mitigation measures and alternatives in a transparent and comprehensive
Danner.
SvuonA6Jo||o
Lov8evi|mcqvo In Support of a DEIS:
W.Marco Birch The subject application not only requires site p|@D [8vi8vv by the TbvvO`S P|3ODinQ
Kristen 8rive, Board but also n*quioua a8peoia| Exception permit from the Zoning Board of
Gnzcie|" Dov6oire Appeals in addition to permission from the Village of Greenport for proposed
Andrew Goldstein wastewater treatment. A OE|8 is the most p[@CtiC8], transparent, and
comprehensive manner tO review the subject application. |D our view, the
Stuart Go
ode oo e fOUUvviDg' have the potential to create moderate to large 8nvi[0D08Dt8| impacts:
N*mo'6"v»o'i» traffic, conformance t0 the zoning code, wastewater management, density,
5on6,v R.Maya' affordability, and the transformation of highly visible, undeveloped p8nC8|
John F.3h*u |0C8t8d 81 the corner oftwo "scenic byways."
Kimberly Smith 3ppcek
Mary Walker Traffic:
Donna Winston The subject application represents a significant transformation of a highly visible,
undeveloped parcel, located at, "the confluence of New York State Route 25A and
County Road 48" both designated scenic byways. |tia essential to note that the
PO,8o« 1792
New York State Department of Transportation has begun its review of a proposed
5ov/6o|6 NY' roundabout to mitigate the already identified traffic issues at this corner.
PD. Box 5d9 Additionally, traffic on these roads has undoubtedly increased due to a variety of
8riJSohomp/^n' MYll932 factors including, seasonal influx, increases in year-round residents due to the
03l7h5 ��ovidpandennio and the popularity of nearby farms, vineyards and other tourists
� �b45O �G'ovp6`r/heEus/En6.o'S � attractions..
A DEIS should include a traffic study to examine current traffic conditions,
accident reports in the near vicinity and importantly how this large-scale proposal
has the potential to impact this intersection. This recommendation isalso
supported bv the Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan,
Objective 2.2 - Require multimodal traffic and transportation studies of large developments.
By requiring applicants to conduct multimodal transportation studies for large commercial
developments, the Town can leverage the results to require traffic-calming, pedestrian safety,
sidewalks, access management, and traditional traffic improvements from the applicants (p.128).
Conformance with Zoning Code's Residential Office (RO) Designation:
We question the proposal's conformance with Town Code 280-37 Purpose, as well as Town Code
Section 280-38 A (3)(g). A DEIS should include an explanation of how the project is in conformance
with these two sections given what's proposed.
For instance, Section 280-37 Purpose, states,
The purpose of the Residential Office (RO) District is to provide a transition area
between business areas and low-density residential development along major roads
which will provide opportunity for limited nonresidential uses in essentially residential
areas while strongly encouraging the adaptive reuse of existing older residences, to
preserve the existing visual character of the Town and to achieve the goals of well-
planned, environmentally sensitive, balanced development, which the Town has
determined to be desirable.
Clearly, the RO code envisions "limited" nonresidential uses in "essentially residential area,"
while strongly favoring the re-use of older residences. How will this proposal, comprising a
brand-new, campus-style commercial development with over 20,000 sq. ft. of proposed
business uses and including 40 new residential units on less than five acres comply with the
RO zoning use code?
Additionally, Section 280-38 A. (3)(g) states the following,
Small business offices such as insurance agencies, real estate agencies, computer
software services, financial planning securities brokers and like-kind small business
establishments excluding retail sales of any kind or nature and limited to overall floor
space of 3,000 square feet.
How does the application conform to this section of the RO code while over 20,000 sq. ft. of overall
floor space is proposed? Each building contains roughly 4,500 square feet of "medical" space with a
common doorway and entryway, therefore, exceeding the "overall" floor space of 3,000 sq.ft.
requirement within the code.
Wastewater Management:
At this writing, the project intends to hook up to the Greenport Sewer District for wastewater
management. The project site is NOT located within the sewer district boundaries and requires
approval for this proposal. In the event that the proposed hook-up is not possible or denied, it is
imperative to understand how the proposed development may impact ground and surface waters,
particularly by contributing to excess nitrogen loading given the project's proposed density. This
information is not included in the project's application materials. The Environmental Assessment Form
and site plan (dated 3/2/22) indicate that the proposed uses will generate 7,384 gallons per day of
wastewater. The application material does not include the site's wastewater flow limits per the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services.
The DEIS should provide a comparative wastewater treatment and nutrient management assessment
for the subject action and detail reasonable alternatives, including the potential need for an onsite
wastewater management system. The objective of such an assessment is to inform the Planning Board
about the proposal's compliance with Suffolk County Health Department standards as well as the total
annual nitrogen load produced by the subject action's wastewater treatment (in terms of pounds of
nitrogen produced). This information should inform and support a nutrient mitigation plan that can be
implemented on the subject action or alternatives examined in a DEIS. The requirement of a binding
nutrient mitigation plan can have positive long-term benefits for the area's ground and surface water
resources if incorporated as a condition of any approval.
Density:
The subject property is slightly less than 5 acres. It proposes 40 residential units. The density is
roughly 8 units per acre. The DEIS should fully assess if the site can and should handle this many units
per acre. The DEIS should compare the proposed density to other affordable housing developments
and/or multi-family developments within the Town to ensure consistency with size, scale, and density.
Affordable Housing Component:
The DEIS should thoroughly discuss the framework for how to ensure this project maintains affordability
in perpetuity and by what means and methods applicants are chosen to live within the proposed units.
Will a lottery occur? Who is eligible to enter? How will eligibility income brackets be determined? What
laws and regulations govern this process?
Clearing/Buffering:
The site is located at the intersection of two designated "scenic byways" and heavily wooded with
what appears to be mature trees and vegetation. A DEIS should explore how this proposal will
transform and potentially impact the existing view shed. It should also discuss recommendations and
planning documents related to the designation of these two road as "scenic byways" in order to
comply with and aid in the protection of the character and look of "scenic byways." Clearing
restrictions, the preservation of mature trees and a robust discussion of considerable buffering to
ensure privacy and noise mitigation for the adjacent residential neighbors should also be included.
Alternatives:
It is critically important to recognize that the most important aspect of the SEQRA DEIS process is the
mandatory consideration of project alternatives and the requirement that lead agencies adopt a final
plan that mitigates potential environmental harm to the greatest practicable extent. In the subject case,
project size and density, wastewater management, tree preservation, visual screening, traffic
generation, and character preservation are all relevant and significant matters for consideration.
As such, SEQRA's requirement that a DEIS provides for a comparison of reasonable project alternatives
(at a level of detail that is suitable for comparative assessment) can provide potential mitigation
measures in response to some of the above-mentioned potential impacts.
Conclusion:
It is well established (through SEQRA's regulatory framework and decades of court decisions) that the
threshold for full environmental review is low and that the combined effects of an overall action are to
be fully considered during the review process.
Additionally, given the overwhelming focus of the Town's recently adopted Comprehensive Plan on the
size and scale of development, water quality, traffic conditions, and preservation of community
character, there is ample policy guidance and regulatory authority to assure that this proposal is
subject to the most stringent community development guidelines, which are well supported by the
public and the unanimous decision of the Town Board to adopt the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, we strongly advocate that the Planning Board issue a Positive Declaration and require a
DEIS to examine those critical issues mentioned within our comments as well as any others that the
community has already raised.
Thank you for taking the time to review our recommendations. I can be reached at
lama. elleasteii�deiriivliironiient,oir should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
�P-Wifer ftartM94
Jenn Hartnagel
Sr. Environmental Advocate
11 OF
f�C1MC.
4-0
Greenport North Neighborhood Association
RECEIVED
c/o 512 Sterling Place
Greenport, NY 11944 .D::.� ()
oaa Fioo Town
Planning Board
December 4, 2022
Chairman Donald Wilcenski & Members of Southold Town Planning Board
Planning Director Heather Lanza and Assistant Town Planning Director Mark Terry
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971 '
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Residences (SCTM# 1000-34-2-1)
1 am writing on behalf of the Greenport North Neighborhood Association (GNNA), and in
advance of tomorrow's Planning Board public meeting, to request that the public hearing on
the site plan application and draft conditioned negative declaration be scheduled for February
6, 2023, not January 9 as proposed in the meeting's agenda.
We will not have the opportunity to review the declaration draft until after tomorrow's
Planning Board work session and, given the upcoming holiday season, we would effectively
have only two weeks to review the document, meet with our association members, consult
with advisors, including legal counsel, and prepare our collective testimony by January 9.
Following the September 121h Planning Board work session, where the Planning Department
presented its draft impact findings, the applicant's attorney requested and was granted "a
couple of weeks" to respond. The applicant's revised site plan drawing and mitigation proposal
were submitted on October 31, seven weeks after the September 12 meeting. I hope that the
Board would be willing to consider our association's need to have time to prepare for the
hearing and grant a similar extension. In the interest of fairness to all parties, we request that
the public hearing be scheduled for February 6.
