Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCichanowicz, Frank Amend.#138To~ From: Gregory F. Yakaboski Date: December 8, 1999 Re: Chichanowicz, Frank II1 Rezoning from RO to B Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk Betty, Attached is the file for the above referenced matter, which I am returning. Thanks, Greg JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTKAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main l~ad P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notic~ of DctcrminaUon of Non-Si~;ficanc~ Determination of S'~nifie. anc~ Lead Agency: Address: Town Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Da~e: May 15, 1995 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significam effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. Title of Action: Frank Cichanowicz, III Change of Zone Petition from Residential-Office "R-O" District to Business "B" District SEQR Status: Unlisted Action Project Description: The project which is the subject of this Determination, involves a propos,,e,d c~,,an, ge of zone of 3.24 a,c,.r,e,,s from Residential Office R-O to General Business B. The project decision is structured to restrict business use in conformance with the following goals: 1) maintain aesthetic quality of rural/historic agricultural use through historically appropriate design and site planning; 2) allow only retail businesses complementary to the rural and historic character of the surrounding area, such as offices, antique, art and craft shops and galleries and other retail sales supplemental to vineyard use; and, 3) allow restaurants, except drive-in restaurants. SCTM Number:. District 1000 - Section 103 - Block 01 -p/o Lot 19.3 Location: The site is located on the south side of Main Road, 287.32 feet west of Harbor Lane, ia Cutchogue, New York. Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II, and the following specific reasons: 1) 2) 4) 5) The project has been evaluated through a Lon$ EAF Part I and II which consider environmental andplanning aspects of the project. The subject parcel does not exhibit environmental sensitivity in the traditional sense. Review of the Long EAF Part I as well as field inspection indicates that the site is suited for controlled development for the following reasons; soils are conducive to leach/ag, topography is fiat, there are no significant vegetation, wetlan~ or wildlife habitat on site. 3) The proposed zoning would not generate a significant influx of people or traffic as compared to present zoning, nor would noise, aesthetic or visual resources be significantly adversely impacted. t-qnd use and zoning issues are a local, as opposed to a regional, consideration and measures are available to reduce impact upon the community. The use would be subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board if the zoning is changed ha accordance with Chapter 100 of the Southold Town Code. For Further Information: Contact Person: Address: Phone No.: Judith Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold (516)765-1800 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Depm-tment of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Planning NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Rudolph Bruer, Esq., for Frank Cichanowicz PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Lalham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kennelh L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O Box1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~a¥ 12. 1995 Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold P.O.Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RECEIVED RE: Change of Zone Petition by Frank Cichanowicz la.k.a. Island Ale) S/s SR 25; approximately 300' W/o Harbor Lane. SCTM # 1000-103-1-19.3 Cutchogue Dear Mrs. Terry, The Planning Board reviewed the above-noted change of zone petition and offers the following report. The Cichanowicz petition requests a change of zone from Residential Office IRO) to General Business (B) for a 3.28 acre parcel located on the south side of SR 25, approximately 300 west of its intersection with Harbor Lane, Cutchogue. The subject parcel lies adjacent to two parcels that recently were rezoned from RO to B. The rezoning essentially will permit the conversion of a large farm house into a restaurant, and the future expansion of a complex which includes an existing winery, associated retail store, office and apartment. IH. Blum. R. Blum & Peconic Bay Winery). The subject property owner proposes to construct a mix of uses. the principal use of which the Planning Board considers to be the restaurant, along with a microbrewery using hops grown on the remainder of the property which is zoned R-80. The owner intends to sell the micro-brewed beer in the restaurant and for off-premises consumption. A retail gift-shop is also planned for the premises. The surrounding zoning to the west is B; to the east lies RO. The north side of the road directly opposite the subject parcel is zoned B also. The Planning Board recognizes that the proposed uses are similiar to that which was proposed for the Blum properties; and that the Town Board rezoned the Blum properties in order to permit the afore-stated types of uses because it felt that winery-related businesses contributed to the rural and agricultural character of the local economy. The Planning Board supports the concept set forth by the petitioner. which provides for the manufacture and sale of beer made from hops grown on the site. Accordingly. it supports a change of zone to make this project possible. However. the Board wishes to reiterate its concern about permitting additional expansion beyond this subject property for intensive commercial zoning in a strip along the Main Road in order to accomodate various agri-businesses, This concern embraces two issues. One is that the additional expansion of the B zone to the east may eventually drain economic vitality from the traditional hamlet center of Cutchogue at the intersection of New Suffolk Road and Main Road. Second is that the I~ zone permits a hast of intensive uses that go beyond the immediate needs of the current property owner. As with the Blum petitions, the Planning Board again recommends that serious consideration be given to creating a zone or other mechanism which will permit an agri-business related use on road frontage provided the development rights of the working farm are held or set aside in exchange for the life of the agri-business. Sincerely. Richard C. ~ard ~5 Chairman ENVIRONMENT ~.~,~~G CONSULTANTS May 2, 1995 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RECEIVED ~A¥ J 19~ Re: Tr~mc hnpact Study Island ~Je., Proposed Restaurant Cutchogue, New York Sout~old Town Dear Ms. Terry: We have reviewed the April 6, 1995 comments from the NYSDOT Regional Traffic Engineer James O. Frein regarding the above referenced project. The comments have been coml~ared with our previous correspondence to the Town Board, and the following status is provzded. previous ~A Comme~ TI~ study doea not address the conflueno~ of turning movemeata for the four proposed developments, the optimal cDn~ll'a$,ioIi (:~ driveway a];~nm~il~ ~ ~ provision for turn lanes thl'On~h ~ segment of Main Road- Pre~ious CVA Recommendations It is retommepA'~d the study ~ ~ Re~ ~;bd ~ [o ~e ~ re~ .nal~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~em ~ o~ ~mc f~ ~ ~ ~ ~s) ~ cmploy~ W II NYSDOT wal-rnnt~ for a trnfGc ~;~al ~c not ~tkficd, then k ~ r~mmcn~ thnt m ~ supp~m~ ~ ~ ,i~g~ ~ ~o~ ~ M~ r~ ~om E~'s R~d/~ ~ w~cr~ to ~ r~dential pro~ W~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S~w~ ~ w~rc ~ pavemc~ ~o~ M~ R~d h pr~nfly ~ ~ r~dway ~ by · ~ ~le ~ow ~r ~ a~tc ~o~rs ~ ~ ~ ~o~on of ~ ~ ~o~ ~ ~on ~d c~ ~ mmp~ ~ little ~ ~ ~nin~ ~ ~ ~tin~ ~veme~ ~ ~ ~,,~qio~ ~ ~S~T U~ en~n~ ~ ~i~ ~ O~ ~. NYSDOT Co~en~ NYSDOT c~mm¢lflil ~2 ami ~7, whih: mX requiring rtodj~.ated tun] lane~ do addl'e~s tke ~ Og tra~c flow and the in~a~ in left turn movemeats. DOT's requeat for 'd~ouldor(s) widened and/or strengthened" and p,v. ting "no stopping z~ne(s)' is con-qi~cnt with our commen/~ although less demandin& in term~ of implementation and offe~. Since NYSDOT has not expressed any additional signi~cant concerns with respect to traffic operations, based on the Island Ale Traffic Impact Study, it appears as though the Town should seek full conformance with NYSDOT comments #2 and #7 in order to address Pa~ 1 ~2 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 lshnd Ale, Cutchogue NYSDOT Comment RL~IeW movements in the v/cinity of the subject site. Other comments involve straightforward submi~ions to NYSDOT for construction, pcrmittin~ etc. along a State Road. Thank you for the opporhmity tO provide you with this input, and please call ffyou have any questions. ~l~.rles J. ¥oorhis, C~P, CRAMER, vO0~l~.-~ &'~ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTI~ A~ p;~NG CONSULTANTS Page 2 or2 April 4, 1995 Nelson m~d Pope Ensineers 572 Walt Whlhnan Road Melville, New York 11747 ~¢tl[lelnen: -6 We ha,,'e roviewed the Traffic Impact Study and site platl~ submitled ~ lh~.at~o*e,r~/ferenced pro.leer. We find that the installation of two cm'b cuts on Route 25 'a411 prgVtdb _~:t~lualo access Io tl~e proposed sit~. We offer the follu,;,'ing comments regarding stta. pl*.~ t'~ji-~e~ts: 1 I'he westerly curb cut width shall be 2U O", wtfile the etmtorly euxb ~ut Width shall be 24'0". Both driveways must b~ coo.'.'ttucted porp~ndicut~ to P,.out~ 15: . Concrete curb shall b, constructed l:uil fi'on.t"llle of sim, 20'0" i~om,tt~ ~:~terl.'.ine of roadway to provide a 12'0" travel lane and I~'0" shouldeL RotR;lw~y dir~!i~$, must be appropriately addressed and shoulder wide. ned and/or st~engthen¢ct lie,.gOMi~tgJy to provide for this 20'0" section. Driveway Itmdes and. tot d~'ainalte proposals, must be shown inst~rin$ ~lli slorm rime fi' to be contained on site. ,I fhe westerly driv,aw~y is designated for entrm-~ce only. therefore, two '~J.~o ~ot e" signs (R3-[ 5C) must be installed at the southerly dt'iveway mottthF f~ol~ng smith. install pavement mafldngs in easl driveway for two-way operation (doliltfle yellow center line and directional arrows). 6. Sho',~ NYS spec. dots. ils mid iteln nmn0er.~ for all work ou Rout* 2~ (~att~hmonts). The entire front,~ge on Route 2~ mu.st be .~lgned as a "No q_r. oppJn~"',~, posting PI 7C signs as per NYS Manual of Ll~fil'otm 'l',affic Ccmmq Doxqct~, :; ?L~'d OI B~I~'UI Nelson Md Pope Engineers April 4, 1995 Page 2 8 The internal parkin8 e~eas ahotdd be corme~ted. Please' submit four copies of the revised site plmi add,'essi.ng these ¢one~nl.s'to~!Mr. F. $imone. Regional Permit Enghaeer, at the above address. K.indty refer to our case number in all future ccn'e~spondenco. Very t~aJly yours, Original Signed By JAMES O, FR£1N JAMES O, FREIN Regional Trmqfic Engineer cc: Valotie Scopl~z, To',~ ofSouthold Pl~mng Dep~trtmont . , : . ~e preliml~ site plan shown a roadway .spin' ~ the wemrly p~$ IcL When "lslm~d Ale" 1~ construeted~ ~l~ road shoed be centlnu~ ~d ~F~o ~ winery to thc west so Ihat v~hicles wigMn8 to patrozfi~ ~oth faoiUtie$ ~ fiffi ~ ~e-enter Route 25. JOF:OH:JS bce' F. Shnone T. Trienens File: Route 25, Cutehogue ?20 '.~ I~T TO T~' ,7 T ENVIRON MENT~"~~G CONSULTANTS , ~:-"~-'-~,\\~ Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Re: Review of Traffic Impact Study Frank Cichanowicz III Application Island Ale Proposed Restaurant Cutchogue, New York February 3, 1995 RECEIVED FFB ? 1995 Southold Town Cleft Dear Ms. Terry: As per Town Board authorization, we have completed a review of the Traffic Impact Study as referenced above;, The following is an evaluation of the traffic impact study preparedfor the proposed "pub brew type restaurant, Island Ale, in connection with the Cichanowacz zone change application. Traffic Impact Study Summary Theproject proposed is to develop a "brew pub" restaurant of 5,643 square feet and gift shop of 1,197square feet on a site located on the south side of Main Road, NYS Route 25, in the hamlet of Cutchogue, Southold Town. The s.i. te is currently operating as a wholesale nursery and is flanked by a mix of land uses, primarily commercial. The traffic impact study examined the existing traffic conditions, projected traffic conditions for 1996 - the anticipated time of project completion, and the condition in 1996 with the project generated traffic superimposed on the 1996 background traffic volumes. The study was to assess any traffic degradation and what, if any, traffic mitigation measures would be needed. The methodology employed in the study utilized recognized transportation planning principles and practices. Volume counts were taken in November 1994 and adjusted for the peak seasonal variation for the month of August, an increase of nearly 23%. New York State Department of Transportation monthly seasonal factors were employed. Those peak summer volumes were then extranolated to 1906, the year of pro. posed const~action completion, to revresent a future "no build~' condition. A NYSI~OT annual growth factor for the North Fork oJ~ Long Island, 3% per year, increased the August 1994 volumes to August 1996 levels. Added to these "1996 no build" volumes is the anticipated traffic generated if the project were to be built resulting in a "1996 build" condition. Trip generation rates utilizing empirical data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers 1991 manual, Trip Generation, 5th Edition, for this type of proposed land use, i.e., a "quality restaurant", were used. Those rates were compared to a similar facility located in Port Jefferson and found to be nearly twice those actually experienced in Port Jefferson. The higher rates from the 1TE manual were used as a more conservative approach. Additionally, the study considered the impact of generated traffic from other nearby proposed developments: the Blum property - 1 1,300 square foot restaurant; the Braun's Oyster Co. - a 2,700 P~e 1 or3 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Island Ale, Cu~:hoge Traffic Impact Study Review square foot storage~ expansion; and the existing King Kullen shopping center with 3,400 square feet currently vacant, lrip generation rates form the ITE manual were employed for these potential developments as well The generated traffic was distributed to the roadway network, superimposed onto the background "1996no build" traffic, to evaluate the "1996 build traffic condition. Capaci~ analyses were performed on existing, "1996 no build" and "1996 build" traffic conditions u tiltzing the procedures detailed in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209), published by the Transportation Research Board. The resultant calculations de,termined the levels of services for each of the conditions to allow comparison between the "build' and "no build" scenaxios. Analyses were performed for the signalized intersection of Main Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane, a four-legged intersection, and the two unsignaiized 'T' intersections formed by the access driveways for the proposed project and Main Road. In addition, gap studies were conducted to evaluate the sufficiency of gaps in the traffic flows for safe turning movements. Accident patterns for the last three years on this section of Main Road were exanuned for evidence of existing safety problems. Based on the analyses described above, the study concludes that the segment of Main Road in the vicinity of the propesedproject is currently operating at an acceptable level of service and is experiencing no unusual safety deficiencies. The study further concludes that the development of the proposed project is not expected to have any adverse impacts, degrade the level of service, or present any operationai or safety hazards. Traffic Impact Study Review While the methodology and conclusions of the study are sound and based on accepted traffic engineering analyses, the following questions or comments should be addressed: Append~ D array~ site generated traffic for the Blum, Braun and King Kullen properties (in addition to the proposed project property) but that total traffic is not included in Figure 7, which appears to add only the Island Ale generated traffic to the "1996 no build" volumes depicted in Figure 6. Level of service analyses for the signalized intersection at Eugene's Road/Cox Lane and the two unsienali:'.cd_ intersection~ at the site access driveways, sl~otfid b ..... . ....... Icu~'~'d "~:',',o ~c:t~._ ~,_nera.