We look forward to attending tomorrow's meetings.
B t regards,
al
I i—
Carol M. Lindley
Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: RE: Greenport Medical Offices Site Plan
From:Jurgen Riehle<luren( rdany.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2022 4:50 PM
To: Lanza, Heather<he. then:l2nl.a.. sc �athc ld:n •us>
Cc:Terry, Mark<mark:_t rryC town.southoId.ny._Ia >; Carol Lindley<crnli_ndl_ey@outlook.com>; margot perman
<mar,,ot@rdany.com>;Joanne Greenbaum < reenbaum73( m !Iecaa >; Russell, Scott
....
<Scott.Russell( taanesaauthold.ny.�as>
Subject: Greenport Medical Offices Site Plan
Dear Heathe,
please add the attached letter to the Public RCorrespondence folder.
Many thanks!
Jurgen Riehle
In anticipation of Monday's Planning Board work session, which includes a review of the Greenport Medical Offices Site
Plan mitigations, I would like to comment briefly on the Traffic Impact Assessment contained in the project's SEQRA
folder.
On page 11, the TIA states, "The westerly driveway access is located nearly as far south as possible." On page 14 it
specifies: "In order to maintain the maximum distance from the proposed roundabout, the driveway was curved, to
intersect with Main Street approximately 16' feet from the project's southerly property line in order to insure that the
proposed south curb radius meets the existing curb just north of the south property line."
In terms of noise and traffic impacts this means that a driveway funneling cars, trucks and delivery vehicles to and from
90 parking spots would terminate within a few feet of a residence with virtually no buffer.
It is also worth noting that the developer, Paul Pawlowski, has presented no positive evidence that a demand for
medical or professional offices even exists. In fact, Mr. Pawlowski is on the record as stating, on another project in
Southold Town: "It's very hard to fill space with all medical and office space in this town. We wouldn't rent this in a
million years if it was all medical."
Since the TIA's estimates are based on medical use for its large office spaces, the question remains how alternate uses
would affect traffic volume.The current code allows a broad range of possibilities, including restaurants.To the extent
that the TIA does not consider the possibility of such alternative uses, its conclusions are hypothetical.
All things considered, a DEIS appears more essential than ever to further the goal of safe, environmentally sound
planning.
With best regards,
Jurgen Riehle
1
Margot Perman
1200 Main Street
Greenport
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
2
Greenport North Neighborhood Association RECEIVED
c/o 512 Sterling Place
Greenport, NY 11944 NOV 19 2.0'
12
autholo Town'',
Planning Board
November 18, 2022
Chairman Donald Wilcenski & Members of Southold Town Planning Board
Planning Director Heather Lanza and Assistant Town Planning Director Mark Terry
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Residences (SCTM# 1000-34-2-1)
1 am writing on behalf of the Greenport North Neighborhood Association (GNNA) in advance of
Monday's Planning Board work session to share our views on the recently submitted revised
site plan drawing, and the accompanying cover letter outlining proposed revisions to the
development.
While we recognize that this new submission reduces the density of the project by 25%, we
strongly maintain our position that a positive declaration must be issued. As we expressed at
the ZBA public hearing, and in past letters to the Planning Board, the DEIS process that SEQRA
provides is the only way to ensure a comprehensive and transparent review of this complex
project. This is a project where the whole is significantly greater than the sum of the parts and
the parts must be considered carefully, and in concert, not piecemeal. There needs to be a
clearly defined assessment and decision-making process to get it right, and there's a lot at
stake. This is not just another commercial development—nor is it a residential development
like many others that the Town has successfully overseen. This project is one of the largest, if
not the largest, multi-use developments in Southold Town and it is proposed for one of the
most prominent parcels of land on the North Fork. At the very moment when the Town is
embarking on revamping the zoning code to advance the vision of the Comprehensive Plan, an
environmentally questionable, hastily planned development such as this would set a low bar for
the future.
The DEIS process will take more time and it will cost more money, but we need to get it right—
for the residents of our neighborhood, for the residents of our Town, for the tourists and other
visitors who contribute to our collective livelihood, but most importantly for the many, many
individuals and families in our community who need a safe and affordable place to live.
We look forward to continuing to work with the Planning Board and the Planning Department
to try to achieve the best result for everyone in our community.
B re rds,
7
rol '. Lindley
Jonathan L.Sperling ��
�5
22
503 Main Street
of —OW
~
Greenport, New York 11944 Planning Board
October 3, 2022
Subject: Proposed development at corner of Route 48 and Main St Greenport
Dear Southold Town Planning Board Members,
I am a Southold Town taxpayer and maintain a residence in Greenport at the above address. I am the
owner of two properties directly across the street from the subject proposed development, 1115 and
1117 Main Street. I wish to record my strong opposition to the proposed development for the following
reasons:
It will create an enormous traffic hazard at an already stressed intersection with traffic coming
from four directions. I believe that this will not be relieved by the anticipated roundabout being
proposed.
The dense construction and extensive paving on the site will result in significant water runoff
that will cause damage to my two properties, both of which back on a significant wetland.
There is reportedly a glacial sinkhole close to my property line in this wetland.
have recently refurbished both of the properties which are rented to local people and which
can be categorized as affordable housing. Both houses are very old and of indeterminate age
and the probability is that heave construction equipment employed in the development of the
project will cause damage to the structures.
There is no evidence that there is a need for the commercial space being proposed for the
project.A look around Greenport Village shows that there are a number of empty commercial
properties.
I firmly believe that this development is not in the best interest of either the Town or the Village. I would
be pleased to discuss this further if the Board believes this would be helpful.When not in Greenport I
reside at 7010 Duncraig Court Mclean Virginia 22101 and can be reached by phone at 703 402 5075 or e
mail at khyber95@aol.com.
XN Sincerely,
Jonathan L. Sperling
RECEIVED
Reference: 160 Main Road Greenport --_,
o.-
fh'6 76v
10/3/22
Planning Board
To the Planning Board,
After the ZBA public hearing and the work session regarding the seqra draft report I wanted to
share my thoughts with you, my thoughts are more based on a practical approach and the reality of the
project once complete. Over a year ago I was approached by the town liaison for affordable housing
to review various properties for potential affordable housing sites,this property was shown to me as a
potential viable location for a project of affordable housing. The zoning as you know is RO and calls for a
mixed use both office and residential use. The property is almost 5 acres and is a corner lot that
borders main road and route 48. In the vicinity there is the following uses,commercial,medical and
residential. So prior to purchasing as an applicant and a developer whom understands code this site
fits the mold so to say. Southold Town in its new comprehensive plan outlines the dire need for
affordable housing,the goal of having affordable housing be near hamlet center and as little impacts as
possible. While there are no perfect development project the one proposed is very close to perfect
when you factor all things required to make up a good project. This project will help with a need,will
connect to public water,sewer,will meet the code in setbacks, parking,look,campus style etc. The
uses proposed mirror what RO is asking for, the traffic situation and safety will improve not only by
what this project will produce but also with the roundabout that is slated to be put in. With all that
said I am very surprised by some of the findings in the draft seqra report. I would like to touch on each
point that called for a moderate to large negative impacts in your report.
Item 13- Aesthetic Resources
As proposed the project meets code in size and height, it also meets code in terms of campus layout.
In terms of being visible to route 48 we have meet the code for setbacks,the green space will be very
well landscaped, the buildings themselves are of traditional style and architecture and will be in keeping
of what you would expect on the North Fork. Most of the parking is courtyard style and not on the
road itself. As a resident and not just an applicant I am not sure how this project as proposed will have
an adverse effect on Aesthetic resources as it is on the North Road, the immediate area is developed
and not farmland, it is at an intersection that will have a roundabout, If you compare our project to
the LIN aka Shady Lady Hotel which is only 20 feet off the road with zero vegetation hiding it,the
aesthetics will not compare. The Lin is a commercial use and other properties in this area are
residential with limited vegetation. The project location is zoned RO and we are meeting the code
requirements for how this should set up aesthetically. The reality of the situation is that currently our
site (please see pictures) has a mound of dirt around the entire corner with trees that are growing out of
the dirt piles and as they get larger they will start falling over, the sidewalks and infrastructure is in very
bad shape. Our project will have a large green buffer on all sides,tall privacy screening and the overall
look of the buildings will be very nice . So, I feel that this will be large improvement verses a negative. I
invite you to see the site and you will see that no immediate neighbors get any enjoyments from this
property,the vegetation is overgrown,the trees coming out of the dirt piles are growing onto the
sidewalk,this site is not a woods to be walking through and enjoying
Item 17- Impact on transportation
In Seqra and traffic this project will have a minimal impact if at all,the proposed roundabout will
improve traffic flow,will improve safety. The proposed entrances are placed in the best possible
locations when you factor in all. This site will become something and will always have two entrances
since it is a corner lot. Most planning departments require this on the east end for traffic concerns.
We meet the code in parking,sidewalks and safety requirements. This argument on traffic is just
being tossed out there by non-supporters without fully knowing how traffic works and its impacts.
Again,while there is never a perfect project how this site is proposed and the improvements to the area
to say this will have a moderate to large impact is a stretch. Our engineering consultant whom has
many qualifications has touched on this in earlier letters to the board, Ray has worked on many projects
throughout Long Island and feels there would be a very low impact. We are proposing new sidewalks,
proper entrances that will be to code and meet DOT requirements. We are not proposing an entrance
to the south side of our property where there is a residential neighborhood
Item 19 Impact on Noise
As proposed this is a mixed-use property with office space on the first floor and residential units on the
second floor- First tenants have to comply with code with it comes to noise ordinance,second as
proposed this is an apartment set up with no outdoor common space,so that means no parties, bbqs
etc.on the outside. Like most similar setups you would find there to be very little noise coming from
this project, route 48 is loud enough with cars passing etc.,so I see in no way for the noise levels to
increase from the current situation. I ask you have you ever pulled into a medical office location that
is open during daylight hours and thought it was loud?, have you ever pulled up to an apartment
complex similar to this with no outdoor common area space and thought it was loud?. We are not
proposing restaurants with music,or bars etc. We are proposing very low impact uses that have little to
no noise effect. The landscape buffer and the proposed fence neighboring the residential properties
will improve the current noise levels.
Item 21 Consistent with Community Plans
As proposed we meet the code is size and scale,we meet the code in overall site layout, the property is
almost 5 acres and more than double the size of the largest piece of property in that area. The scale
that we are proposing is moderate when you factor in the campus style and size of the property,as for
community plans we are trying to meet this goal with affordable housing as per the comprehensive plan
and as per the code of RO and why this property is zoned RO. We are not asking for one variance.
Item 22 Consistency with Community Character
The entire reason we are proposing this project is for the community and its character. As the comp
plan states we need affordable housing to keep people on the north fork that live and work here? We
are proposing just that, we are also looking to help create professional medical space so that our
hospital and its staff can continue to grow and work within our community. We are proposing uses
that are consistent with this immediate area and fulfilling needs that are warranted. The look, style
and layout are consistent with Southold town and previous projects. It states that structure proposed
will be taller than the vegetation? There are massive trees bordering the south property line and east
property line that are staying,we are adding more plant material, we are adding a nice fence along the
property line. The structure proposed will never exceed the large existing trees that will remain. The
new landscaping that will be added will greatly improve
As per code 280-26 Applicability
"Appropriate and desirable locations for affordable housing. Such locations include, land within hamlet
Zones, land within walking distance of services,shops,schools, and public transportation, land that
adjoins existing center of business and residential development( as opposed to land adjoining farm and
open fields), and locations where the project has been shown to meet a demonstrable need. "
This property and project is exactly that and again the property allows this density,connects to the
sewer and meets the goal or proper planning
While as the applicant and a resident I do not agree that items 13,17,19,21 and 22 will have moderate to
large impact we are willing to help mitigate those concerns, Martin will be submitting a mitigation plan
based off the concerns from the public hearing and as stated in the staff report. We will continue to
work with Planning to achieve the best possible project that we can without compromising the intent of
the project. We as the applicant need your support and we feel what we are proposing is
appropriate and good for our community. If a pos dec is approved this project will not happen and the
goal of affordable housing will take a major blow. I cannot fundamentally see how this project
warrants a pos dec as it has all the ingredients to be a good project for all involved. I ask you to
support this project and help us achieve affordable housing, professional medical space and all done to
meet code and the goals of the comprehensive plan. I ask you to look at the goals of this project and I
feel they far outweigh the few concerns of this project. We have made the effort to mitigate concerns
we have reduced density by 25%and the overal density proposed is less than half of what could be done
on this 4.7 acre site
Thank you for your time
Paul Pawlowski
Heath and Sarah-Mai Miller
1221 Main Street f
4 1
Greenport, NY 11944
646.761.2148/917.751.2708
heath@chalk242.com/ sarahmai@chalk242.com
11, 2022
Southold Planning Board
Town Hall Annex Building
54375 Route 25
Southold, NY 11971
Southold Planning Board Members,
We currently reside at 1221 Main Street in Greenport, (at the corner of North Rd and Main St, directly across
from the proposed development at 160 Route 25), which was purchased in April 2021. We have been visiting
the North Fork for the past 8 years and when we found this home for sale, we jumped at the chance to call
Greenport our home.
You may be familiar with our home, and might know that it's had many lives throughout its roughly 190 years
(circa 1830). Our primary objective was, and continues to be, to pay homage to its history and its surroundings,
and we have been restoring its exterior and interior for the past year and a half.
Our home is the entrance to Greenport from North Road.At least 2-3 times per week over the past year, we
have had locals and visitors stop by to tell us how much they love what we've done to the house that they've
driven by all their lives. They tell us stories of who lived here in the past, of how the house fell into a bit of
decay over the years, and how thrilled they were when it started to look like its original state once again. We've
also been told that finally Greenport has an entrance that all Greenporters and visitors can be proud of. This
recommended project in its current form would put an end to that pride that we all feel, and change the tone
significantly.
There is an ongoing and increased flow of traffic throughout the day currently, at peak times culminating with
back ups, horns, as well as road rage and burning rubber. The traffic circle would have been a welcome
addition in the coming year to alleviate the noise and congestion.
As we all now know, however, the most recent traffic analysis did not take into account this potential new
development. This is alarming to say the least. In addition to the traffic concerns, there's also the light pollution,
the negative visual impact, the wildlife impact, the water runoff. Not to mention the strain on water and sewage
systems, some of which local residents don't even have access to. (Our home along with many others
surrounding the potential development have old cesspool systems without the ability or option to hook into
Geenport's sewage system).
Given the size of this potential project and its location, we believe it's essential that a comprehensive
environmental impact review is conducted (DEIS), as well as an updated traffic analysis. Should both of these
come back without any significant impacts (which we believe is unlikely), we recommend a reduction of volume
in the development, as well as a reevaluation of the aesthetics. The renderings that have been submitted are
troubling in their size, their inability to connect to the Greenport aesthetic/caliber, and the removal of mature
trees around the perimeter.
We are all for progress and affordable housing, but with the above concerns and without proper thought and
attention given to what Greenport stands for, both visually and environmentally, and its long term impacts, we
believe it deserves much more consideration than it's being given by the developer.
We would even welcome a beautifully thought out, integrated, and true connection to the downtown area in
regards to local shops, eateries, etc. However, this current plan brings a Riverhead aesthetic and value
proposition to a key crossroads vs solidifying what Greenport is and stands for.
In case you couldn't tell, we are proud of Greenport, we are proud of what we created, and are proud to have
our neighbors and onlookers recognize what the entrance has become. If we allow the current state to occur, it
will clearly be the end of that pride and an end to the beautiful welcome that greets us all.
We hope you take this letter into consideration and we look forward to helping create something that is
Greenport worthy and truly is a help and beautification for all residents.
Greenport North Neighborhood Association
c/o 1200 Main Street
Greenport, NY 11944
September 10, 2022 1;01
Donald Wilcenski, Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board f,,11',,__3 g,
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson, Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
1
Heather Lanza, Director, Southold Town Planning Department
' 't 22
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971 _.. _ _..m_., _ ......
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Residences (SCTM# 1000-34-2-1)
Dear Mr. Wilcenski, Ms. Weisman and Ms. Lanza,
I have read with interest a letter to the Planning Board by Mr. Raymond DiBlase of LKMA dated
June 29, 2022. In his letter he states:
"With respect to the comments in the letter regarding the need for a DEIS to assess impacts
considering that NY 25 and CR 48 are Scenic Byways, in its Draft Final Design Report dated May
2022, NYSDOT has conducted a Visual Impact Assessment and has concluded that visual
impacts at the intersection of the two roadways are "low negative visual impacts."
As others have pointed out before me, the impacts detailed by the DOT are the changes to
existing visual resources caused by the construction of the DOT-designed roundabout, NOT the
— certainly greater—impacts the proposed "Medical" Offices and Residences could engender.
To highlight the actual wording of the DOT report and its meaning I have attached the relevant
sections below. It is obviously absurd to claim that cutting down four acres of natural
vegetation and replacing it with a 120-stall parking lot and 4 large commercial buildings would
have "low negative visual impacts".
In a letter to the ZBA dated September 9, Mr. DiBlase further states, "Clearly, this project
will have a "small to moderate"traffic impact."
Clearly, his mind is made up in advance of his Impact Assessment. Mr. DiBlase bases this
endorsement on his long track record of reviewing"hundreds of Traffic Impact Studies for
compliance with SEQRA" in places to the west and south of Southold, such as Ronkonkoma,
Islip, and Southampton — localities whose visual qualities and traffic outcomes should not
serve as models for Southold. All things considered, Mr. DiBlase's impressions in advance of
any completed analysis — and reliance on his interpretation of a DOT report concerning a
different project—are no substitute for a completed, project-specific DEIS in a location as
sensitive as ours.
With many thanks for your important work and your attention to this matter,
Jurgen Riehle
. ^
January 2022 Draft Design Report PIN O81OD1
Low Visual Impact Slight change in visual resources. No change to significant visual resources
or key view. New visual elements are generally compatible with existing views. Little or no
response to change in visual resources are expected.
Moderate Visual Impact-A slight change in visual resources resulting in a high level of
viewer response, or an extensive change in visual resources resulting in little viewer response.
High Visual Impact- Extensive change to visual resources or change to a significant visual
resource or key view. New views mr new visual elements are not compatible with existing views.
A high level of viewer response to the change in visual resources can be expected
[.|
impacts to the visual environment include the introduction of new visual elements, such as the
addition of the new roundabout lanes toreplace the existing intersection, center median focal
point, and associated re-str|ping, improved sidewalks, and curb ramps, and planting torestore
or supplement existing vegetated areas.To enhance the visual corridor of the proposed
highway alignment, trees, shrubs, and groundcover will beplanted.
Additional consideration will be given during the final design to providing an aesthetic
treatment that is fitting with the overall visual environment as this intersection can be
considered a "gateway" to the Village of Greenport's downtown area as it is provides access to
and from major shop9ing, ennp|oynnent, ondresidentia| connnnunitiesvvithinthe |argerarea
beyond the immediate project area as it is also gives visual cues to those seeking to travel on
the Orient Point Ferry to the east of this project location.
The predominate viewer groups to the project will be motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists and
from their perspective, there will be a positive visual improvement. For addition discussion see
Appendix B, Environmental Information /Visual Impact Assessment.
4 .y
Greenport North Neighborhood Association
c/o 1200 Main Street
Greenport, NY 11944
September 8, 2022
A4L(r"71 6 ,AICi
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson, Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Donald Wilcenski, Chairman, Southold Town Planning Board
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971 '
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Residences (SCTM# 1000-34-2-1)
Dear Ms. Weisman and Mr. Wilcenski:
Going through the Planning Board's and ZBA's public comment files on the Greenport Medical
Offices and Residences project, I noticed that out of a total of three letters in support-of the
development, two were signed by people identifying themselves as members of the Southold
Town Housing Advisory Commission (copies attached). One of the letters claims that "this
project will conform to" the DOT's planned roundabout adjacent to the site; the other that it
"will mitigate traffic concerns by conforming to the DOT's planned roundabout" and that it "will
be connected to Greenport sewer".
At this point, these claims are not borne out by any evidence. The DOT's roundabout was
designed following an in-depth environmental impact study that did NOT consider any future
development at the site. How exactly a large commercial project would impact the DOT's state
and federally funded roundabout needs to be the subject of a detailed traffic study, ideally
conducted in the summer months.
Likewise, the developer has so far not presented any contractual agreement with the Village of
Greenport that would guarantee the development's connection to the Greenport sewer system..
As individuals, the writers of the above letters are certainly free to voice their favorable
impressions on any project they wish to support. But as Town Board-appointed members of the
Housing Advisory Commission, a group that was formed by the legislation that created the Town
of Southold Housing Fund, it is inappropriate at best to offer opinions based on the limited
information currently available without first visiting the local community to gauge the concerns
of residents in the immediate vicinity—or at least waiting for the SEQRA process to conclude.
Best regards,
Jurgen Riehle
cc: Town Supervisor Scott Russell & Members of the Town Board
RECEIVE
' 022June 26, 2022 JUN 62
ou .e_-__
. nt
Planning Board Members Planning Board
Re: Greenport Medical/Workforce Housing Project,Developer Paul Pawlowski
1000-34-2-1
Good Afternoon,
I am writing to you today in support of the above project. The need for
Affordable/Workforce Housing has become a crisis in Southold Town.
This particular project has checked all the boxes for success. Forty
affordable/workforce apartments, the ability to tie into Greenport Village Sewer System
and SCWA, as well as the allowable use of the parcel which is zoned for Office
Residential. In addition, in the plans, the develop spaces are less than the allowable
density.
Also, in the near future the DOT has a planned roundabout that this project will
conform to.
This project is a good use of the space and a much needed solution towards the
housing needs of Southold Town.
. I hope you will find in favor of this project and allow it to move forward.
Sincerely,
- -.
Cheryle Amara
Member, Southold Town Housing Advisory Committee
To: Southold Town Planning Board t:CEIVE
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
JUN 3 0,2022
Re: Greenport Medical/Workforce Housing Project sOct i�O_W_
1000-34-2-1 Planning Board
Date: June 27, 2022
Dear Members of the Southold Town Planning Board:
. i
I am writing in.support of the above-referenced proposed workforce housing ('
project not simply because it will meet a dire need in this town, but because I a
believe that this project stands on its own merit as meeting stringent
requirements.
This project will result in the creation of 40 workforce housing apartments above
medical offices on a five=acre parcel. In short,this proposal encompasses:
• an allowable use of the parcel, zoned for office/residential;
® will develop spaces less than the allowable density;
® will be connected to Greenport sewer;
® will utilize SCWA;
e is located close to the village and pedestrian sidewalks;
A will mitigate traffic concerns by conforming to the DOT's design of a
planned roundabout in that area (slated for 2023).
As I understand that the code already allows for market rate residential
development, the fact that the developer is committed to setting these 40 homes
at affordable rental rates defines the project as a public good that also meets the
qualifications for zoning and planning.
1 hope you will find in favor of this project.
S" e ely
Pat Lutz<y
Co-Chair, South d Town Housing Advisory Commission
Greenport North Neighborhood Association
c/o 512 Sterling Place REC�T1 �rED
Greenport, NY 11944 1 V
JUL
PIaMi Town
Town Supervisor Scott Russell & Members of the Town Board ng 80rd
Chairman Donald Wilcenski & Members of Southold Town Planning Board
Planning Director Heather Lanza and Assistant Town Planning Director Mark Terry
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Residences (SCTM## 1000-34-2-1)
1 am writing on behalf of the Greenport North Neighborhood Association (GNNA) to share with
you the enclosed article that was published today on the North Fork Patch website, as well as
the two letters mentioned in the piece from the Group for the East End and the North Fork
Environmental Council (the Group's letter is already included in the subject file for the project
on the Town's website, the NFEC's is not). Also enclosed, for your information, is a current list
of the members of the GNNA.
As expressed in the article, our group is very concerned by the wide range of significant impacts
that the proposed project presents and we agree with the recommendations of the Group for
the East End and the North Fork Environmental Council that an in-depth review of the site plan
application is warranted. We strongly encourage the Planning Board to issue a positive
declaration. As the Group for the East End's letter clearly outlines, the project has the potential
to create moderate to large environmental impacts: traffic, conformance to the zoning code,
wastewater management, density, community character, affordability and the transformation
of a highly visible, undeveloped parcel located at the corner of two scenic byways. It is
essential that the application be required to undergo a transparent and comprehensive review
in the form of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Members of our Association have already had several meetings with Scott Russell and Heather
Lanza to discuss the project and our concerns, in addition to attending the Planning Board's
work sessions where the completeness of the site plan application was reviewed. We would
welcome a site visit by the Planning Board members and others so that you can experience our
neighborhood firsthand and get a better understanding of the myriad ways that this
development will negatively impact not only the quality of life of our immediate community, as
well as the thousands of Town residents and visitors who pass through one of the most
important crossroads in all of Southold Town.
B95rXegards,
M. indl
Plan For Medical Offices,
Apartments Sparks neighbors'
Concerns
"We feel that there is a desperate need. for affordable housing, and medical Space is
important!. ....- Paul Pawlowski kon Gre-enport plan.
UsaFinn,Patch Staff
Pu-kIedTbu,Jul 7,2022 at 1114 arn ET I UpdateJ Thu,,Jul?,2G22 at 1:23 aen E-
Dia Rep I y
A,M
X�
l�Ml
31
S
....... ...
in
...............
MT,
ZOO.
"A
t �i bows fee[other rases, for the parce.1 migW be more appropriate for the Brea."I._sn Fflnn f
Patch)
GREENPORT, NY— A proposal.for new medical offices and
residences in Greenport has sparked concerns from neighbors
worried about traffic safety, the environment, and duality of
life — :and those residents are rallying to ask for another level
{ of review before the plan moves forward.
3
1
in March, the Southold Town planning board deen-ied the site
plan complete for developer Paul Pawlowski.'s proposed
medical offices and residences, to be located on a 4.7 acre
parcel at t o New York State Route 25 in Greenport, at the
intersection with Route 48.
The plan is to guild four campus-stye residential office
buildings xvith three medical office units on the first floor and
10 Workforce housing units on the second floor of each, for a
total of 40 apartments,with 120 parking stalls.
i
The parcel is in the RO, or residential office, and R-40, log
density residential zoning, districts, according to the Southold
Town planning board.
The plan is now moving through the SEW, or State
Environmental Quality Review Act, process; the proposal must
then go before the Southold Town zoning hoard of appeals for
a special exception.in regard to the-workforce housing
apartments in the residential office zone.
-i6
Neighbors including Kirsten Droskoski, Carol Lindley, and
Jurgen R.iehle inet with patch recently to discuss concerns they
have with the project as proposed.
First, all believe that the application requires a more in-depth
review, which they say should be done through a draft
enviro -i ei-ltal 7-ipact statement, or LEIS, in addition to the
planned SEQRAreview.
The Nf-
-)rth Fork Environmental Council also sent a letter to the
Southold'Tov i planning board in support of a LEIS.
"We believe there are several environmental impacts to this
site, including'traffic, wastewater management, density,
beauty, and affordability, to name a few," the NFEC wrote.
"First, this application represents a significant transformation.
of a highly visible, undeveloped parcel, located at the {
c on#lunce of New, York State Route 2 5A and Route 48,both
designated and.scenic byways."
The NFEC also questioned.how more than.20,000 square feet
of proposed business uses and 0 new residential units on less
than.five acres complied with the RO zoning code.
The Group for the East End also wrote a letter in support of a
LEIS. Environmentalist said thev would like to see the
planning board.issue a positive declaration, meaning a written
deter ?-iin ation indicating that the project as proposed could
have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
Neighbors said the intersection at Route 48 and New York State
was already a traffic concern, with a possible New York State
Department of Transportation roundabout plan to come and
accidents, including a bike crash, in recent years raising
uestions of what additional densiqr would mean to what they
deem an alreadv dangerous spot.
All three neighbors said they are in favor of well-planned and
executed affordable housing- their concerns were centered.on
density, potential uses that could evolve at the site under the
current zoning designation and also, 1,vhat impact the project
could have on an overburdened school district where
enrollment, Droskoska said, is already through the roof.
All agreed they would like to see affordable housing projects
spaced evenly across the North Fork and not just in Greenport.
"The entire town needs to focus on this, Lindley said.
Droskoski.said, for exaniple, she'd love to see a plan with four
or five affordable houses, with.two affordable units in each.
Neighbors said the type of affordable housing proposed is
critical, p sting to the CutchogLte Voodsplan pitched which
mi —
they said offered a quality standard of living for residents.
1' vho is this for?" Riehle asked, stating that the size of the
u -nilies. He pointed to "strip
nit s would not be a me nab le for fai
mall" projects built in other communities,with apartments
above that had shattered the quality of life, in those areas and
did not provide ineaningful affordable housing for families in
need he. said.
1 1
According to the plan, 16 350-square-foot studio apartments
and 24 one-bedroom apartments have been proposed.
Pawlowski also spoke with Patch, stating that the residential
office zoning,allows for the proposed inixed use.
A s for traffic, we feel this site along with the proposed circle
will be an improvement to that area,with new sidewalks and
proper traffic.flow, he said. "We are not proposing an
entrance to the south side of property into the residential
nei0aborhood.
Speaking to environmental concerns raised by some about the
p roiect, Pawlowski said there will be a connection to the
Greenport village sewer system all storinwater will be
collected on-site; and the buildings will have "very little to no"
emissions.
Addressing quality,of life, he added: 'ANTe, are proposing
residential use however, so that ixe can offer workforce
housing rental apartments and.affordability in perpetuity,we
are proposing medical.office space. Both.residential and
medical space is already conimon in that area. The architecture
will be traditional and in keeping with the North Fork, there
will be a green space and perimeter landscape buffer.What i've
are proposing is under the permitted density allowed."
Pa-vvlowsk noted: "Overall, we feel that there is a desperate
need for affordable housing, the medical space is important to
the medical comi-nunity and professions, and the project will
be well done. I any.happy to meet with any neighbor to discuss
the project in detail.
Asked about a LEIS, Pawlowski said it' standard to do an EIS
and SERA review. "We feel the project meets a very high
standard when it comes,to wastewater, se-wer, affordability
and character. As for a positive declaration that would be very
egregious, as this project doesnt call for that and not of a scale
that-1 -affordable housing at should.What about the importance of
and professional office space for our commuiait-ie project is privately funded.
Pawlowski also reminded that tl
R -ile said there are studies done about larg
er ger affordable
rdable
housing projects, and
"about ghat bind of affordable housing
Wlorlis.
All three expressed fears that the project could impact the
village's bucolic way of life. They also proposed other
suggestions they felt n-iight be more fitting for the parcel.
Lindley said she'd like to see a "gateway to Greenport, a.
beautiful park-xvith an information office" or a community
space.
All said it was critical that a full.-time site manager be present;
Pa-w1owski said that was in The plan.
The goal, Droskoski said,was to "keep Greenport the way it
is," allowing for affordable housing balanced with an eye
toward density, environmental and traffic safety concerns.
Riehle looked at the RO zoning designation and said, "We have
the law on our side." Quoting from the description of Rol
limited,,onina, he said the designation "should provide for Iii-n
non-residential.uses in essentially residential areas,"
preserving the visual character of the area and achieving goals
of balancing development goals with environmental
protections.
Without ample revieiAF, all felt the project as described could
"destroy" quality of life in the area.
Pal.v,lowski said'the,uoalwa.sto provide much-needed
affordable housing in an area where there has long been a
dearth.
"I truly believe this project will be very good for all and I
respect that neighbors have their concerns, he said, "But in
the end, the traffic will be better, we will have affordable
houshig, and we will have professional medical office space."
ti {
Q3rf--�U v-"- F OR April 22, 2022
Chairman Donald Wilcenski &
Eu--st End Members of the Southold Town Planning Board
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
�x Southold, NY 11971
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Residences (SCTM# 1000-34-2-1)
Robert S.DeLuca On behalf of Group for the East End, please accept the following comments and
PRESIDENTrecommendations regarding the Greenport Medical Offices and Residences site
plan application. After reviewing the file, we strongly believe the application
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ' warrants a more in-depth review in the form of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review
Katherine Leahy Birch Act (SEQRA). Therefore, we would support the Town Planning Board's issuance
CHAIR of a Positive Declaration to ensure that the project is given an appropriate review
that provides for an opportunity to address potential impacts and discuss
William Ryall possible mitigation measures and alternatives in a transparent and comprehensive
VICE CHAIR manner.
Susan Abdalla
Lou Besilacqua In Support of a DEIS:
W.Marco Birch The subject application not only requires site plan review by the Town's Planning
Board but also requires a Special Exception permit from the Zoning Board of
Kristen Briner Appeals in addition to permission from the Village of Greenport for proposed
Cyr°ciela°auhalre wastewater treatment. A DEIS is the most practical, transparent, and
Andrew Goldstein comprehensive manner to review the subject application. In our view, the
Stuart Goode following, have the potential to create moderate to large environmental impacts:
Nestor Gounaris i traffic, conformance to the zoning code, wastewater management, density,
Sandra R.Meyer affordability, and the transformation of a highly visible, undeveloped parcel
John F,Shea located at the corner of two "scenic byways."
Kimberly Smith Spacek
Mary walker Traffic:
Donna Winston I The subject application represents a significant transformation of a highly visible,
undeveloped parcel, located at, "the confluence of New York State Route 25A and
County Road 48" both designated scenic byways. It is essential to note that the
P.O.Box trv2 New York State Department of Transportation has begun its review of a proposed
Southold,NY 11971 roundabout to mitigate the already identified traffic issues at this corner.
P.O.Box 569 Additionally, traffic on these roads has undoubtedly increased due to a variety of
Bri<iyehamptan,NY 11932 factors including, seasonal influx, increases in year-round residents due to the
Covid pandemic and the popularity of nearby farms, vineyards and other tourists
631.765.6450 attractions.
GroupfortheEastEnd.orcd
A DEIS should include a traffic study to examine current traffic conditions,
accident reports in the near vicinity and importantly how this large-scale proposal
has the potential to impact this intersection. This recommendation is also
supported by the Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan,
Objective 2.2- Require multimodal traffic and transportation studies of large developments.
By requiring applicants to conduct multimodal transportation studies for large commercial
developments, the Town can leverage the results to require traffic-calming, pedestrian safety,
sidewalks, access management, and traditional traffic improvements from the applicants (p.128).
Conformance with Zoning Code's Residential Office (RO) Designation:
We question the proposal's conformance with Town Code 280-37 Purpose, as well as Town Code
Section 280-38 A(3)(g). A DEIS should include an explanation of how the project is in conformance
with these two sections given what's proposed.
For instance, Section 280-37 Purpose, states,
The purpose of the Residential Office (RO) District is to provide a transition area
between business areas and low-density residential development along major roads
which will provide opportunity for limited nonresidential uses in essentially residential
areas while strongly encouraging the adaptive reuse of existing older residences, to
preserve the existing visual character of the Town and to achieve the goals of well-
planned, environmentally sensitive, balanced development, which the Town has
determined to be desirable.
Clearly, the RO code envisions "limited" nonresidential uses in "essentially residential area,"
while strongly favoring the re-use of older residences. How will this proposal, comprising a
brand-new, campus-style commercial development with over 20,000 sq. ft. of proposed
business uses and including 40 new residential units on less than five acres comply with the
RO zoning use code?
Additionally, Section 280-38 A. (3)(g) states the following,
Small business offices such as insurance agencies, real estate agencies, computer
software services, financial planning securities brokers and like-kind small business
establishments excluding retail sales of any kind or nature and limited to overall floor
space of 3,000 square feet.
How does the application conform to this section of the RO code while over 20,000 sq. ft. of overall
floor space is proposed? Each building contains roughly 4,500 square feet of"medical" space with a
common doorway and entryway, therefore, exceeding the "overall"floor space of 3,000 sq.ft.
requirement within the code.
Wastewater Management:
At this writing, the project intends to hook up to the Greenport Sewer District for wastewater
management. The project site is NOT located within the sewer district boundaries and requires
approval for this proposal. In the event that the proposed hook-up is not possible or denied, it is
imperative to understand how the proposed development may impact ground and surface waters,
particularly by contributing to excess nitrogen loading given the project's proposed density. This
information is not included in the project's application materials. The Environmental Assessment Form
and site plan (dated 3/2/22) indicate that the proposed uses will generate 7,384 gallons per day of
wastewater. The application material does not include the site's wastewater flow limits per the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services.
• IL
The DEIS should provide a comparative wastewater treatment and nutrient management assessment
for the subject action and detail reasonable alternatives, including the potential need for an onsite
wastewater management system. The objective of such an assessment is to inform the Planning Board
about the proposal's compliance with Suffolk County Health Department standards as well as the total
annual nitrogen load produced by the subject action's wastewater treatment (in terms of pounds of
nitrogen produced). This information should inform and support a nutrient mitigation plan that can be
implemented on the subject action or alternatives examined in a DEIS. The requirement of a binding
nutrient mitigation plan can have positive long-term benefits for the area's ground and surface water
resources if incorporated as a condition of any approval.
Density:
The subject property is slightly less than 5 acres. It proposes 40 residential units. The density is
roughly 8 units per acre. The DEIS should fully assess if the site can and should handle this many units
per acre. The DEIS should compare the proposed density to other affordable housing developments
and/or multi-family developments within the Town to ensure consistency with size, scale, and density.
Affordable Housing Component:
The DEIS should thoroughly discuss the framework for how to ensure this project maintains affordability
in perpetuity and by what means and methods applicants are chosen to live within the proposed units.
Will a lottery occur? Who is eligible to enter? How will eligibility income brackets be determined? What
laws and regulations govern this process?
Clearing/Buffering:
The site is located at the intersection of two designated "scenic byways" and heavily wooded with
what appears to be mature trees and vegetation. A DEIS should explore how this proposal will
transform and potentially impact the existing view shed. It should also discuss recommendations and
planning documents related to the designation of these two road as "scenic byways" in order to
comply with and aid in the protection of the character and look of "scenic byways." Clearing
restrictions, the preservation of mature trees and a robust discussion of considerable buffering to
ensure privacy and noise mitigation for the adjacent residential neighbors should also be included.
Alternatives:
It is critically important to recognize that the most important aspect of the SEQRA DEIS process is the
mandatory consideration of project alternatives and the requirement that lead agencies adopt a final
plan that mitigates potential environmental harm to the greatest practicable extent. In the subject case,
project size and density, wastewater management, tree preservation, visual screening, traffic
generation, and character preservation are all relevant and significant matters for consideration.
As such, SEQRA's requirement that a DEIS provides for a comparison of reasonable project alternatives
(at a level of detail that is suitable for comparative assessment) can provide potential mitigation
measures in response to some of the above-mentioned potential impacts.
Conclusion:
It is well established (through SEQRA's regulatory framework and decades of court decisions)that the
threshold for full environmental review is low and that the combined effects of an overall action are to
be fully considered during the review process.
Additionally, given the overwhelming focus of the Town's recently adopted Comprehensive Plan on the
size and scale of development, water quality, traffic conditions, and preservation of community
character, there is ample policy guidance and regulatory authority to assure that this proposal is
subject to the most stringent community development guidelines, which are well supported by the
public and the unanimous decision of the Town Board to adopt the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
a :1
Therefore, we strongly advocate that the Planning Board issue a Positive Declaration and require a
DEIS to examine those critical issues mentioned within our comments as well as any others that the
community has already raised.
Thank you for taking the time to review our recommendations. I can be reached at
jhartnagel@eastendenvironment.org should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
�v, ifa71a. e�
Jenn Hartnagel
Sr. Environmental Advocate
l
North Pork Environmental Council
12700 Main Road
?' � PO Box 799
North Fork �� Maktituck, NY 11952
E l o n m e n n c Phone: 631.298.8880
fax: 631.298.469
as it fl�i tr Web: wvvw.NFECi.org
May 17, 2022
Chairman Donald Wilcenski &
Members of the Southold Town Planning Board
Town of Southold
F.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Residences (SCTM# 1000-34-2-1)
On behalf of The North Fork Environmental Council, the following are our comments and recommendations
regarding the Greenport Medical Offices and Residences site plan application. Now that we have reviewed the
file, we believe the application requires a more in-depth review in the form of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). We would
appreciate the Town Planning Board's issuance of a Positive Declaration to ensure that the project is given an
appropriate review.
In Support of a DEIS:
A DEIS is the most practical,transparent, and comprehensive approach to reviewing this application. We
believe there are several environmental impacts to this site including traffic, wastewater management,
density, beauty and affordability to name a few.
First, this application represents a significant transformation of a highly visible, undeveloped parcel, located
at., "the confluence of New York State Route 25A and County Road 48" both designated scenic byways.
Second, we question the application's conformance with Town Code 280-37 Purpose, as well as Town Code
Section 280-38 A (3)(g). For example, how will this proposal, comprising a brand-new commercial
development with over 20,000 sq. ft. of proposed business uses and including 40 new residential units on less
than five acres comply with the RO zoning use code?
Third, as this project is not located withing the Greenport sewer district, it is possible that using Greenport's
sewers may not be possible. In that case it is critical to understand how the proposed development may
impact ground and surface waters, particularly excess nitrogen loading given the project's proposed density.
Fourth, the property is slightly less than 5 acres. It proposes 40 residential units. The density is
roughly 8 units per acre.The DEIS would need to assess if the site can and should handle this many units per
acre.
rr
Fifth, a DEIS needs to determine how to ensure this project maintains affordability in perpetuity and how
applicants would be chosen to live within the proposed units.
Sixth, the site is located at the intersection of two designated "scenic byways". How would this property
comply with and aid in the protection of the character and look of"scenic byways?"
Lastly, there is a new medical office complex that has just been opened in Peconic Landing, which indicates
that this additional office space may be redundant.
Given the Town's focus on the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan regarding the size and scale of
development, water quality, traffic conditions, and preservation of community character, there is ample policy
guidance and regulatory authority to assure that this proposal is subject to the most stringent community
development guidelines, which are well supported by the public and the unanimous decision of the Town
Board to adopt the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, we strongly advocate that the Planning Board issue a Positive Declaration and require a DEIS to
examine those critical issues mentioned within our comments as well as any others that the community has
already raised.
Thank you,
Mark Haubner
President NFEC
The NFEC is a 501(c)(3)non-profit organization which works to increase public awareness of key issues,educate the
public and public officials about important environmental and quality of life issues,and works to make sure that the
public's voice is heard as we try to protect and preserve the land,waters,air,wildlife and way of life on the North Fork.
Greenport North Neighborhood Association
Name Address Email Phone
David Berson and Meg Bennett 508 Sterling Place dbersonl@yahoo.com 631-477-2515
mbenn47939@aol.com 631-664-6728
Joyce Covello and Peter Maltese 506 Bailey Avenue itvoice@mac.com 917-597-7875
maltesep@optonline.net
Deb Cutler and Ray Norton Sound Road rnorton90l@hotmail.com
Margaret Rose de Cruz 25 Washington Avenue mrdecruz@Bmail.com 917-865-4655
Kirsten Droskowski 531 Sterling Place droskdk@aol.com 631-831-7582
Cara Galowitz and Anders Goldfarb 465 Bailey Avenue cgalowitz@nyc.rr.com 917-887-8787
Mary Gabriel and Adrian Greenberg Sound Road agreenberR825@optonline.net
Tammi and Tim Grattan 69305 Route 48 tgrattl0@yahoo.com 631-495-9110
Joanne Greenbaum 495 Sterling Place ioannepreenbaum@me.com 917-476-8652
Carolyn and Steve Greer 260 Sound Road cgreer3339@Bmail.com
Carol-anne Hoffmann 307 Champlin Place choffmann4@Rmail.com 631-553-3930
Lori Hollander and Scott McIntire 22 Sound Road lorihollanderl@gmail.com 917-697-5986
Cheryl Horsfall 295 Bailey Avenue chorsfall@mac.com 917-763-0364
Gregory Hugunin and Laura Raps 504 Sterling Place Iaurar50@mac.com
Greg Humphreys and Rubina Costabile Sound Road humPhrevs.greg@gmail.com
rmc 77@hotmail.com
Joan Kart 611 Bailey Avenue ioankrt@hotmail.com
Anthoula Katsimatides 335 Sterling Place anthoulakats@gmail.com 917-770-7004
Rory Klinge and Carol Lindley 512 Sterling Place roryklinge@gmail.com 631-433-2236
cmlindlev@outlook.com 631-433-2237
Sue Kreiling 820 Main Street suekreilin6@yahoo.com
Stephen Kustera and Elizabeth Talerman 304 Sterling Place etalerman�il.com 917-674-6202
Adriene Lakowitz 324 Knapp Place scopes3l@optonline.net
Cathleen Marshall cathleenmarshall@Rmail.com
Carole and Richard Mavity Sound Road rmavity@earthlink.net
Chris McGlinchey 735 Champlin Place cwmcglinchey@Bmail.com 917-957-5970
David Mendelsohn 455 Knapp Place davemendelsohn@yahoo.com
Paula Muth 213 Knapp Place paulamuth@gmail.com
James Nenopoulos 317 Knapp Place Nenopoulos@gmail.com 917-583-8413
Gerald O'Neill 623 Bailey Avenue
as of 5/28/2022
Greenport North Neighborhood Association
Tom Padden 435 Sterling Place peconicappr@gmail.com
Margot Perman and Jurgen Riehle 1200 Main Street margot@rdany.com 917-660-3727
Jurgen@rdany.com
Debra Silber 526 Bailey Avenue debra.silber@verizon.net
Heidi and Scott Vayer Sound Road hvayer@yadway.com
Rena and Barry Wiseman Sound Road wisebodv@verizon.net
Jackie Wolfson 509 Sterling Place iwolfson@optonline.net
as of 5/28/2022
RECEIVE®
Marion Gardens, Organic Herbs JUL 12022
540 Rocky Point Rd
East Marion NY Sout of Town
Planning Board
mgorganic@outlook.com
June 27, 2022
Donald Wilcinski, Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971
Re: Greenport Medical/Workforce Housing Project
Dear Mr. Wilcinski,
I am contacting you to express my support as an employer in Southold Town since 1976. There
is no denying the fact that our town has a serious housing crisis.
Personally, I am challenged that maintaining a steady workforce is extremely difficult. There is
no affordable housing where myself and many other business owners can find employees. The
situation is worsening and the Planning Board can be instrumental in starting to reverse this
trend.
The Greenport project, while only rentals, will at least give an option to maintain a viable local
workforce. So much more is needed but I encourage you to approve this project and
aggressively fast track others before it is too late.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Walter Gaipa, President
Marion Gardens, Inc.
"Planning
June 26, 2022
Planning Board Members
Re: Greenport Medical/Workforce Housing Project, Developer Paul Pawlowski
1000-34-2-1
Good Afternoon,
I am writing to you today in support of the above project. The need for
Affordable/Workforce Housing has become a crisis in Southold Town.
This particular project has checked all the boxes for success. Forty
affordable/workforce apartments, the ability to tie into Greenport Village Sewer System
and SCWA, as well as the allowable use of the parcel which is zoned for Office
Residential. In addition, in the plans, the develop spaces are less than the allowable
density.
Also, in the near future the DOT has a planned roundabout that this project will
conform to.
This project is a good use of the space and a much needed solution towards the
housing needs of Southold Town.
I hope you will find in favor of this project and allow it to move forward.
Sincerely,
Ii o -
Cheryle Amara
Member, Southold Town Housing Advisory Committee
To: Southold Town Planning Board KCCEIVED
PO Box 1179
Southold NY 11971 JUN 2�22
Re: Greenport Medical/Workforce Housing Project —souut old Town
1000-34-2-1 Planning Board
Date: June 271, 2022
Dear Members of the Southold Town Planning Board:
I am writing in.support of the above-referenced proposed workforce housing
project not simply because it will meet a dire need in this town, but because I
believe that this project stands on its own merit as meeting stringent
requirements.
This project will result in the creation of 40 workforce housing apartments above
medical offices on a five-acre parcel. In short, this proposal encompasses:
I
an allowable use of the parcel, zoned for office/residential;
I
® will develop spaces less than the allowable density;
® will be connected to Greenport sewer;
i
® will utilize SCWA;
a is located close to the village and pedestrian sidewalks; s
e will mitigate traffic concerns by conforming to the DOT's design of a
planned roundabout in that area (slated for 2023).
As I understand that the code already allows for market rate residential
development, the fact that the developer is committed to setting these 40 homes
at affordable rental rates defines the project as a public good that also meets the
qualifications for zoning and planning.
I hope you will find in favor of this project.,
S' e ely,
i
Pat Lutzky
Co-Chair, South d Town Housing Advisory Commission ;
i
I
l
North Fork Environmental Council
12700 Main Road
PO Box 799
North4 Fork 17� Mattituck, NY 11952
0_
v0rcn fftM Cound Phone: 631.298.8880
,/ Fax: 631.298.4649
--�� Y ,,
C . Web: www.NFECI.org
May 17, 2022 RECEIVED-
EMAY 8 2022
Chairman Donald Wilcenski &
Members of the Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town
Planning Board
Town of Southold
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Residences (SCTM# 1000-34-2-1)
On behalf of The North Fork Environmental Council, the following are our comments and
recommendations regarding the Greenport Medical Offices and Residences site
plan application. Now that we have reviewed the file, we believe the application
requires a more in-depth review in the form of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review
Act (SEQRA). We would appreciate the Town Planning Board's issuance
of a Positive Declaration to ensure that the project is given an appropriate review.
In Support of a DEIS:
A DEIS is the most practical, transparent, and comprehensive approach to reviewing this application. We
believe there are several environmental impacts to this site including
traffic, wastewater management, density, beauty and affordability to name a few.
First, this application represents a significant transformation of a highly visible,
undeveloped parcel, located at, "the confluence of New York State Route 25A and
County Road 48" both designated scenic byways.
Second, we question the application's conformance with Town Code 280-37 Purpose, as well as Town Code
Section 280-38 A (3)(g). For example, how will this proposal, comprising a
brand-new commercial development with over 20,000 sq. ft. of proposed business uses and including 40 new
residential units on less than five acres comply with the RO zoning use code?
residences.
Third, as this project is not located withing the Greenport sewer district, it is possible that using Greenport's
sewers may not be possible. In that case it is critical to understand how the proposed development may
impact ground and surface waters, particularly excess nitrogen loading given the project's proposed density.
Fourth, the property is slightly less than 5 acres. It proposes 40 residential units.The density is
roughly 8 units per acre.The DEIS would need to assess if the site can and should handle this many units per
acre.
Fifth, a DEIS needs to determine how to ensure this project maintains affordability in perpetuity and how
applicants would be chosen to live within the proposed units.
Sixth,the site is located at the intersection of two designated "scenic byways". How would this property
comply with and aid in the protection of the character and look of"scenic byways?"
Lastly, there is a new medical office complex that has just been opened in XXX, which indicates that this
additional office space may be redundant.
Given the Town's focus on the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan regarding the size and scale of
development, water quality,traffic conditions, and preservation of community
character, there is ample policy guidance and regulatory authority to assure that this proposal is subject to the
most stringent community development guidelines, which are well supported by the public and the
unanimous decision of the Town Board to adopt the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, we strongly advocate that the Planning Board issue a Positive Declaration and require a DEIS to
examine those critical issues mentioned within our comments as well as any others that the community has
already raised.
Thank you,
Mark Haubner
President NFEC
The NFEC is a 501(c)(3)non-profit organization which works to increase public awareness of key issues,educate the
public and public officials about important environmental and quality of life issues,and works to make sure that the
public's voice is heard as we try to protect and preserve the land,waters,air,wildlife and way of life on the North Fork.
L11AA L. K. McLean Associates, R.C.
4* 437 South Country Road - Brookhaven ® New York - 11719 (631)286-8668 - FAX(631)286-6314
❖ 25 Newbridge Road a Suite 21.2 a Hicksville - New York ® 11801 https://,%,ww.lkma.com
RAYMOND G.DiBIASE,P.E.,PTOE,PTP,PRESIDENT and CEO RECEIVED I Associates
ROBERT A.STEELE,P.E.,EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
C ISTOPHER F.DWYER
E E�
JAMES L.DeKONING,P.E.,VICE PRESIDENT June 29, 2022 --II 'N W..EISENBERG.P.E.
JUN 3 0'2022 ' ANDREW B.SPEISER
M HE C.JEDLICKA,LEED AP
Chairman Donald Wilcenski and Planning Board Members - EITH J.MASSERIA,P.E.
Sout 0 Town VIN ENT A.CORRADO,P,.E.
Town of Southold Planning Boara TAM RA L.STILLMAN,P.L.S.
P.O..Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Greenport Medical Offices and Residences (SCTM 1000-34-21)
This is in response to the Group for the East End's April 22, 2022 letter to the Planning
Board, which requested a Positive Environmental Declaration and a requirement for a DEIS for
the project.
in terms of traffic impacts of the project, the letter stated that stated: "The subject
application represents a significant transformation of a highly visible, undeveloped parcel, located
at, "the confluence of New York State Route 25A (should be NY 25) and County Road 48" both
designated scenic byways. It is-essential to note that the New York State Department of
Transportation has begun its review of a proposed roundabout to Mitigate the already identified
traffic issues at this comer. Additionally, traffic on these roads has undoubtedly increased due to a
variety of factors including, seasonal influx, increases in year-round residents due to the Covid
pandemic and the popularity of nearby forms, vineyards and other-tourist attractions.
A DEIS should include a traffic study to examine current,traffic conditions, accident reports
in the near vicinity and importantly how this large-scale proposal has the potential to impact this
intersection. This recommendation is also supported by the Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan:
Objective 22- Require multimodal traffic and transportation studies of large
developments.
By requiring applicants to conduct multimodal transportation studies for large
commercial developments, the Town can leverage the results to require traffic-
calming, pedestrian safety, sidewalks; access management, and traditional traffic
improvements from the applicants (p.128).
NYSDOT has committed to constructing a mini-roundabout at the intersection, and, as
the Lead Agency, has conducted an extensive transportation impact study, and already classified
the project as Non-Type 11 in accordance with SEQRA. NYSDOT's Finding Statement(attached)
indicates that the improvements at all of the locations in the project "will reduce delay,
improve overall traffic conditions, and enhance safety."
With respect to the comments in the letter regarding the need for a DEIS to assess
impacts considering that NY 25 and CR 48 are Scenic Byways, in its Draft Final [Design Report
TODAY'S CHALLENGES I TOMORROW'S SOLUTIONS Shnce 1950
L. .K. McLean Associates,. RC
dated May 2022, NYSDOT has conducted a Visual Impact Assessment and has concluded that
visual impacts at the intersection of the two roadways are "low negative visual impacts."
The roundabout is currently scheduled to open to vehicles in early 2025. As part of its
analysis, NYSDOT computed the overall traffic levels of service for the roundabout in the
morning and evening peak hours, and the Saturday peak hour for 20 years after completion of
construction. At that future time, the Levels of service for the three peak hours, are A, B and B,
respectively. With Level of service D being acceptable for peak hours on Long Island, there is
more than enough traffic capacity of the roundabout available to accommodate traffic
generated by the proposed development upon its completion.
It is important to note that the Site Plan includes the following:
• Consistency with the alignment of the proposed roundabout
• To minimize traffic capacity impacts to NY 25 to the site, two points of access to
NY 25 which are located as far from the roundabout as possible (access to Main
Street), and about 275'from the roundabout (access to North Road)
• Prohibition of Left Turns from the site onto NY 25 at the North Road access
driveway
Although it does not appear to be necessary based on the discussion above, the
applicant could provide a Traffic Impact Study to include the following:
• Additional discussion on the traffic impact at the roundabout
• Review of traffic crash data for the latest available 5 year period on the roadways
along the site's frontages, to determine if there are any current crash trends
which the project might negatively impact
• Traffic capacity and safety impacts at the two driveway accesses to the site
(to/from NY 25, south and east of the County Road 48 intersection)
• Multi-modal (pedestrian, bike and bus) impacts
This should negate the need to prepare a DEIS for the proposed project, in terms of
transportation and scenic byways impacts.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.
Very tr ours,
r
Raymond DiBiase; PE, PTOE, PTP
Encl. President
c.c. Martin D. Finnegan, Esq., Finnegan Law P.C.
Paul Pawlowski, 160 Route 25 LLC
NOTICE OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW(EDPL)
DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS OF PUBLIC HEARING HELD FEBRUARY 9,2022
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(PIN)0810.01
SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS
TOWNS OF RIVERHEAD, EAST HAMPTON,AND SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY
In accordance with the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL), the following is a synopsis of the
determination and findings that have been made regarding the proposed safety enhancements at the
following four (4) intersections: NYS Route 25 at Edwards Avenue, NYS Route 114 at Stephens Hands
Path, NYS Route 114 at Goodfriend Drive, and NYS Route 25 at CR 48. The project is intended to provide
safety and operational enhancements at the four intersections to improve traffic flow and decrease the
potential for crashes. The project proposes to upgrade the roadway geometry, reduce delay, enhance
safety, and improve overall traffic conditions. The action under EDPL involves a total acquisition of
approximately 74,144 square feet (SF) of property and 3,789 square feet of easements. Fee takings and
easements for this project will be required at three(3)of the four(4)project intersections,as detailed below.
No fee takings or easements will be required at the intersection of NYS Route 114 at Goodfriend Drive.
Reputed Owner Tax Map No. Fee Taking Area Easement Area
a roximatel
Gineric 88 LLC 099-1-6 11,992 SF --
3726 Middle Country LLC 099-2-8 6,462 SF --
30 Riley Avenue LLC 099-2-7 1,644 SF --
Michael Delea Jr 2009 Revocable Trust 099-1-18 2,589 SF -
Terminal Logistics II Edwards Avenue SPE, LLC 117-1-4.1 20,784 SF --
EP Equity Holdings Three LLC 099-2-27 1,770 SF --
1998 Peconic LLC ' 099-2-30 2,513 SF --
Reputed Owner Tax Map No. Fee Taking,Area Easement Area
(approximately)
Joan E. Schwenk 157-2-14.1 1,738 SF --
Buckhout Family 2011 Irrevocable Trust 157-3-25.2 3,450 SF 1,551 SF
Henry G. and Marion M. Schwenk 157-3-10.9 2,680 SF --
Geoffrey G. and Katherine Schwenk 157-3-10.2 1,181 SF --
Town of East Hampton 184-1-2 6,760 SF --
Walter Donway 157-3-15 2,084 SF 2,009 SF
Town of East Hampton 157-3-21 292 SF 229 SF
o
Reputed Owner Tax Map No. Fee Taking Area Easement Area
(approximately)
Isodoros Kordas and Jennifer Kwon 035-1-4.2 617 SF --
Tammi and Timothy Grattan 035-1-7 526 SF --
Roberta Eisenberg 035-1-8 69orSF --
5 Past 40 LLC 035-1-21 2,029 SF --
160 Route 25 LLC 034-2-1 4,343 SF --
Several statements were submitted by the public both during and after the public hearing held for this project
and have been documented with responses in the Final Design Report. This project will proceed toward a
letting scheduled for November 2023. Acquisition of the right-of-way required is .scheduled to occur in
November 202.2.
Based on public comments; modifications were made to location 4 to provide a left turn storage lane for
access to Sound Road from eastbound NY 25.This change will require additional property acquisition (459
SF)from Tax Map Number 034-2-1. However;the basic design of this project has not changed, consisting
of the following improvements:
• NY 25 at Edwards Avenue: widening the intersection, realignment of Edwards Avenue, the addition of
turn lanes on all four approaches and rebuilding the existing traffic signal.
•. NY 114 at Stephen Hands Path:widening the intersection,the addition of turn lanes on all approaches,
extending the right turn storage lane on Stephen Hands-Path and rebuilding the existing traffic signal.
o NY 25 at CR 48: construction of a mini roundabout at the intersection, addition of sidewalk and
crosswalks.
These improvements will reduce delay, improve overall traffic conditions, and enhance safety.
The project is not subject to Federal review under the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) because
the proposed action has been classified as a Class II Categorical Exclusion pursuant to FHWA procedures.
It is also classified as Non-Type 11 under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The
proposed project is not anticipated to have any adverse cumulative effects on the surrounding,areas or the
environment. The proposed project is anticipated to result in only minor overall impacts to the environment.
Construction is anticipated to begin in early 2024. No off-site detours will be required. Temporary traffic
interruptions may occur, and some vehicular access to businesses may be modified, but businesses will
still be able to operate.Access to homes will be maintained during construction.
Copies of this determination and findings will be forwarded upon written request without cost. Those
property owners who may wish to challenge condemnation of their property via judicial review may do.so
only on the basis of issues, facts, and objections raised at the hearing (§ 202 (C) (2) of Article 2, EDPL).
Each individual assessment record billing owner("property owner") or his or her attorney of record whose
property may be acquired shall note that, under §. 207 (A), a petition to seek judicial review of the
condemnor's determination and findings must be filed within 30 days after the condemnor's completion of
its publication of its determination and findings. Further, the exclusive venue for judicial review of the
condemnor's determination and findings is the appellate division of the supreme court in the judicial
department where any part of the property to be condemned is located (§207(Bj, §208).
Further information on this project is available upon request during normal working hours.
.Direct inquiries to:
Safety Enhancements at Various Locations
Towns of Riverhead, East Hampton, and Southold
NYSDOT—Region 10 Design
250 Veterans Memorial Highway, Room 5A-10
Hauppauge, New York 11788
R10-RPIC2dot.ny.gov
(631) 962-6929