~_"~' 'o,~ t r a.~c from all the propertias. The study does not address the site generated traffic [:rom the 1,197 square foot gift shop on the proposed project site. The study does not support the 65%/35% (west/east) trip dlatribution for generated traffic from the Island Ale and Blum property restaurants nor the 50%/50% distribution for the Braan ad King Kullen properties. The accident analysis ia incomplete with no description of the type or severity of the accidents and, while the number of accidents seems low, whether the accident rate is typical for this Ojpe of roadway when compared to statewide rates normalized for volume. CRAMER, Vq~I~j,~/~,~'k~$OCIATES ENVIRONMENT~__~/~iIj~,.G, ~ ,. CONSULTANTS Pag~ 2 of 3 lshnd Ale, Cub:ho~ Tr~mc Impact Study Review The study should identify the "brew pub" in Port Jefferson al~d describe why it ia comparable to the propoaed proje~:t. It ia recognized that the study utliized the IT/~ rates which are nearly two times the Port Jefferson 'brew pub' rates~ however, the age, size, [oration, etc. of the Port Jefferson "brew pub" would be useful in comparing trip generation rates. The study concludes the easterly site acce~ intersection will operate at LOS E during the Saturday peak hour. The study ahouid e~amine whether a trail'lC signal ia wan'anted at that driveway or at the westerly site access in conjunclJon with the King Kullen driveway acxos~ from it on the north side. The gap study concludes there arc adequate gaps in the trall'tc stream for egresaing vehicles at the easterly ac. ce. aa but that analysla did not allow for site generated trait'lC from the three other proposed sites. The study does not address the conflucnc~ of turning movements for the four proposed developments, the optimal conf'~,mrafion of driveway alignments, or the provision of turn lanes through thin segment of Main Road. Recommendations: It is recommended that the study address the items detailed above to ensure the revised analyses do not arrive at significantly different conclusions from the original study. While no major deviations in the analyses are expected, it is felt that, based on anticipated developments at several nearby sites and based on observations of current traffic operations, some form of traffic control device(s) be employed to guarantee acceptable levels of operation and safety for the future. If NYSDOT warrants for a traffic signal are not satisfied, then it is recommended that turn lanes, supplemented with ancillary signage, be provided along Main Road from Eugene's Road/Cox Lane westerly to the residential properties west of the commercial area, east of Bridge Lane, where the pavement narrows. Main Road is presently a two-lane roadway separatedby a painted double ye/low barrier with adequate shoulders on both sides. Provision of turn lanes through this section would be easily accomplished with little or no widening of the existing pavement area. Detailed discussions with NYSDOT traffic engineers can determine the optimal layout. In summary, the traffic impact of the proposed Island Ale "brew pub" restaurant, even when evaluated in conjunction w~th other nearby proposed developments, is not expected to have an adverse effect on local traffic operations if proper design considerations and minor mitigation measures described above are incorporated into the plan. Very truly yours, ~ , d~arle; ~. ~V'6~rhis, CEP, A/~P ENVIRON M ENT ~,~ ~_.~~G CONSULTANTS Page 3 of 3 CRAMER, Vq~ ¢////~SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS September 16, 1994 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re-' SEQRA EAF Review Frank Cichanowicz, Iii Change of Zone Petition from Residential Office 'R-O" to Business "B" District Main Road, Cutchogue SCTM# 1000-103-1-P/O 19.3 Dear Judith: We have completed a review of the above referenced change of zone petition. In order to conduct this review, we carried out a field inspection, reviewed and corrected the Part 1, completed Part II, consulted the zoning code and Master Plan update, and with these tools, prepared a SEQR Determination of S!gnificance. As always, these documents are submitted in Drafl form for the Board s review and consideration. It is suggested that the Board review these documents, and if there are further considerations, we would be pleased to amend the documents or consult with the Board as necessary. Inspection of the subject parcel finds that the largest portion of the site is agricultural in nature. More specifically, young trees are being grown for landscaping purposes. A small building, apparently a residence, occupies the northeastern corner of the lot. There are no sensitive environmental resources on the subject site. The site would be categorized as having flat topography and surface soils are classified as Bridgehampton loam which does not present restactions for the type of activity proposed. The depth to groundwater is approximately twenty two (22) feet. The site ~s not within the north fork water budget area, but is located in Groundwater Management Zone IV. In terms of natural resources, soils, groundwater and ecology, the site is not constrained with regard to use. In terms of land use and planning, the site is currently used for agriculturally related purposes. The site is zoned Residence-Office "R-O" which is intended to ...provide a lransmon area bet~ een business areas and low-density residential development along major roads which will provide opportunity for limited nonresidential uses in essentially residential areas." Land use in the area is as follows: North: Realtor, antique store, gas station, two residences with nursery behind. Northeast: Lawyer/CPA offices and vacant medical center 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Northwest: West: East: Southeast: King Kullen shopping center, bank, auto parts store Winery, farmstand and residence. Residence, funeral home and old burial ground Residential The applicant wishes to re-zone a portion of his property to General "B" for the purpose of building a facility which would offer beer for sale (on and off premises) brewed locally and on site. The proposed use could be considered as a compliment to the vineyards in the area. The vineyards have been shown to be an important part of the tourist industry and have contributed to the economic stability of the North Fork. However, the re-zoning to General Business "B" would permit an abundance of uses, including strip retail centers, wholesale businesses etc., many which do not consider the land-use in the area or the recommendations of the Master Plan Update. These uses are a concern because of the increased traffic and water use that are associated with some of these General Business uses. For this reason, it would be important to consider a restriction on the proposed rezoning which would allow the applicant to achieve the uses outlined in the zone change petition, and protect the community from uses which may not be as desirable at the subject location in view of present land use and zoning in the area. This could be achieved either through a covenant placed on the land as a requirement of the zone change approval. The covenant would restrict any use of the site without further approvals to achieve the following goals and uses: maintain aesthetic quality of rural/historic agricultural use through historically appropriate design and site planning. allow only retail businesses complementary to the rural and historic character of the surrounding area, such as offices, antique, art and craft shops and galleries and other retail sales supplemental to vineyard use. allow restaurants, except drive-in restaurants As another alternative the Board could consider a different zoning district. It is noted that the Limited Business "LB" District achieves some of these goals through its purpose and permitted uses. the "LB" District is intended to "...accomodate limited business activity along highway corridors, but in areas outside the hamlet central business areas, that is consistent with the rural and historic character of surrounding areas and uses. Emphasis will be placed on review of design features so that existing and future use will not detract from surrounding uses. The additional uses must generate low amount,,s of traffic and be designed to,,pr,o,,tect the residential and rural character of the area. The use regulations of the LB district are also more consistent with the goals of the Master Plan Update, and permit a wider range of uses which may be appropriate on the site as an alternate use to the proposed use in the future. CRAMER, VC RH'I'8 &/!, $$OCIATES E N VI R O U M E U O CONSULTANTS In view of the foregoing facts, the proposed project is not expected to cause a significant environmental impact provided certain measures are taken to ensure that unrestricted business use does not occur. Therefor, the Town Board could consider the issuance of a Negative Declaration for this project incorporating appropriate restrictions into the zone change decision either through covenant or by approval of a change of zone to the LimitedBusiness "LB" District. Attached is a draft Determination o.f Significance for your consideration. If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. eric. Long EAF Parts I and II Determination of Sigrfificance Very Truly Yours, Thomas W. Cramer, SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Determination of Significance Lead Agency: Town Board of the Town of Southold Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertain/ng to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. Title of Action: Frank Cichanowicz, III Change of Zone Petition from Residential-Office "R-O" District to Business "B" District SEQRStatus: Unlisted Action Project; Description: The project which is the subject of this Determination, involves a proposed change of zone of 3.24 acres from Residential Office "R-O" to General Business "B". The project decision is structured to restrict business use in conformance with the following goals: 1) maintain aesthetic quality of rural/historic agricultural use through historically appropriate design and site planning; 2) allow only retail businesses complementary to the rural and historic character of the surrounding area, such as offices, antique, art and craft shops and galleries and other retail sales supplemental to vineyard use; and, 3) allow restaurants, except drive-in restaurants. SCTM Number: District 1000 - Section 103 - Block 01 -p/o Lot 19.3 Page 1 of 2 Frank Cichanowic. z, II1 SEQR Determination Location: The site is located on the south side of Main Road, 287.32 feet west of Harbor Lane, in Cutchogue, New York. Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II, and the following specific reasov_s: 1) 2) 4) 5) The project has been evaluated through a Long EAF Part I and II which consider environmental and planning aspects of the project. The subject parcel does not exhibit environmental sensitivity in the traditional sense. Review of the Long EAF Part I as well as field inspection indicates that the site is suited for controlled development for the following reasons; soils are conducive to leaching, topography is flat, there are no significant vegetation, wetlani~-br wildlife habitat on s~te. 3) The proposed zoning would not generate a significant in/lux of people or traffic as compared to present zoning, nor would noise, aesthetic or visual resources be significantly adversely impacted. Land use and zoning issues are a local, as opposed to a regional, consideration and measures are available to reduce impact upon the community. The use would be subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board if the zoning is changed in accordance with Chapter 100 of the Southold Town Code. For Further Information: Contact Person: Address: Phone No_: Judith Terry, Town Clerk Town of $outhold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold (516)765-1800 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Planning NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Rudolph Bruer, Esq., for Frank Cichanowicz Page 2 of 2 1.1 1 ~.,! L2,/87) ?c 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Qualily Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SEQR Purpose: The full EAF is desiEned to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically e.xpert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full FAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in Lhe analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or w~ther it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted AclJons ldenti,y,he PortionsofEAFcomple,ed tor ,his project: ~ Part1 ~ Part2 r~Part3 Upon review of the information ~-ecorded on this EAF (Parts I and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: [] A. The project will not result in any large and impo.rtant impact(s) and, therefore,' is one which wiil not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negalive declaration will be prepared. [] B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaralion will be prepared.* [] C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have ~ significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaral[on will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative [Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Frank Cichanowicz, III Name of Action Southold Town Board Name of Lead Agency ~:'rint or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Of/icer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (if different from responsible officer) 7/26/94 Date Approxm~aLe percentage ol propo.,ed prolect s,te w~dl slopes: [~-10",a _ iD() ss ~10 15'/g ~]157;, or greater 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site. or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? ~lYes 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register.of National Natural Landmarks? [uYes ~No 8. What is the depth of the water table?~'~ (in feet)----~.~-t 9. ,ssitelocatedover a primary, principal, orsolesourceaquifer? XY;s 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? [~Yes EgNo 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? OYes [~No /',ccording to Identify each species 12. Are tlmre any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e, cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) DYe> [~No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? OYes Ii'No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? ~No 15, Streams within or contiguous to project area: None a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name .0 17. Is the site served by~xisting p_ublic utilities? fig]Yes [UNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? b. Size (in acres) []Yes [~}Yes [~No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? mYes ~No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 [uYes ~No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ~lYes ~No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropria'te) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 27 b. P~oject acreage to be developed: :~.2R? acres initially; same c. Project acreage to remain undeve!oped 23 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (If appropriate) .e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 10 h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Initially N/A Ulti?ately N/A i. Dimensions (in feet) ot largest proposed structure 2.~ height;_ 5"6- width; j. Linear feet o[ Iroptage along a public thoroughfare project :w[I occupy is? '1-50 acres. acres ultimately. ;proposed as per code Is~YtI'AONJ {$ ~--O~ (upon completion of project)? ~ O ~ }~I ~ ~: (xN'W,c~ '5 Condominium } 7.-- ~" len g t h~'"'~l,~~''' 3 ,. AI)pro'-aJs Required: Suhnfillal Dale City, Town, Village Board [~'~es [No City, Town, Village Planning Board ~Yes E3No City, Town Zonin¢ Board ~Yes ~No City, County Health Department ~Yes ~No Other Local Agencies ~Yes ~No Other Re8iooal A~encies ~les ~No State Agencies ~Yes ~No Federal Agencies ~Yes ~No Suffolk County Plannin~ . C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning dec/sion? [~Yes []No If Yes, indicate decision required: l~qzoning amendment [~zoning variance ~/.specia[ use permit []subdivision ~site plan L~new/revi$ion of master plan []resource management plan r3o£her 2 What is the zoning classification[s]of the site~ "R/On Reeidential/0ffice 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? ApparLmen~ over offices/Governmen~al uses/Fraternal Organization/School 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? Business "B" $. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? Restaurants, .wineries and ~ineyards (l~b~0 ~T~I, lP W~LL~! ~gE~tP(Cx~ ~ I W~O~S~L~ 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans~ ~Yes ~No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a ~A mile radius of proposed action~ 90~ Bus,ness 10~ Residential and Res~dent~a~]off~ce 8 is the proposed action compatible with adjoining]surrounding land uses within a ~,4 mile~ i~Yes fqNo 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposedf 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the format/on of sewer or water districts? ~Yes ~No 11. Will the proposed ac~,n crea~.,~.demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, [ire protection)? ,~es ~.~'~ o a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ~Yes ~No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation o[ traffic significantly above present levels? 13Yes l~]No , a. If yes, is the exbting road ne£work adequate to handle the additional traffic~ I~Yes I-INo. D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your proiect. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please d~scuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my kno,,vJedge. App,,cant,$pon. (-)' Date Signature ~-~L~.~ ~ ~.~e _..Y~__.~?~-..~m Title ~ _ It Ihe aclion is in Ihe Coastal Area, and you e a slale agency, complele Ihe Coaslal Assessment form be/otc proceeding ~ilh lifts assessmenl. 5 Pad. 2--PRO,~ECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Respnns~bilifs of Lead Agencs General Information (Read Carelull~ I · Ident,fying that an impact ~,11 be potent,all,, large (colun~r] 2) does not mean thai d ,s also necessarily significant asks that d be looked aL further · The Examples prowded are to assist the rewe~er by showm~ types ut impacts and v. here'.er possible the tiwesho[d of magmtude that would trig§er a response m column 2 The examples are §enerally apphcable throughout the State and for most situations But. for an,, specific project or site other examples and/or Joy. er thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3 · The impacts of each project, on each site, m each locality, will ,.,ar,, Therefore. the examples are illustratwe and Instructions (Read carefull,~) a Answer each of the 19 questions m PART 2 Answer Yes ~f there will be an~. impact b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate bo~ (column 1 or 2) to red,cate the potential size of the ,mpact If impact threshold equals or exceeds an,,, example provided, check column2 It~mpactwilloccur but threshold Is lower than example, check column 1. d If reviewer has doubt about ~Jze of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be m~tlgated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3 A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible This must be explained in Part 3 I 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] ~Yes reno [] [] [~Yes []No L~ [] ~]Yes []No [] [] []Ves ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~¥es ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~e~ ~o I IMPACT ON LAND VVill the proposed action result in a physical change to~e project site? /~NO E/YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 1036 · Construction on [and where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. · Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. · Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of ex~sting ground surface. · Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. · Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material 0.e., rock or soil) per year. · Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. · Construction in a designated floodway. · Other impacts 2 Will there be an effectt, .~¥ ur.,queor unusualland,~ms found on the s~te? 0 e , cliffs, dunes, geolo[~cal formations, etc.~O E~YES · Specd~c land forms IMPACT ON WATER (Under Articles 15. 24. 25 of the [m. lronri~entalConser,,;~}Ci~,rlLav, t. CLI Examples that would appl,, to column 2 · Developable area of site contains a protected v, ater bod'~ · Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of 3 · Extension of utihty dlstribubon facilities through a protected v, ater hods · Construction in a designated treshv,,,ater or tidal wetland · Other impacts: 4 Will proposed action affect an~ non-protectedex~stm':,.,::./,or ne;., hod,, of water? ,~,JO ~YES E~amples that ~ould appl~ to column 2 · A 109'6 increase or decrease in the surface area of an,,' bod~ of ~ater or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease · Construction of a bod~ of v, ater that exceeds 10 acres of surface area · Other impacts' 5 Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater.~ quahty oc cluantit,¢~ .~O ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 / - · Proposed Action wdl require a discharge permit · Proposed ,Action requires use of a source of water that does not have appro',.al to serve proposed iprolect) action. ~, Proposed Action requ,res water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacit',,. · Construction or operation cg,jsing an'~ contamination of a water supply svstem · Proposed Action wdl adve~s,;l~.' af/ect groundwater. · Liqu~ effluent wd] b~ conve,eC off the site to facilities ~sl-t :h presentl', do not e;,hst or have inadequate capacity · Proposed ,Action would use v, ater in excess ,.q' 20,000 gallons per day. · Proposed Action will liked , .:.~ siltation or other discharge into an existing body of,,;'a~,." ,,. d,- -',it,ti that there will be an ob,.,mus visual contrast :c natu:ai conditions · Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons · Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services · Proposed Action Ioca:.~s commercial and/or industrial uses which mav require new or expansion of existing waste treatment andlor storage facilities. · Other impacts: 6. Will proposed acbon alter drainage rl,t.w or patte,~.~, or surface water runoff? E~,~ O ~YES /' Ex:...ples that would apply to column 2 · Prop,, cd Action ~soulcl change flood ~,.ater flows ? 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 3 Potenlial Can Impacl Be Large Mitigated By Impact Proiect Change ~ ~]Yes []No [] E~'res []No [] []Yes ~No [] L~Yes ~INo [] EaYes ~No ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~Ye~ ~No ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~Yes ~Nc, ~es ~Ye~ E~No ~Yes ~ ~Yes ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~Yes ~No · Proposed Achon ma,, cause substantial erosion · Proposed Action ~s incompatible ',',qth existing drainage patterns. · Proposed Action ,..,,ill allo',', development in a designated [Iood,.va¥ · Other impacts. IMPACT ON AIR 7 VYill proposed action affect air quality? '~NO E]YE$ Examples that would appl~, to column 2 /, · Proposed Action ,.vdl ~nduce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in am, gwen hour · Proposed ,Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton oF refuse per hour · Emission rate of total contaminants ,...'ill exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 milhon BTU's per hour · Proposed action wi[[ allo,,s an increase in the amount pi land committed to indus(rial use · Proposed action will alloy., an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8 VYill Proposed Action affect any threatened or enda~,g~red species? i,~NO ~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Reduction of one or more species hsted on the New York or Federal hst. using the site, over or near s~te or found on the s~te · Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildhfe habitat · Apphcation of pesticide or herhiode more than twice a year. other than for agricultural purposes · Other impacts 9 Will Proposed Action substantiall,, affect non-threate~d or non-endangered species? ~,NO [~YE$ Examples that would apply to column 2 / ~ · Proposed Action would substantially interfere w~th any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. · Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land rEsOurces? O E3YES Examples that would appJy to column 2 · The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agriculturaJ Jand (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc. J I 2 3 Small to Potenlial Can Impacl 13e Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] [Zh'es ©~o [] [] [~Yes I~No [] [] ~lYes E]No [] ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~'~s ~No ~ ~ ~Y~s ~No ~ ~ ~'~s ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~ ~No ~ ~ ~Y~s ~No ~ ~ ~Ves ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ g ~Yes ~No g ~ ~Yes ~No agricultural land of agricultural land or, ]i located ~n an Agncultutal Di~tr~ct, more than 2 5 acres of agncuhural land · The proposed acUon ~ould d~srupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management s;,stem~(e.g subsurface drain hnes. outlet ditches. field to dram pood; due to ~ncreased runoff) IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCE,~j 11 Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? JjI~NO r~YES (h necessary, use the \qsua] EAF Addendum in ge~t~on 617.21, Appendix B.) Examples that v, ould apply to column 2 · Proposed land uses. or project components obviously d~fferent from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural · Proposed land u~es, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will ehminate or signif~cantl,,' reduce their enloyment of the aesthetic quahtms of that resource · Project components that will result in the ehmination or significant screening of scenic views knov,'n to be important to the area. Other impacts 1)/').~'~tl~(,~, ]J~I~T IF Ho/E.. IIOTgtO~I [ IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 Will Proposed Action impact any s~te or structure ,~l historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance~ I~LNO I~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 /' · Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or s~te listed on the State or National Register of historic places · Ans' impact to an archaeological s~te or tossil bed located within the proiect site · Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. · Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? ~LJ Examples that would apply to column 2 J~NO Fq'¥'ES · The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational o¢,p~rtunit¥ · A major reduction of an open space important to the community · Other ~mpacts: -s I 2 3 mall Io Polentia[ Can Impact Be Moderate Large Miligated By Impact Impact Project Change ~ [] ~'~'es [~No ~ [] Z]¥e~ ©No ~ [] Ch'es I~No ~ [] ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No Z ~ gYes gNo ~ ~ ~Yes ~No g ~ ~Ves gNo ~ ~ gYes gNo ~ g gYes gNo ~ ~ ~Ye~ gNo ~ g gYes gNo Z ~ ~Yes gNo IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION \Vdl there be an efl'ect to ex,sting transportation ~/e~o ZqYE5 Examples that ~ould appl~, to column 2 Alteration of present patterns of movement oi people and/or goods Proposed Action wdl result m major traffic problems Other impacts ~ ~O~ ID~GI~g USg I~PAOT ON ENEgGY 15 Will proposed action a~ect the community's sou~ of fuel or energy supplvl ~O gYES Examples that would aDDlv to column 2 Proposed Action ~ll cause a greater than 5% increase in the use any form of energ~ in the municipality Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two Jamily residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use Other impacts' NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16 Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibrati~/q as a result of the Proposed Action? ~.NO E~YES Examples that would apply to column 2 · Blasting within 3,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive faci[itv · Odors will occur rout~nel~ (more than one hour per day) · Proposed Action wi!l produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for no~se outside ot structures. · Proposed Action wdl remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen · Other impacts IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH '17 Will Proposed Act,on affect public health and safety? '~NO [~YES Examples that ~ould apply to column 2 · Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances(i.e oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc)in the event of accident or upset condiUons, or there may be a chronic iow level discharge or emission · Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) · Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of bquified natural gas or other flammable liquids · Proposed action may result in the excavation or other d~sturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the d~sposal of solid or hazardous waste. · Other impacts 10 I 2 3 Small to PotenIial Can Impact Be Moderale Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change [] [] [~Yes ~]No [] [] []Yes []No [] [] [~Yes []No ~ [] J~Yes []No [] [] []Yes []No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Ye~ ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~N0 ~ ~ ~Y.~ ~No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 113 Wdl proposed action affect the character O1' the e×~stm~.' commun~W? X'qO E~YES ExampLes that would appl,, to column 2 · The permanent population of the city, town or village ~n which the project ~s located is likely to gro~. by more than 5% · The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ,,',,ill increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. · Proposed action ~,il] conflict with ofiicially adopted plans or goals. · Proposed action ,,','ill cause a change in the density oi land use. · Proposed Action will replace or ehminate existing facihhes, structures or areas of historic ~mportance to the community. · Development v, ill create a demand for add,bona] community services (e.g schools, pohce and fire. etc~ · Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. · Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. · Other impacts._~oT~.~,-)Tl~L., t ~i~f_.T~ I~' ~IOLt 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impacl Impact Project Change [] [] ~Yes [~]No [] [] F3'Yes ~No [] [] []Yes E]No [] ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No ~ ~ ~Yes ~No 19 Is there, or is there likely to be, public controvers,~. ~,. related to potenhal adverse environmental impacts? f~YES If Any Action in Pad 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3--EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared il' one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact 2. Describe (if applicable) how the ~mpact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3 Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is importa.t. To answer the question of importance, consider: · The probability of the impact occurring · The duration of the impact · Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value · Whether the impact can or ,,',,ill be controlled · The regional consequence o[ the impact · Its potential divergence from local needs and goals · Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) 11 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 138 WHEREAS, o petition was heretofore filed with the Town Board of the Town of Southold by ....l~?.~.l~-.~.!~h~.~c~.!~...!.!.l ........................................ requesting a change, modification and amendment of the Building Zone Ordinance including the Building Zone Maps made a part thereof by chang- ing from .l~9..Z..~f~.Jf~.0.~.ig.!. f)ft'Jf~eDJstrict to ~..Z..~}~! ..~.~.!~.~.. District the property described in said petition, and WHEREAS said petition was duly referred to the Planning Board for its investigation, recommendation and report, and its report having been filed with the Town Board, and thereafter, a public hearing in relation to said petition having been duly held by the Town Board on the ..~1~1~ ......... day of ............. ~l.i]~ ......................, 19.~..., and due deliberation having been had thereon NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the relief demanded in said petition be, and it hereby is GRANTED, subject to the immediate execution and recordation of covenants and restrictions.* Dated: July 25, 1995. T". TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK * Covenants & Restrictions were recorded in the Suffolk Co :nty Clerk's Office on September 12, 1995. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY Of SUFFOLK ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE STEPHEN M. JONES. A,I,C.P. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING June 12, 1995 Ms. Judith Terry, Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 R~CFIVI~D JUN 1,, ~ To'~n Oe~ Re: Application of "Frank A. Cichanowicz III" (#307) for a change of zone from Residence Office to General Business B, Town of Southold (SD-95-9) Dear Ms. Terry: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Adxninistrative Code, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on June 7, 1995 reviewed the above captioned and after due stud)' and deliberation Resolved to approve said application. GGN:inb Very truly )'ours, Stephen M. Jones Director of Planning ? (' Oer~hi-~. Ne~vman "--Chief Planner ~td Town Oe& STAFF REPORT SIzCTION'$ A 14-{4 TO 33 OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTR.~TIVE CODE Municipali~ Tewn c~f File Numb~ ~ Applicant(s) ~ Expiration Date Thc ?ronosal mad Its Localion Application to amend the zoning ordinance and map by rezoning a parcel of !and from Residence Office (single family residences/offices on 40,000 sq. · lots) ro General Bminess "B" (general business uses on 30,000 sq. ~ Jots). The property is situated on the south side of M~in Read ('N.Y.5. Rte. 25), approximately 300 ft. west of Harbor Lane at Cutchogue. Desermtion and AnalvsiR The proposal is to erect a micro-brewery/restaurant and gift shop on a 3.3 ~_ acre pa~,q which has 450 R. of frontage on Rte. 25 and extends southerly approximately 328 R. The restaurant (brew pub) is aaa establishment where various varieties of local beers are brewed hops grown on lands of applicant to the south thereo£ Tae brew will be oft'ered for on and off premises consumption mu,'h like the local wineries. No site plan is available. Subject property is botmcied on the north across Rte. 25 by a ta.s sta£ior~usinessea/ residences in the General Business "B" District; to the east by a residence and bu.~ine.~s use(s) in the Residence Office Dismcx; to the west by a residence and barns (2) in the General Business "B" District; and :o thc south by undeveloped lands of applicant comprising 23 ± acres in the "R-80" District. It is the belief of the staff '~ha! said rezoning appears coruistent with the prevailing panem of zoning and character of the surrounding ~rea aa a further agri.busiaess attraction for touri~t~ coming to the Toum of Southold. Approval IUDITH T. TERRy SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK STATE OF NEW YORg' ~ COUntry OF SUFFOLK ) la Said County, being du/,, --.._ of MalUluck PHacip~ Cie ,- ~-~u~, ~ r~ of THE SU~o~ lhat he/she TIM~, a Weekly NeW~paper, Publl~ed at MaHItuck, In ~e To~ of ~Uthold, Coun~ of S~olk ~d State of New York, and that lbe NOUce of which the annexed I~a PUnted COpy, ~ ~en ~g~ly PubliShed in NeWSpaper Once each week g on the day of ~Xotary Public Sworn Io before me this STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) JUDITH T. TERRY, being duly sworn, says she affixed a notice of Town Clerk of the Town of 5outhold, New Yorl that on the 12th day of October 199] which the annexed printed notice is a true copy in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Tow. of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletit Board, Southold Town Hall, Malt, Road, Southold, New York 11971. Legal Notice, Notice of Amendment to the Southold Town Code and Zoning Map, Amendment No. 138, Frank Cichanowicz III. Sworn to before me this 1Zth day of October , 1995. Notary' Public y] Judit~ T. Terr-y Southold Town Clerk JOYCE M. WILKINS Notary Public, State of New Yo~ No. 4952246, Suffolk County Term Expire~ June 12, le ?'~ LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF AMENDMENT O $OUTHOLD TOWN CODE AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 138 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that at a meeting of the Town Board o the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, held on the 13th da) of June, 1995, the Town Board enacted the following amendment to the Town Zoning Code, entitled "Zoning Code of the Town of Southold", together with the Zoning Map forming a part thereof, as follows, to wit: Amendment No. 138 amends the Code of the Town of Southold by changing from Residential Office (RO) District to General Business (B) District the property of Frank Cichanowicz III, situate, lying and being at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of Main State Road, 287.32 feet westerly from its intersection with the westerly side of Harbor Lane. Said point also being where the northwesterly corner of land now or formerly of Fogarty intersects the southerly side of Main Road; running thence from said point and along land now or formerly of Fogarty South 35 degrees 53 minutes 10 seconds East 117.00 feet to a point and land now or formerly of Coster; running thence from along land now or formerly of Coster South 34 degrees 18 minutes 50 seconds East 216.18 feet to other land of Cichanowicz; running thence through other land of Cichanowicz South 49 degrees 31 minutes West 417.38 feet to land now or formerly of Blum; running thence along land now or formerly of Blum North 40 degrees 29 minutes West 327.70 feet to the southerly side of Main State Road; running thence along distances: (1) North 48 degrees 46 minutes beginning. Dated: October 12, 1995. Main State Road the following two (2) courses and 49 degrees 31 minutes East 155.17 feet; (2) North 20 seconds East 294.83 feet to the point or place of JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON OCTOBER 19, 1995, AND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH TERRY, HALL, PO BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971. FORWARD ONE (1) TOWN CLERK, TOWN Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Town Attorney Planning Board Building Department Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. for Frank Cichanowicz Ill Roderick Van Tuyl PC Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Edson and Bruer ATYOKNEY$ AT LAW MAIN ROAD-P.O. BOX 1466 SOUTHOLD, NEW yOI~K 11971 October 12, 1995 Mrs_ Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Frank Cichanowicz, Change of Zone Cutchogue, NY (SCTMgl000-103-01-p/oI9.3) RECEIVED OCT 1 1995 Southold Town Cie& Dear Judy: Pursuant to your letter of August 31, 1995, enclosed herewith please find a recorded copy of the Covenants and Restrictions. Please proceed with taking the final step as set forth in your letter. Sincereb RI-IB/cam Enc. SCHEDULE A (Property Description) ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situated, lying and being at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York being more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of Main State Road, 287.32 feet westerly from its intersection with the westerly side of Harbor Lane, said point also being where the northwesterly comer of land now or formerly of Fogarty intersects the southerly side of Main State Road; RUNNING THENCE from said point and along land now or formerly of Fogarty South 35 degrees 53 minutes [0 seconds East 117.00 feet to a point and land now or formerly of Coster; RUNNING THENCE from land now or formerly of Coster, South 34 degrees 18 minutes 50 seconds East 216.18 feet to other land of Cichanowicz; RUNNING THENCE through other land of Cichanowicz to other land of Cichanowicz; RUNNING THENCE r3xouth other land of Cichanowicz South 49 degrees 31 minutes West 4[7.38 feet to land now or formerly of Blum; RUNNING THENCE a/ong [and now or formerly of Blum North 40 degrees 29 minutes West 327.70 feet to the southerly side of Main State Road; RUNNING THENCE along Main Stare Road the following two courses and distances: i) North 49 degrees 31 minutes East 155.17 feet: 2) North 48 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds East 294.83 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTi~CTIONS T~S DECLARATION made by FRANK CICHANOWICZ, 1TI' this,~day of August, 1995, residing at L,,pen Drive, Cutchogue, New York 11935 hereinafter referred to as the DECLARANT, as the owner of premises described in Schedule "A" annexed hereto (hereinafter referred to as the PREMISES) desires to restrict the use and enjoyment of said PREMISES and has for such purposes determined to impose on said PRF_aMISES covenants and restrictions and does hereby declare that said PREMISES shall be held and shall be conveyed subject to the following covenants and restrictions: l. WHEREAS, DECLARANT has made application to the Southold Town Board for a change of zone from Residential Of-rice (R-O) District to General Business (B) District AND, WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board ha~ agreed to change the zoning of the property described in Schedule A from Resident/al Office (R-O) District to General Business (B) D/strict only if there be a record covenant that the subject premises be on/y erected, altered, renovated, remodeled, used, occupied and maintained for the following purposes only: agricultural/food related uses with accessory retail gift shop uses, including, but not limited to microbrewery and affiliated restaurant uses. 2. It is DECLARED and COVENTED by DECLARANT, his heirs or successors and assigns forever that the subject premises will be erected, altered, renovated, remodeled, used, occupied and maintained for the following purposes only: agricultural/food related uses with accessory retail gift shop uses. including, but ao£ limited to microbrewery and affiliated restaurant uses. The covenants set forth herein can be changed in whole or in parr by DECLARANT, his hers, successors or assigns and orgy with the consent of the Southold Town Board without a public hearing at any time. STATE OF NEW YORK ) : SS,: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) On the ~'- day of August, 1995, before me personally came FR.A.NK CICHANOWICZ, II/, to me lo,own to be the individual described in and who executed the t~oregoing inst~ment and aclmowledg~l that he executed same. NOTARY PUBLIC NoI~, Pu~F~c, .Sram d New Yark No.4ggsgt3 - Sufla& CounW IJOXE,e 5 TJIIIU 9 blUSI'IIE TYI'I!;II '1 I SUlqrOLl¢ COUb/TY CLICIII( O111'ltlbl'i'ElJ i~.IL._~I.J.I( JblK Ol"lbY i'1~101~ i'O IIIC¢OIIlIIblG O1~ 11741 ?£162 ...... T~iiiigNS ....-~ 5e~ IM II l'l'hlr CIIII Ilcetl I flh,rlgnge h,llnm]c.I Deed I I~hn Illnl.,e 'l'nx SI.rap /2 $.b 'I'.lnl UlIAblII TOTAL Service Age,icy ¥crllJtnlhm ~IICIIull J.,lll l'ng. I lrllhql lree II.mllhlll '1'1'-51t,I It.h.il.n I,'.A-5117 EA-5?I7 (~lnlu) JU',T.$.A. Comm. u]' AIIldavII I.;m IIIIcd Cq,y ltull. Copy Oilier Item I'r~ ~lliillll J)llle Dis[ [000 mi 103.00 UIoclL 01.00 Ip/o 019.003 Ilcl:ordh]ll ! FllJrig SlnmllS 1, lln.~]c 'l'lix 2. SOH ¥fliA 31ti, 'l'olnl 3. 'I'OT. I~1'1'1;. TAX 'l'r iiihqfer TIIx 'l'llle I1umlier PAll} BY: Cnsh Chech. l'nycr sa.no aJ 11 & IL 1'-0. Box 1/,66 SouthoJ.d, Ne~ York 11971 ItlCCOJID & IIgTUIIN TO Rccordiiig & Endorsement Page This page f0rlil$ llilrl o[Ihe nih. died (:o,...m~t~ ~.a Re~tr~ctto,m made by: (Dccd, Mod§ago, clc.) Frank Clchanowlcz, III Town of Southold The i~remlses hei'ehl Is sihinled hi $ UlrlrOLl~ CO UbITY, IIEW YOI[I(. Ill. '1'O~¥1~ of Southold life VILLAGJC IIAIHLIr, T of Cutchogue J~rDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Te]ephoae (516) 765-1500 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD August 31, 1995 Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. P.O. Box 1466 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Rudy: I am in receipt of your letter to Laury Dowd enclosing the final copy of the Covenants and Restrictions executed by Frank Cichanowicz. As soon as you have proof of recording, please send a copy to me so I may take the final step of advertising the change of zone and have the Southold Town Zoning Map amended to reflect the change. Thank you. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk August 30, 1995 Ms. Laurie Dowd Town Attorney Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Edson and Bruer ATTOR~'YS AT LAW ~J~l AuG 3 I 1995 TC YY J"i .M- ~ C.' - r. L" · TO,,¥'i C Re: Brew Pub Dear Ms_ Dowd: In connection with the above referenced matter, enclosed please find the final copy of the Covenants and Restrictions that were executed by Frank Cichanowicz and fowarded to the Suffolk County Clerk's Office for recording. The Covenants and Restrictions, I believe, are in accordance with the Town Board's resolution. Sincere~ , u, olp i . B uer R, HB/me '~ Eric. il ~);'kl,L~ 3 'l'lll~.U ~ MUST IJIC 'I'YrEI) O1. J'I/dI'ITICD iii/JLACI( 1~1(: O~LY 1'1,.O11 TO RI£CORDIING Oil. lqLliiG Nm.her .r pngr~ Scrim It Cc. lificale Il Deed I filo,'lgrll~ Tax $1.mp Dale In|lJM~ FEES $.b 'J'ulnl Sub 'fulfil GIt~ J 'l'O J'AI, II~M l'roperll Tax Set'rite Age.cj, Verlrlcflflort DIsl _, $cclloJl 1000 103. O0 JJIoclL 01.00 p/o 019.003 J. Basic Tax 2. $0~ YglA ~ttl~ 'l'olnl Spec./Add. 10 1. fill (.. TAX Dtml 'l'o o'fl Dual'Cmn]ly __ Ileld for AJqmrllul]JneJJI. 'fraftsfer Tax AJlIiiJJlJiI 'fin prUlm~ ly covered by Iii. is mut-lgage /mn/fy dwellJllg OJlly. YES~ or Jf~O, See fllqlJ oj.'htle I~ eJntgse ol, '. TIIIo Colll[lafly lllfOrJliallO~l .- FBgI'AUJ BY: '7 l'a)'cr same as I{ & R Edson and Bruer, Esqs. P.O. Box 1fi66 Southold, Ne~ York 11971 IU~COJtD & ILg'J'UI~N TO Suffolk County Recording_& Endorsement Page This page fOi'JlJ$ par! of fhe all:,ched Coveoallts and Restrictions made by: (Deed, ]Vlorlgagc, elc.) Frank Cichanowicz, Town of Southoid The i.'emises herei, is sihfflled hJ S UFIrOLK CO UblT¥, NgW YOI~C. IJI the '1'01¥[W of Ill i/J'~ VJLLAGIC or IIAflILET of Southold Cutchogue SCHEDULE A (Property Description) ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situated, lying and being at Cutclaogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York being more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of Main State Road, 287.32 feet westerly from its intersection with the westerly side of Harbor Lane, said point also being where the northwesterly corner of land now or formerly of Fogarty intersects the southerly side of Main State Road: RUNNING THENCE from said point and along land now or formerly of Fogarty South 35 degrees 53 minutes i0 seconds East 117.00 feet to a point and land now or formerly of Coster: RUNNING THENCE from land now or tbrmerly of Coster. South 34 degrees 18 minutes 50 seconds East 216. lg feet to other land of Cichanowicz: RUNNING THENCE through other land of Cichanowicz to other land of Cichanowicz: RUNNING THENCE throuth other land of Cichanowicz South 49 degrees 31 minutes West 4-I7.38 feet to land now or formerly of Blum: RUNNING THENCE along land now or tbrmerly of Blum North 40 degrees 29 minutes West 327.70 feet to the southerly side of Main State Road: RUNNING THENCE along Main State Road the following two courses and distances: 1) North 49 degrees 31 minutes East 155.17 feet: 2) North 48 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds East 294.83 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. / ~.t(~,:' , qc)rf'-.,/, STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) On the ag~~/4-~ day of August, 1995, betbre me personally came FIL-~NK CICHANOWICZ, III, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he executed same. · '" NOTARY PUBLIC DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS TI-lIS DECLARATION made by FiLMNK CICHANOWICZ, III this,,9~'4~-day of August, 1995, residing at Lupen Drive, Cutchogue, New York 11935 hereinafter referred to as the DECLARANT, as the owner of premises described in Schedule "A" annexed hereto (hereinafter referred to as the PREM~ISES) desixes to restrict the uae and enjoyment of said PREMISES and has for such purposes determined to impose on said PREMISES covenants and restrictions and does hereby declare that said PREMISES shail be [~eid and shall be conveyed subject to fi're following covenanta and restr'ic~ons: 1. WHEREAS, DECLARANT has made application to the Southold Town Board for a cha~ge of zone from Residential Office [R-O) District to General Business (B) District AND, WHEREAS. the Southold Town Board has agreed to change the zoning of the property described in Schedule A from Residential Office [R-O) District to General Business (B) District only if there be a record covenant that the subject premises be only erected. altered, renovated, remodeled, used, occupied and maintained for the following purposes only: agricultural/food related uses with accessory retail gift shop uses, including, but not limited to microbrewery and affiliated restaurant uses. 2. It is DECLARED and COVENTED by DECLARANT, his heirs or successors and assigns forever that the subject premises will be erected, altered, renovated, remodeled, used, occupied and maintained for the following purposes only: agriculmral/tbod related uses with accessory retail gift shop uses, including, but not limited to microbrewery and affiliated restaurant uses. The covenants set forth herein can be changed in whole or in part by DECLARANT, his heirs. successors or assigns and only with the consent of the Southold Town Board without a public hearing at any time. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main P~ad P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 F~x (516) 765-1523 Telephone (516) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 27, 1995 Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. P.O. Box 1466 $outhold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Bruer: Enclosed is a certified resolution of the Southold Town Board, adopted on July 25, 1995, granting a change of zone to Frank Cichanowicz III, subject to the execution of certain covenants and restrictions. Please be advised that this change of zone will not be come effective until a copy of the recorded C&R's are filed with me. At that time I will publish the change of zone in accordance with the legal requirements. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry $outhold Town Clerk cc: Town Attorney JUDITH T- TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Pmad P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765.1823 Telephone (5[6) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JULY 25, 1995: WHEREAS, Frank Cichanowicz III, by petition filed July 29, 199u,, applied to the Town board of the Town of Southold for a change of zone on certain property located on the south side of NYS Route 25. west of Harbor Lane, Cutchogue, New York (SCTM#1000-103-01-p/o19.3}, from Residential Office (R-O) Distr[ct to Ceneral Business CB) District; and WHEREAS, said petition was referred to the Southold Town Planning Board and the Suffolk County Department of Planning for official recommendations and reports; and WHEREAS, the Town Board. pursuant to due notice, held a public hearing thereof on the 13th day of June, 199S. at which time ail interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Town Board finds that the proposed microbrewery and affiliated restaurant uses for this site are generally consistent with Southold's Comprehensive Plan, inasmuch as the business uses to the north, east and west are similar in nature; and WHEREAS, the Town Board finds that the proposed microbrewery and affiliated restaurant, with accessory gift shop, are consistent with the agribusiness aspect of the uses in that area; and WHEREAS, the Town Board finds it significant that some of the product ingredients for the microbrewery are to be grown on the southern potation of the subject parcel, and that it is important to maintain the relationship between the proposed business and the suppo?tive agricultural uses on this parcel in particular and in this area generally; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan specifically encourages the preserYation of farmland and, towards that end. limits the density of business areas, particularly on the outskirts of the traditional hamlet business centers; and WHEREAS, the execution of the covenants and restrictions called for herein will further the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and ensure that the proposed rezoning meets the goals set fo?th above; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that Frank Cichanowicz III be and hereby is granted a rezoning of the following-described property from Residential Office (R-O) District to Ceneral Business (B) District conditioned upon the immediate execution and recordation of covenants and restrictions which shall covenant that the subject premises will be erected, altered, renovated, remodeled, used, occupied and maintained for the following purposes only: agricultural/food related uses with accessory retail gift shop uses, including but not limited to a microbrewery and associated restaurant. The covenant shall provide that a change in these uses and amendment of the covenants will require prior consent of the Town Board. The property shall be described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly side of Main State Road, 287.32 feet westerly from its intersection with the westerly side of Harbor Lane, said point also being where the north- westerly corner of land now or formerly of Fogarty intersects the southerly side of Main State Road; running thence from said point and along land now or formerly of Fogarty South 35 degrees 53 minutes 10 seconds East 117.00 feet to a point and land now or formerly of Coster; running thence from along land now or formerly of Coster South 3u~ degrees 18 minutes 50 seconds East 216.18 feet to other land of Cichanowicz; running thence through other land of Cichanowicz to other land of Cichanowicz; running thence through other land of Cichanowicz South ~9 degrees 31 minutes West 417.38 feet to land now or formerly of ~lum; running thence along land now or formerly of Blum North 40 degrees 29 minutes West 327.70 feet to the southerly side of Main State Road; running thence along Main State Road the following two courses and distances: (1) North [[9 degrees 31 minutes East 155.17 feet; (2) North 48 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds East 294.83 feet to the point or place of beginning. T. Terry ~/ Southold Town Clerk July 26. 199S North Fork Environmental Council P.O. Box 799 Mattituck. NY 11952 (516)298-8880 RECFIVED JUL.".', IW~ i'a~iand Ale: inads, t:r iai Wa=tewatec & SEL~RA ke','lm~J dlJrlriq :t-~ E, EQN(/ r'L3vlS~J. ~'tt. ChID vsrv 18a~t . bh[e L,[':_ $E:tt t,h,~t a be caused zs ;)arf. tcularly lm!Dort, arl~; tn ~ust. lfvlnq a neqat4ve 1994 NATIONAL MICROBREWERS CONFERENCE TRANSCRIPT #3 Micros and Industrial Wastewatet Michael J. Pronold, Environmental SpecialiSt, Portland, O .-.jo ~quipmenh ~ddhion~) monitoring and r~port. and deper~ds on Ih(: size ti( die d,l~n~d/commelclal sol,rc~s Ihet interfere, with ~~ of the thc ,-a,Lew~ter ~r,cam~em plant, ~olk,:tlun ~y~.- ~ .~ brewcr'y anti the requlrenlems uf thc ~cwcrage I disch~ge limi~dons and peri'nit requirements Ihit ~gulalc u[I thc indu~mcs in ~he xewer~ge dis~d~l, This m~v inck~de ~he ~ollowinB: ~ Applying for a pe~kt and p.yin~ ~n mppKopri~ ~nnit fee. The application gcn- '. er~il) r~qulreS providing schcmadcs of all and ~eneral information. · l~tallafinn ~f a ~amph~ mmnhole fmciiity by (he conuol ~u~ort[y 1/2 BARREL CYLINDROCONIC& FERMENTF~P, .,..,...I ,.ute Controlled Excellent For Yeast Propagation Test Batches Another Exclusive from CALL 1 (206) $27-5047 For a quote Ilr~,[i,¢,rlI Pu .3 fires (BMPs) [or the co~u'ol of w'a~zew~le~ pH Bairds' malt A fulIRange o. fCvlvured, Roas! andSpeciaii~y .Malt Co.si.,'ec.t ~t,~fie!~, nndSemdce ?bu Con Trust Detalli, ci Prodltrt lnJbrulatum Av:lll'ab(e Oll J(,~quest HUGH BAIRD & SONS LTD. Stlltio,t .~['lll¥"'ljl~t ql/itfi,l,rL '~s'Se :~3 'F_'.?qiGL 'Tefeplf~one.' 03 76 51J566 ;7>I¥ 037{; 518 ~ 71 Your ~ecrel recipe ,s Ilillall~, Deflect Ihe first baIch is brewing a~ld suddenly Ihe · Vropc~' · General & liquor liabihty. · Food afld beer spoilage Clike the example above). · Loss pi income · More coverages, far thing from your exterior signs to the brew ken]es ~hemseh'es~ ~he 'nightmares'.. & WHAL[N 1-800-235-0355 collection ,,esxr; and adjust the pH if ,eces. may be neces~aQ, to adjust me pH [o me ac- of Lb. system and ~he cost of rhcmic.b Also. add T$$ and BOD Concerns: TS$ and BOD rllay or LAURY L. DOWD Town A~torne¥ TO: FROM: RE: DATE: OFFICE OF THE TOWN AI-r'ORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM TOWN BOARD TOWN ATTORNEY RESTRICTIONS WITH REZONING JUNE 21. 1995 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 The Town Board is considering several rezonings. question has been asked whether the rezoning can accompanying restrictions. In connection thereto, the be conditioned on certain NY case law suggests that a change in zoning may be subject to reasonable conditions and restrictions related to and incidental to the use of the property and designed to minimize any adverse impact on the surrounding area. Cram v- Town of Geneva (1993) 190 AD2d 1028. A reasonable condition may be related to "fences, safety devices, landscaping, screening and access roads related to the the period of use, screening, outdoor lighting and noises, and enclosure of buildings and relating to emission of odors, dust, smoke, refuse matter, vibration, noise and other factors incidental to comfort, peace, enjoyment, health or safety of the surrounding area." St. Oncje v. Donovan (1988) 71 NY2d 507, 517. Conditions are proper if they relate directly to the use of the land in question, and are corrective measures designed to protect neighboring properties against the possible adverse effects of that use. Collard v. Villacje of Flower Hill (1981) 52 NY2d 59~. Thus, it would be appropriate for the Board to condition the rezonJng on an appropriate condition. For example, since the brew-pub is accessory to a farm growing the hops, there may be a condition that C&R~s be executed which keeps the farm undeveloped. Let me know if you have further questions. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD JUNE 13, 1995 5:00 P.M ON THE PROPOSAL OF FRANK CICHANOWlCZ, III TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE (INCLUDING THE ZONING MAP) OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. Present: Supervisor Thomas H. Wickham Councilman Joseph J. Lizewski Councilwoman Alice J. Hussie Councilwoman Ruth D. Oliva Councilman Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. Justice Louisa P. Evans Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Laury L. Dowd COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE; "Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, at 5:00 P.M., Tuesday, June 13, 1995, on the proposal of Frank Cichanewicz, III to amend the Zoning Code (including the Zoning Map) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on certain property located on the southerly side of NYS Route 25, Cutchogue, New York, by changing the zone from Residential Office (Re) District to General Business (B) District. Any person desiring to be heard on the proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, bounded and described as follows; Beginning at a point on the southerly side of Main State Road, 287.32 feet westerly from its intersection with the westerly side of Harbor Lane. Said point also being where the northwesterly corner of land now or formerly of Fogarty intersects the southerly side of Main Road; running thence from said point and along land now or formerly of Fogarty South 35 degrees 53 minutes 10 seconds East 117.00 feet to a point and land now or formerly of Coster; running thence from along land now or formerly of Coster South 3[[ degrees 18 minutes 50 seconds East 216.18 feet to other land of Cichanowicz; running thence through other land of Cichanowicz South ~9 degrees 31 minutes West [[17.38 feet to land now or formerly of Blum; running thence along land now or formerly of Blum North 40 degrees 29 minutes West 327.70 feet to the southerly of Main State Road; Pg.2 - PH LL running thence along Main State Road the following two (2) courses and distance: (1) North ~9 degrees 31 minute East 155.17 feet; (2) North u,8 degrees ~6 minutes 20 seconds East 29~.83 feet to the point or place of beginning. Dated: May 15, 1995. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." I have proof of publication in The Suffolk Times, and verification that this was also posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board. There are two pieces of correspondence, one from the Suffolk County Planning Board. The proposal says, application to amend the zoning ordinance and map by rezoning a parcel of land from Residence Office (single family residences/offices on ~tO,O00 sq. ft. lots) to General Business "B" (general business uses on 30,000 sq. ft. lots). The property is situated on the south side of Main Road (N.Y.S. Rte. 25), approximately 300 ft. west of Harbor Lane at Cutchogue. The proposal is to erect a micro-brewer/restaurant and gift shop on a 3.3+ acre parcel which has a ~50 ft. of frontage on Rte. 25 and extends southerly approximately 328 ft. The restaurant (brew pub) is an establishment where various varieties of local beers are brewed from hops grown on lands of applicant to the south thereof. The brew will be offered for on and off premises consumption much like the local wineries. No site plan is available. Subject property is bounded on the north across Rt. 25 by a gas station/businesses/residences in the General Business ~B" District; to the east by a residence and business use(s) in the Residence Office District; to the west by a residence and barn (2) in the Ceneral Business "B" District; and to the south by undeveloped lands of applicant comprising 23+ acres in the "R-80" District. It is the belief of the staff that said rezoning appears consistent with the prevailing pattern of zoning and character of the surrounding area as a further agribusiness attraction for tourists coming to the Town of $outhold. The staff recommendation is approval. There is correspondence dated May 12th from the Planning Board of the Town of Southold. Re the Change of Zone by Frank Cichanowicz. Dear Mrs. Terry, The Planning Board reviewed the above-noted change of zone petition and offers the following report. The Chichanowicz petition requests a change of zone from Residential Office (RO) to Ceneral Business lB) for a 3.28 acre parcel located on the south side of SR 25, approximately 300 west of its intersection with Harbor Lane, Cutchogue. The subject parcel is adjacent to two parcels that recently were rezoned from RO to B. The rezoning essentially will permit the conversion of a large farm house into a restaurant, and the future expansion of a complex which includes an existing winery, associated retail store, office and apartment. (H. Blum, R. Blum & Peconic Bay Winery). The subject property owner proposes to construct a mix of uses, the principal use of which the Planning Board considers to be the restaurant, along with a micro-brewery using hops grown on the remainder of the property which is zoned R-80. The owner intends to sell the micro-brewed beer in the restaurant and for off-premises consumption. A retail gift-shop is also planned for the premises. The surrounding zoning to the west is B; to the east lies RO. The north side of the road directly opposite the subject parcel is zoned B also. The Planning Board recognizes that the proposed uses are similar to that which was proposed for the Blum properties; and that the Town Board rezoned the Blum properties in order to permit the afore-stated types of uses because it felt that winery-related businesses contributed to the rural and agricultural character of the local economy. The Planning Board supports the concept set forth by the petitioner, which provides for the manufacture and sale of beer made from hops grown on the site. Accordingly, it supports a change of zone to make this project Pg.3 - PH LL possible. However, the Board wishes to reiterate its concern about permitting additional expansion beyond this subject property for intensive commercial zoning in a strip along the Main Road in order to accommodate various agribusinesses. This concern embraces two issues. One is that the additional expansion of the B zone to the east may eventually drain economic vitality from the traditional hamlet center of Cutchogue at the intersection of New Suffolk Road and Main Road. Second is that the B zone permits a host of intensive uses that go beyond the immediate needs of the current property owner. As with the Blum petitions, the Planning Board again recommends that serious consideration be given to creating a zone or other mechanism which will permit an agribusiness related us on road frontage provided the development rights of the working farm are held or set aside in exchange for the life of the agribusiness. Signed, Richard Ward, Chairman. There's no further correspondence. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: You've heard the record of the public hearing. would anyone like to address the Board on the matter of the Cichanow{cz change of zone application? RUDOLPH BRUER: Mr. Supervisor, Members of the Board, my name is Rudolph Bruer, an attorney in town. I represent Mr. Cichanowicz. As you all have probably read the application for the change of zone. What Mr. Cichanowlcz proposes is to create a restaurant with a micro-brewery attached thereto to service the town, and the wineries create a business which will rely heavily on the tourist trade, and the tourists that come to the towns of the North Fork. As you know, the Town Board here has issued a Negative Declaration with respect to the application before the Board. The Suffolk County Planning Commission, as you just read, approves the application, as well as the Southold Town Planning Board. We feel that this business would be a additional asset to the Town of Southold, and it would be in the spirit of the goals of this Board with respect to the type of business, that it would like to promote. What I understand the Board is in favor of businesses, that are located close to, or in the hamlets of the town, which is where this business would be located. It's a type of business, that I think is supported by the studies, the UK Study, that was previously made to the town a number of years ago. The business here is primarily a tourist business. It's one that's unique. It's one where it's an agri business, where the owner happens to be a local long-time, with families going back generations in the community, in the farming trade. The property, that we have here, is on approximately a 27 acre farm of the applicant, of which we are proposing 3.28 acres for this business. The property is unique, and I think this is a unique opportunity for this Board to look at a restaurant, and a micro-brewery, which is a new type of business, that is becoming very popular throughout the country. The standards, that can be set here are an example of what could be used in the future. You have a piece of property that has almost some 500 some feet on the road, in an area that has business, is surrounded by business. It has the capabilities of supporting the parking, and the people, the business people, and the tourists who would be coming to the town, and using the facility. I feel that the expansion of the "B" zone here is consistent with the Master Plan, and the zoning in the area. It's not one that will, I don't think, will create a further expansion of business down the road, or around it. The area is kind of unique in that it is set to be what it is. Immediately to the east, obviously, there is a residence, but next to that Pg.~ - PH LL is a funeral establishment, a going business. Across the street from that is a cemetery, and I believe the hamlet at that point kind of goes into the countryside, and is definitely defined by being this area. You have, and the Planning Board has reviewed the various traffic studies, that were done, that have taken an enormous amount of time. On behalf of the applicant, the planning studies that have been done on behalf of the Board, all of which including the study by the Department of Transportation all culminate in a definite statement that the traffic can handle, or the roadway can handle this business, and would not be a detriment to the community, or in any way effect the area in a negative way in any significant sense. I have available for the Board's review a couple of pictures, the first of which is the farm itself. I'd like to bring this up, and show you it. This is an aerial photo of the farm. The area that we're going to zone, or are asking you to zone is from, you put this roadway across here, this is where the brew pub would be. As you can see it's an area, that is quite large, and would be more than adequate to service this type of business. It's unique. It's not one that has been, or would be asked for in a small area, or an downtown area, where you don~t have the room to expand, and have this type of situation. As you can see, the commercial areas around it, the winery here, the parking for the funeral home here, the gas station. I think it's an ideal place for a restaurant, and a brew pub. I have an artist's rendition of what we propose. The top picture is a picture of the property as it presently exists. As you can see, it's a nursery, and on the bottom is our rendition of what the restaurant will look like. We also have here present today is the architect, Mr. Rob Brown from Creenport. He has a current site plan, which by the way has been presented to the Planning Board for it's review. They've seen it. They've been looking at it for a period of time. It's not something new to them. In addition to the recommendations that they made with respect to the approval of this project, they have since early in the year had in their possession, and we~ve had meetings with them with respect to the project, the site plan. They've made comments. We~ve improved upon these comments. We~ve been to the Health Department. We've been working with the Health Department. We've made changes, that they wanted, and also, with respect to the site plan that we have here today, the recommendations of the Department of Transportation are already included. Mr. Brown, do you have that? This is the present site plan. As you can see there's more than adequate parking. As I say, we~ve been in constant discussion with the Planning Board, knowing that this Board will rely on recommendations of the Planning Board. I can leave this here with you in case you want to look at it. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: I see two entrances. One entrance, and one exit, is that right? RUDOLPH BRUER: Yes. as per the traffic studies. FRANK CICHANOWlCZ II1: Does the Board have any questions of me at this particular point? SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: This is a hearing, and we'd be interested in knowing how other members of the audience feel about it. RUDOLPH BRUER: I would like Mr. Cichanowicz to say a few words. Pg.5 - PH LL FRANK CICHANOWICZ ill: My name is Frank Cichanowicz, the Third, and I have been in the farming business, and the family has been here, since 1910, so I'm not one of the late comers. I'm one of the early comers, and this is just one idea we've had. We have been in the potato business. We're in the sod business, and the nursery business, and landscape business, but I just felt that this would be something of a compliment to the town, to have a micro-brewery, and be able to show people how these things happen, you know, the way the hops are grown, and the greens, and the whole process would be right there. We would be doing a tasting area, as well, basically an old English pub type thing. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Are you going to have tours? FRANK CICHANOWlCZ II1: We're going to have a tasting room on the tour, so they'll see the brewmaster making the beer, and it will al be in the tasting room, and then how it's keged, and how it's bottled, and stored, and how it's piped through, through the tap valve, and everything, over to the bar. So, it's going to be just like one of the vineyard tour type things. I know we talked to various vineyards, and they're very excited that there's another attraction. We feel it's a nice way to promote some local business. Thank you for your time. RUDOLPH BRUER: Thank you, Frank. At this point I~d like to leave a copy of the site plan, and a picture with Board for the file. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address the Board? KEN LEUDECKER: Good evening. Ken Leudecker speaking on behalf of the North Fork Environmental Council. The NFEC notes the petitioner's claim, that the present "RO" zone is already out of place in this already commercial area, and that changing the zone to Business will conform with the adjacent properties on both side of the street. However, this is only true, because two adjacent properties were recently rezoned from ~RO~ to Business. The NFEC share the Planning Board concern over this expanding commercial strip on the Main Road. (tape change.) This way the Board and the public will be in a better position to understand the ultimate substance of the proposed zone change. Thank you. SUPERVISOR WlCKHAM: Thank you. Yes? JODY ADAMS: My name is Jody Adams. I'm a long time resident, and I recently have been exposed to Route 25, and it's traffic, and noise from businesses established there. It was totally unexpected. I agree totally with the NFEG. I would hope that you would postpone this until there's more certainty on limitations on what they're going to do, what will come after them. Thank you. SUPERVISOR WICKHAM: Would anyone else like to address the Board on this public hearing? (No response.) Would any Board members like to make a comment at this time? Pg.6 - PH LL COUNCILWOMAN OLIVA: I'd just like to ask Frank just one question. I think your ideas are good. What happens though if we allow you the business zone, and you do not make a go of your business? You are therefore allowed far more intensive uses of that piece of property, than you will have contemplated to use now. FRANK CICHANOWlCZ II1: You are right. But I wouldn't be going to this extent and expense, and we're doing a business plan. We~ve worked on that. I never did one in the landscape business. We have never done one in the potato business. I~m doing it on this one. We're doing an extensive study. We've followed some of the trends within the vineyards of how many people they've had come through, and if we get 10% of their crowd we're home free. So, we're happy with that, but we're going to be spending a considerable amount of money on this thing, probably close to a million dollars before it's done. To put that much money in, and have investors that are not confident, we wouldn't be going through all of this. So, we feel very confident, that we can do this, plus with the trend of the micro-breweries throughout the country, and we studied about 5u, of them all over the northeast from Camden, Maine down to Florida, and out west, and seeing what is going on with them, and we're going through this, as well the manufactors who supply have given us tremendous help. My son has already been out to the brewery school in Chicago, and taken courses on this, and beside my son, my daughter and nephew, who is my godson as well, it's a family business, and we're all diving in it together. So, it's not something that we're just shooting in the dark for. We're really putting everything forth on this. We're going to fight the tide hard. SUPERVISOR WlCKHAM: Any other comments from the Board? response.) If not, I'll declare this hearing closed. (No Judith T. Terry $outhold Town Clerk 5UDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK 8343-1TM¥25 Residential Office (RO) District to General Business tBI District. L~ degrecs 31 minules W~st 417.3g feet Any person desiring to ~ heard on ) to [~ now or [o~crl~ of Blum: mn- the proposed amendment ~hould ap- ning ~encc along I~d now or foyer- pear at ~he time and place above so iy of Blum North ~ de~es ~ mtn- STATE OF NEW YOP'~) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) la suld County, being duly ~wom, says that he/she Is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published at Mattltuck, tn the Town of S~uthold, County o! Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice o! which the annexed Is a printed copy, has been regularly published In said Newspaper once each week for [ weeks successively, commencing on the ~" day of · , ~:,*,;'v ,f~ Sutiolk County Principal Clerk ,: -:: ,~e~ r~ovember 23. 1 Notary Public Sworn~thIs 1~ day of STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York, being duly sworn, says that on the 19th day of May 1995, she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Legal Notice, Notice of Public Hearing on proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance and Map by Frank Cichanowicz, III, from Residential Office (RO) District to Business (B) District, 5:00 P.M., Tuesday, June 13, 1995, Southold Town Hall. Sworn to before me this 19th day of May 1995. Judith T. Terry ~ Southold Town Clerk ~lotary Public UNDA J. COOPER Nol~ry Public, State of New No. 4622563, Suffolk County,~_ 'rerm E~pire~, Dm~mbel' 31, 1R LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, at 5:00 P.M., Tuesday, June 13, 1995, on the proposal of Frank Cichanowicz, III to amend the Zoning Code (including the Zoning Map) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on certain property located on the southerly side of NYS Route 25, Cutchogue, New York, by changing the zone from Residential Office (RO) District to General Business (B) District. Any person desiring to be heard on the proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly side of Main State Road, 287.32 feet westerly from its intersection with the westerly side of Harbor Lane. Said point also being where the northwesterly corner of land now or formerly of Fogarty intersects the southerly side of Main Road; running thence from said point and along land now or formerly of Fogarty South 35 degrees 53 minutes 10 seconds East 117.00 feet to a point and land now or formerly of Coster; running thence from along land now or formerly of Coster South 34 degrees 18 minutes 50 seconds East 216.18 feet to other land of Cichanowicz; running thence through other land of Cichanowicz South 49 degrees 31 minutes West 417.38 feet to land now or formerly of Blum; running thence along land now or formerly of Blum North 40 degrees 29 minutes West 327.70 feet to the southerly side of Main State Road; running thence along Main State Road the following two (2) courses and distances: (1) North 49 degrees 31 minutes East 155.17 feet; (2) North 48 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds East 294.83 feet to the point or place of beginning. Dated: ~lay 15, 1995. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON MAY 25, 1995, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, P.O. BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Town Attorney Planning Board Building Department Board of Appeals Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. for Cichanowicz Town Clerk's Bulletin Board - ~) ...... LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP 48 degrees 46 minutes beginning. Dated: May 15, 1995. 20 seconds East 294.83 feet to the point or place of JUDITIt T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON MAY 25, 1995, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, P.O. BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Town Attorney Planning Board Building Department Board of Appeals Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. for Cichanowicz Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, $outhold, New York, at 5:00 P.M., Tuesday, June 13, 1995, on the proposal of Frank Cichanowicz, III to amend the Zoning Code (including the Zoning Map) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on certain property located on the southerly side of NYS Route 25, Cutchogue, New York, by changing the zone from Residential Office (RO) District to General Business lB) District. Any person desiring to be heard on the proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Cutchogue, Town of $outhold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly side of Main State Road, 287.32 feet westerly from its intersection with the westerly side of Harbor Lane. Said point also being where the northwesterly corner of land now or formerly of Fogarty intersects the southerly side of Main Road; running thence from said point and along land now or formerly of Fogarty South 35 degrees 53 minutes 10 seconds East 117.00 feet to a point and land now or formerly of Coster; running thence from along land now or formerly of Coster South 34 degrees 18 minutes 50 seconds East 216.18 feet to other land of Cichanowicz; running thence through other land of Cichanowicz South 49 degrees 31 minutes West 417.38 feet to land now or formerly of Blum; running thence along land now or formerly of Blum North 40 degrees 29 minutes West 327.70 feet to the southerly side of Main State Road; running thence along Main State Road the following two (2) courses and distances: (1) North 49 degrees 31 minutes East 155.17 feet; (2) North JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main l~ad P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 1197! Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (5]_6) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION II~AS ADOPTED BY THE~ SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995: WHEREAS, Frank Cichanowicz, by application dated July 29, 1994, petitioned the Town Board of the Town of Southold for a change of zone on certain property located on the southerly side of NYS Route 25, Cutchogue, N.Y., from "R-O" Residential Office District to General Business lB) District; and WHEREAS, the petition has been referred to the Southold Town Planning Board and Suffolk County Department of Planning for recommendations; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board hereby sets 5:00 P.M., Tuesday, June 13, 1995, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, as time and place for a public hearing on the petition of Frank Cichanowicz for a change of zone, at which time all interested persons desiring to be heard should appear at the time and place above so specified; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Clerk be and she hereby is authorized and directed to cause notice of said hearing to be published in the official newspaper pursuant to the requirements of law. Juaith T. Terr3~ Southold Town Clerk May 16, 1995 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995: RESOLVED that pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law, the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action of Frank Cichanowicz III for a change of zone from Residential Office (RO) District to Business (B) District on certain property located on the southerly side of NYS Route 25, Cutchogue, New York, (SCTM#1000-103-01-p/o19.3) will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED that this determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II, and the following specific reasons: 1. The project has been evaluated through a Long EAr Part I and II which consider environmental and planning aspects of the project. 2. The subject parcel does not exhibit environmental sensitivity in the traditional sense. Review of the long EAr Part I as well as field inspection indicates that the site is suited for controlled development for the following reasons; soils are conducive to leaching, topography is flat, there are no significant vegetation, wetlands or wildlife habitat on site. 3. The proposed zoning would not generate a significant influx of people or traffic as compared to present zoning, nor would noise, aesthetic or visual resources be significantly adversely impacted. 4. Land use and zoning issues are a local, as opposed to a regional, consideration and measures are available to reduce impact upon the community. 5. The use would be subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board if the zoning is changed in accordance with Chapter 100 of the Southold Town Code. Southold Town Clerk May 16. 1995 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-[801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTttOLD Pursuant to Sections 1323 and 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby refers the following proposed zoning action to the Suffolk County Department of Planning: X New Zoning Ordinance Amendment of Zoning Code Amendment of Zoning Map {Change of Zone) Location of affected land: southerly side of NYS Route 25, Cutchoque, N.Y. Suffolk County Tax Map No.: 1000-103-1-p/o 19.3 Within '500 feet of: The boundary of any village or town The boundary of any existing or proposed county, state or federal park. X The right-of-way of any existing or proposed county or state parkway, thruway, expressway, road or highway. The existir~g or proposed right-of-way of any stream or drainage channel owned by the County or for which the County has established channel lines. The existing or proposed boundary of any other county, state or federally owned land. The Long Island Sound, any bay in Suffolk County or estuary of any of the foregoing bodies of water. Or within one mile of: Nuclear power plant. A irpor t COMMENTS: Recommendation of Southold Town Planning Board attached hereto. Date: Ma), 12, 1995 Southold Town Clerk PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kennelh L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Soulhold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 11. 1995 Mrs, Judith T. Terry. Town Clerk Town of Southold P.O.Box 1179 Southold. NY 11971 RECT:IVED Southold l'o~n ~ RE: Change of Zone Petition Frank Chicanowicz (a.k.a. Island Ale) S/s SR 25; approximately 300' W/o Harbor Lane. SCTM ~ 1000-103-1-19.3 Cutchogue Dear Mrs. Terry. The Planning Board has reviewed the comments of the Town's environmental consultant. Charles Voorhis. and that of the New York State Department of Transportation. Based on the evidence presented, the Planning Board recommends the adoption of a Negative Declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Si cerely. Chairman ,/ Charles Voorhis Cramer, Voorhis & Associates JUDITH T. TERRY OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O- Box I 179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX [5i6) 765-1g23 TELEPHONE (516) 76.5-1801 April 7, 1995 Attached is copy of the NYS-DOT response to the Traffic Impact Study with regard to Cichanowicz change of zone petition. LAURY L. DOWD Town Anorne¥ OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box1179 Soulhold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 March 2, 1995 Mr. Charles J. Voorhis Cramer, Voorhis & Associates 54 North Country l{,oad Suite 2 Miller Place, NY 11764 Re: Cichanowicz Traffic Study Dear Mr. Voorhis: The Town Board considered your February 3 letter on the above-[eferenced subject at their February 24 meeting, l wanted you to be advised of the outcome. Mr. Cichanowicz asked the Town Board to delay fudher consideration o£tlre project pending receipt of'an analysis of the report by NYS Depa[/ment o£Transportation. The Town Board agreed to do this in the hopes that it would resolve some of the outstanding issues. In the meantime, the Town Board asks you to keep in contact with the applicant's traffic consultants. Again, it is hoped that you car] resolve some of the issues raised in your letter by communicating directly. We will share the NYS DOT connnents with you when they are received. Very truly yours, Laury L. Dowd - Tow[] Attorney ENVIRONMENT,I~&/D~G CONSULTANTS Ms. Judith T. Ten% Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Review of Traffic Impact Study Pra~k C"ichanowicz III Application Island Ale Propo~__d Resiauram C"utcho~ue, New York Dear Ms. Ter~,: Februazy 3, 1995 RECEIVED FEB 6 1995 Southold Town As per Tow~ Board autho, rlzation, we have completed a review of the Traffic Impact Study as referenced above. The follovang is an evaluation of the traffic impact study preparedfor the prop. ose.d "pub brew" type restaurant, Island Ale, in connection with the Cichanbvdcz zone change - application. Traffic Impact Study Summary Theproject proposed is to develop a "brew pub" restaurant of 5,643 souare feet and gift shon of 1,197square feet on a site located on.the, south side of Mal~. Road, N¥S Route 25, in the ,h~let of Cutchogue, Southold Town..The site is curren.fly, operating as.a wholesale nurser/and is fl .a~..ed by a mix of land., uses, primarily commeraal.. The traffic impact .study. examined, the . emsti.ng .traffic condmons, projected traffic conditions for 1996 -.thc _~a~n~ctpated tune of project completion, and the condition in 1996 with the project generated traffic sui)erlmvoscd on the 1996 bac, k~grou, nd .traffic volumes. The study was to assess any traffic degradatio'n and'what, if an , tramc rmtigation measures would be needed. Y The ..metho. cl..o!ogy employed in the. study ~u,~llzed, recognized .tr .a~s. portation planmng pnnciples and pracu.ces, volume counts wcrc ~axen/n l~ovcmoer 1994 ana adjusted for the peak scasonlil ~ariauon for. the mon~ of Augus..t,. an/ncrease of n,early 23%. New York State DePartment of i ranspo, rtau. on monmiy seasonal. ~acturs w. ere emplo, yed. Those.peak summer volumes were then extr~a~_late..d.to 1996, the year ozproposed constru~uon completion, to represent a future 'no hullo condttion. A NYSDOT aunua] growth factor/or the North Fork of Long Island, 3% per year, increased the August 1994 volumes to August 1996 levels. Added to these "1.996 no build" volumes is the ' anticipated traffic generated if thc prolect were to be built "1996 build" condition. · . .result~.n.~ m a . Trip generat!on rates ut. ilizing empirical data from toe mstzmtc et transportation Eh, grocers 1991 manual, Trip Oeneratton, $tb Edition, for this type o.f proposed laz}.d use, I.e., a "qual/v] restaurant", were used· Those rates were corn ed to a stmilar facility located ia Fort Jefferson and found to be nearly twice those actuall~x~cricnced in Port Jefferson. The ME, her rates from thc FIE menumI wcrc used as a more cortse['vat~vc approach. Additionally, the study considered thc impact of generated traffic from other nearby proposed developments: the Blum property - ! 1,3(X} square foot restaurant; the Braun's Oyster Co. - a 2,700 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD. SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Page I of 3 Island Ale, Culthoge u~uare foot storate expansion; and the e~tint Kinl Kttlicn shopping center with 3,400 squ~rc feet "i -~' ;-~- ' ~ r n ' currently vacant. T~.'p. seneratton rstes form t~e 1'~ manu~l were employed o these pote ual developments ~ we~. The generat, ed tra~c was dism'buted to the ro...,a~:,ay net~vor~ su. per _m~pose.d onto the bar. kgrotmd "199~no build" tra~. ~ to evaluate .~.e "1996 btdid ti...a~ c c?,ndiuon:...C~pao.~ .analyses were, pe~*f, o..rmed on ~ung, '1996 n_o bufl.d' _and "19~.._bufld.'.tr~_m¢ ~_n.d_J.Uons. u..'.ti~. ~[ m.e procanures detailed in the 198S Highway ~npaelty Manuam tapeom ~p?rr zuyj, p~_ nt~. en ?y m.e . . Transportation .R...ese~ch Board. The resultant calculatio~s.oetermm~l th.e. ~cve~s ot.serwces mr each of the condiUom tonUo.w, comparison.between the. "build" and 'no build" scen&nos. Ar~yses were pe~ormed for the si~n_ '_81izcd intersecuo,n, of Mnm Road .a~d E. ugcne~s?o.ad/Cox ~,.e, a fo~r-Iegged tntersec~ofl, ~ _th_e.tw_o un~.'gnmized 'T' ifltersectton~ xormeo ny me acce.~ driveways for the proposed project and A~tn an:re. In addition, gap studies were conducted to eva~uate the sufficiency of gai~s m ~e traffic fl. ows for sa~e tur-{ng movements. Accident patterns for the last three years on ~ section of Mn,n Road were c.w turned for evidence of existing sa~'ety problen~. Based on the nnaJyses dcs~.'bcd above, the study concludes that the segment of Main Road in the vicinity of. thc proposed.project i~ =cu~r. en.tly operatL~g at an acceptable Iev.e.1 of service and is . .expenencm~ no unusual safety defi~cnoes. Th~ study fu.rther concludes mat the development ot the proposed project ~ not expecte~l to have any adverse trepan-ts, degrade the level of ~e~'/ce, or present any operational or safety b~,~,ds. ' Traffic Impact Study Review While the meth .odolo .l~, an.d. conclusiom of the study are sound nnd b3sed on a"cepted traffc engineer~g anmyses, me muowing questions Or comments should be addressed:' Le*~.l of scrvi~ nnal~s for LI~ ~ intcr~,e~.fion at Eugeoo's Ro~d/Cos tang and the two unslgnalizgd ~ntcrsg~tiom at thc sltc ac.~u drlv~vays should be re.~,l*~cd ~ sltc ~oncrate, d traffic ~rom dl the properties. T'ac study do~ not &ddrc~ the site ge. ng~tcd tral~c ~rom thc 1,197 ~qua~c foot ~ shop on the propor~.d project's~te. study does not support the 65%/3~ (w~st/ca.~) Ulp distribution for ~n~at,'a tratTu: ~om thc Lshnd AJc and Dium property restaurants nor thc 50~/50~ distr~ut~n for thc Braun ad ~ Kullen properties, Th~ ac. ddent anal~ is ~n~o~pl~ v~ no description of the t~ or while the number of ac~lent~ ~ Iow, wimbr dM ac~dent rate is ~ for this type of roadway when c~mparcd to statcwidc ratr. s no;m-);-,~ for ,, CRAMER, V~ ~SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT~G CONSULTANTS l~3 of 3 band ~ Cut~h~e The ~ should id~ th: ~r~v pub' in Port Jefferson and ~ why il propoeod proje~L I~ is rer~g~-,~ that tim s~ ,,*;t;~,~ Lira ITE r~:~ ~,~;.h ~re u~tr¥ ~ ~ da: Port JcEorfmt 'brew pub~ r~; howcvor, tb~ oge, size, ~ c~. of ti~ Pofl Jeffersoa 'br~w p~b' wouM bc use. hi in comi~ trip 8on~ido~ rural w. aorly si~ e~.ess in conjun~in~ wid~ r~ ICing Kullen driveway across ;rom it on Ih~ nc~d~ sldc. Thc 8~p s~udy c~mclud~ rJ~r~ a~ adcqu~e ~tps in thc tral~c r,~r~sm fm r,~c~o~ vclxlcins m ~be the optimal c~Jration of drlvcu;ay s~nme~tr,, or r. he provlsi~m o~ tun ~ thresh tbii sesm,'nt . o~ Main Roed. eiS reco~d tba~ ~ s~.d]; address th.e itchy. ~t ~e ~ ~y ~crent ~n~u~o~ ~ s~t~ ~ ~ on ob~Uo~ og ~nt ~c opc~Uo~ M~ fo~ o~c ~ol ue~(s) ~ empl~a ~ ~ a~pt~lc lcv~ of o~ragon ~d ~cU for. ~e ~mrc. ~upplem~ M~ ~.~, ~.pro~d~ ~ R~ from H~ene'~ Ro~/~ ~e w~ty m me r~acn~ ~r~mes w~t oz me w~cim ~e~ ~r of Bndge ~e," double yeU~ ~{.~ ~~ on bo~ ~i~. ~p y~a ~ e~ ~mp~eo ruth Ume or no ~e~e~ ~om ~ NYS~T ~d~c e~s ~ dgte~nc ~e opt~ hyouC ~s~, ~e ~c imp.~ oi~e pro~sed;~d ~e when ~ue~d ~ ~nj~on ~ o~ ~ pro~s~ developme~ ~ ~ e~t on io~ ~ o~atio~ i~ prop~ d~ co~ideratio~ ~d ~nor ~adon me~ de~ ~e ~e m~orated rote ~e pl~, -- ENVIRONMENT~G CONSULTANTS ENVIRONMENTJ~/~G CONSULTANTS Fix Numbcr ($16) 3J1-8046 Date: To: Fro tn: Re: Number of Pages (including cover): If thc Iotnl transmittal is not received call number below. Comments: 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE. NY 11764 (616) 331-1455 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HaUPPAUGE, N.Y. ]1788 January 25, 1995 Ms. Judith Terry Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RECEIVED JAN 2 7 1995 Saulbold Town Cled~ Dear Ms- Terry: Our Case No. 94-229 Cichanowicz Site Route 25, Southold Your January 9, 1995 Submission The subject material will be }reviewed by Mr_ Gary Hills of [ny staff_ He can be contacted at (516) 952-6020 if you have any questions_ In all future correspondence, kindly refer to the case number indicated above. The plans must indicate the appropriate county tax map number. Thank you for your cooperation concerning this matter. Very truly yours, ,'/' JAMES O. FREIN Regional Traffic Engineer JOF:GH:JS JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICE[[ FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICEI~ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 RECEIVED oFFxo , OFT. WN N,Y,S.D.O.T. January To: Alfre~Botner, NYS-D ~ From: Judit~'~PP;:~Town Clerk~ Re ~ra~fii;h~zS~l~d~hang~ of Zone Pet,bon~~ Enclosed is the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Nelson & Pope for Frank Cichanowicz III with regard to his change of zone petition to the Southold Town Board. Enclosure ! 2 Fle(:jIonal '1'~1 , ' Eh9r _ Offko M9r. Traffic Oonlre* & t3j'm. Signal & LIg Of-';. Traffic Co .nlrol , '"Ca Dllal Projects . 7.- Design Re'.'lew :~ermits Salety Eval, & Devel._ n~.l· ~ [ Nfo[or Veh:c e -.- JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 9, 1995 To: From: Re: Alfred Bother, NYS-DOT j~~ Judith' Terry, Town Clerk~ Traffic Impact Study F. Cichanowicz III Change of Zone Petition Enclosed is the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Nelson & Pope for Frank Cichanowicz III with regard to his change of zone petition to the Southold Town Board. Enclosure JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 5, 1995 Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP Cramer, Voorhis & Associates 54-2 Old Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Dear Mr. Voorhis: I am in receipt of the prescribed fee for your review of the Cichanowicz Traffic Impact Study, therefore, please proceed as soon as possible. In authorizing your review, the Town Board emphasized that a review for consistency and accuracy is somewhat restrictive. They view consistency and accuracy as essential conditions, but will also look for your overall conclusion as to the usefulness of the report, and recommendations on the traffic aspects of the proposed change of zone. I have been asked to convey their feeling that the study is inadequate in two respects. First, the traffic study gives almost no attention to turning conflicts arising out of putting this commercial use almost directly across the street from one of the town's largest shopping centers. There are a number of commercial uses turning into this area and there is concern that a serious traffic problem will arise if development continues without attention to this issue. Second, the traffic study fails to suggest any traffic mitigation measures which would alleviate future problems. Surely there must be some type of markings, medians, access locations, road widenings, signals or signage that can assure smooth traffic flow. While many of these measures may require coordination with the NYS Department of Transportation, the Town needs to know what issues to raise with them. The Town Board asks that you review the study with an eye towards making it a more effective informational document. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry $outhold Town Clerk FRANK CICHANOWlCZ Iff DON WILCENSKI NEAL CICHANOWIC.,Z DistfincrJve Landscape Concep~ January 4, 1994 Judith Terry Southold Town Clerk Southold, NY 11971 JAN 4 Dear Firs. Terry; Enclosed please find check in the amount of $750.00 for the fee you requested to have our traffic study reviewed by Cramer, Voorhis & Associates . Please expedite this as soon as possible as we are anxious to get this project started as soon as possible. Sin y, , Frank Cichanowicz, gfI Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 ~ phone:516-765-1801 DATE~ ~ 19 ~ [516) 765-1220 ° Route 25, Peconic, L.[., N.Y. 11958 · FAX [516) 765-0015 JIJDITH T. TEP~RY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 30, 1994 Rudolph H. Bi-uer, Esq. P.O. Box 1[166 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Bruer: The $outhold Town Board, at a regular meeting held on December 27, 1994, adopted a resolution (copy enclosed) engaging the services of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates to review the Traffic Impact Study submitted by Frank Cichanowicz III with regard to his petition for a change of zone. The cost of the review, $750.00, is to be paid by Mr. Cichanowicz prior to the commencement of the review, Upon receipt of the $750.00 by this office, I will instruct Cramer & Voorhis to commence the review. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry $outhold Town Clerk Enclosure cc: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main P~ad P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE 5OUTHOLD TOWN EIOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 27. 199fl: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby engages the services of Cramer, Voorhis $ Associates, at a cost not to exceed $750.00, to review for accuracy and consistency, and submitting recommendations to the Board on the Traffic Impact Study submitted by Frank Cichanowicz III with regard to his petition for a change of zone; the cost of said review to be paid by the applicant prior to the commencement of the review. ~udith T. Terry ~/ Southold Town Clerk December 28. 199q ENVIRONMENT~IG CONSULTANTS .... - December 23, 1994 M~. Judith T. Te _ri'y, Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Traffic Impact Study Frank Cic~anowiczlII Application Dear Judy: As per your request, this letter provides you with a proposal for review of the above refirenced Traffic Impact Statement.. We have conducted a preliminary review, and feel that the document can be reviewed for accuracy and consis.tency for a fee not to exceed $750.00. This is conslstcnt with fees charged for similar services tn the past. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this quotation. Plea.~ call if you have any questions. Post-It" bran~i fax transmittal memo 7671 Very truly yours, Charles $. Voorbis, C.F.~, .4C? 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) ~31-1455 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN' CLERK To'~n Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 11'79 Southold, Ne'.., York 11971 Fax (5161 765-1823 Telephone 15161 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 14, 1994 Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP Cramer, Voorhis & Associastes 54-2 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Dear Mr. Voorhis: Enclosed is a Traffic Impact Study the Town Board requested of Frank Cichanowicz III with regard to his petition for a change of zone in Cutchogue. You previously provided services with regard to the SEQR portion of his application. The Town Board would like this Traffic Impact Study reviewed for completeness by your firm. Before undertaking the task the Town Board must authorize the expenditure. Please advise me within the next week (our next meeting is December 27th) the fee for your services. Thank you. Very truly yours, Southold Town Clerk Enclosure cc: Rudolph Bruer, Esq. ISLAND ALE PROPOSED RESTAURANT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CUTCHOGUE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK DECEMBER 1994 NELSON & POPE Co~ltiag Eagim~rs ~d Laad S~yo~ 572 W~t ~R~, M~o, N.Y. 11747 (5~6) 427-5~ P~ (5~6) 427-56~ DEC 6 TABLE OFCONTENTS PURPOSE OF REPORT STUDY METHODOLOGY EXISTING CONDITIONS Land Use Roadway Conditions Traffic Accidents FUTURE CONDITIONS Other Planned Developments Traffic PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Trip Generation Site Access Trip Distribution and Assignment TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 1 3 5 5 5 5 9 11 Il 13 13 13 13 15 17 22 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION I Signalized Intersection II. Unsignahzed Intersection APPENDIX B: TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAMS I II. III. IV. Existing Volumes Adjusted Summer Peak Volumes 1996 "No Build" Volumes 1996 "Build" Volumes APPENDIX C: TRIP GENERATION I. Proposal II. Other Planned Projects APPENDIX D: TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT APPENDIX E: CAPACITY ANALYSIS/LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS I. Existing Conditions Main Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane Il. Adjusted Summer Peak Conditions Mare Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane III. 1997 "No Build" Conditions Main Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane IV 1997 "Build" Conditions A. Mare Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane B. Main Road and West Site Access C. Main Road and East Site Access APPENDIX F:. NYSDOT DATA I. Average Weekday Hourly Report II. Accident Summaries PURPOSE OF REPORT It has been proposed to construct a 5,643 square foot "brew pub" restaurant on a parcel of land situated on the south side of Main Roaxt (NYS Route 25) m Cutehogue, Town of Southold (refer to Figure 1, Area Map). As part of this proposal, the site, abutting Route 25 and totaling 3.26 acres, is to be rezoned. A gift shop containing 1,197 square feet will also be constructed on tills site as an ancillar3' use to the restaurant. The site is depicted on the plan prepared by Fairweather/Brown, latest revision date September 30, 1994. This report summarizes the results of a detailed investigation of the traffic impact of the proposed development on the adjacent street system. The report re~'iews existing roadway and traffic conditions in the area. estimates the volume and pattern of traffic which will be generat~xl by the proposed developmem and analyzes the effect of the additional traffic on the roadway network surrounding the site. STUDY METHODOLOGY The study methodology used for this investigation consisted of a detailed review of existing land use, roadway and traffic conditions in the vicinity, of the proposed site. Existing traffic volumes on Main Road (NYS Route 25) were determined from field surveys conducted by this firm and information available from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). These data were analyzed and in conjunetaon v~Sth field observations, the current level o£ trot:tic service was determined for the intersection of Main Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane (refer to Figure 2, Location of Study Intersection). Traffic volumes collected in November were projected to reflect peak seasonal volumes (August). These volumes were also analyzed tn addition to analyzing intersection levels of servine for the existing and summer conditions, the study analyzed intersection levels of service for the futura conditions. The "No Build" and "Build" are the future conditions. The 1996 "No Build" condition analyzed the future level of service assUming the project is not constructed. An ambient growth rate factor of 3% per ?'ear, supplied by thc NYSDOT, was applied to the summer (1994) volumes collected at the stud?' intersections. In addition the traffic associated vath other planned area developments specified by the To,naa of Southold 5vas included. The 1996 "Build" conditions analyzed the in, pact of the traffic generated by the proposal. The site generated traffic was added to the "No Build" volumes at the study intersections. NELSON & POPE Culchogue LOCATION OF STUDY INTERSECTIONS FIGURE 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Land Use The site is located on the south side of Main Road west of Eugene's Road/Cox Lane (refer to Location Map, Figure 3). There is currently a wholesale nurser3' operating on this site. The land uses surrounding the site on Main Road are a n~xture of commercial uses including retail stores, offices and a bank Directly to the west of the site is a w~nery (Bhim property) and the Bratm's Oyster Company. There are also several residences on Main Road in between the commercial uses. Roadway Conditions Mare Road (NYS Route 25), in the vicinity, of the site, is a major east-west arterial roadway under the jurisdiction of the New York State Departmem &Transportation (NYSDOT). This section of Main Road contains one lane and a shoulder in each direction and a posted speed limit of 40 mph. This section of Main Road has an average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume of 9,300 vehicles per day (Source: NYSDOT Average Weekday Hourly Report, July, 1993). The NYSDOT tra~c count data are contained in Appendix F. Eugene's Road enters Main Road from the south. Cox Lane enters from the north. These roads form a 4-way intersection controlled by a 2-phase traffic signal. The speed limit on both Eugene's Road and Cox Lane is 40 mph. Traffic Traffic volume turning movement counts at the intersections of Mare Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane were taken during the weekday evening (4:00 - 6:00 P.M.) and Saturday midday (12:00 - 2:00 P.M.) peak periods. Based on studies performed by Dram Engineering m the Town of Southold, these periods represent the peak traffic periods on Main Road. The results of these surveys are contained in Figure 4 and in Appendix B. The traffic in Southold experiences seasonal peaks due to increased tourism in the summer months. Therefore, the volumes collected by this finn in November were adjusted to reflect peak summer volumes collected in August. The adjustment factors for the North Fork of Long Island were obtained from the NYSDOT. The peak summer volumes are depicted in Figure 5. 5 NELSON & POPE Cutchogue SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 3 6 III Z W W Z ~ 0~)0~ ~ LLI W The existing and projected summer volumes were then used to determine the Cresting capa~i _ty and level of service (LOS) o£ this intersection. The analyses were performed in accordance with guidelines set forth in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209} published by the Transportation Research Board. The capacity of a signalized intersection is evaluated m terms of the ratio of demand flow rate to capaci¢' (v/c ratio). The capaciB, is defined for each approach and measures the maximum t-ale of flow (for the subject approach) which may pass through the intersection under prevailing traffic, roadway and signalization conditions. The level of service of a signalized intersection is evaluated on thc basis of average stopped delay measured m the umts seconds per vehicle (sec/veh). Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. Refer to Appendix A for further definition of level of traffic service for a signalized intersection. The eapacity analyses for this intersection were performed using "HCS", prepared by the Federal Highway Administration. "HCS" is a series of computer programs strictly adhering to the guidelines set forth in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The capacit3' analysis/level of service worksheets are contained m Appendix E. The results of these analyses are contained in Table 1. Upon a review of Table 1, it can be seen that the intersection of Mare Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane operates at excellent levels of sen, ice during the peak periods. It is important to realize that the existing November counts are 5% lower than an average month while the August counts represent the highest month or most conservative ease The increased volumes experienced in summer will not impact this intersection These summer volumes will be the basis for all future analyses conmmefl in this study. Accidents Accident summaries for the intersection of Mare Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane were obtained from the NYSDOT. In 1991, there were four accidents at this intersection. In 1992 there were three accidents. In 1993 there were five accidents. The NYSDOT accident summary sheets are contained in Appendix F. 9 =o ~ o >- rr 0 FUTURE CONDITIONS Other Planned Developments lhere are several projects in the vicidiW of the site which will impact traffic volumes on Main Road. These projects, obtained from the Towna of Southold, situated on Mare Road, consist of the following Blum Restaurant = a proposed 1,300 square foot restaurant situated on the south side of Mare Road directly west of the site. A winery is currently operatig on this site Braun's Oyster Company - a proposed 2.700 square foot storage expansion on an ex~sting fish packaging plant/market situated on the south side of Main Road west of the site. King Kullen - 3,400 square feet of vacant space in an existing shopping center situated on the north side of Mare Road. Traffic The future (1996) traffic volumes were projected by applying a 3% annual growth rate factor, supplied by the NYSDOT, to the summer volumes. This ambient growth rate accounts for the population and commercial growth surrounding the study area. The traffic associated with the other planned developments (listed above) was combined with the future traffic volumes at the study intersections. The trip generation rates for these projects were estkmated based on the rates contained in the manual Trip Generation, 5th edition, prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1991). The summary sheets are contained in Appendix C. The trip distribution and assignment summaries are contained in Appendix D. The 1996 "No Build" volumes are contained in Figure 6. 11 W W Z W n" W 12 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Trip Generation As pre~iously mentioned, it has been proposed to construct a 5.643 square foot restaurant on a 3.26 acre parcel of land on Main Road in Cutchogue. As part of this investigation, estimates were made of the volume of vehicular traffic that would be generated by the proposed development. The manual, Trip Generation, 5th Edition, prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1991) was referenced. Rates are contained in this manual for different land uses including several different t)pes of restaurants. After reviewing these land use descriptions, estimates for the proposal were based on the average trip generation rates for quality restaurants (Land Use Code 831). The computations were prepared using the Trip Generation Program developed by Microtrans, Inc. The rates contained in the ITE manual were compared with rates obtained at a similar "brew pub" facility in Port Jefferson. It was deternuned that the ITE rates were higher than the rates obtained in Port Jefferson To provide the most conservative analysis the ITE rates were utilized for this study. These rates are contained in Table 2, along with the rates obtained in Port Jefferson. T)~icall_v, the Saturday peak hour of'a restaurant occurs during the evening hours. However, since the midday peak experiences heavier traffic volumes than the eveinng hours, it was assumed that the trip generation during the Saturday midday peak hour will equal that of the evening hours, thereby producing a more conservative analysis. Site Access As indicated on the site plan, there are two drivexvays on Mare Road. The e.a~t driveway (existing curb cut) will be configured for entering and exiting vehicles. The west driveway will be configured for entry, only. pernuts for the construction of these drivexva_vs have been approved by the NYSDOT in a letter dated October 11, 1994 13 NELSON & POPE TABLE 2 ISLAND ALE - PROPOSED RESTAUARANT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY TIME PERIOD TRIP GENERATION PORT JEFFERSON ITE DATA DATA 24 HOUR 2-WAY VOLUME: 545 vpd AM ENTER: EXIT: TOTAL: 5 vph Q vph 5 vph PM ENTER: EXIT: TOTAL: 30 vph 13 vph 43 vph 19 vph vph vph SATURDAY 2-WAY VOLUME: 523 vpd MIDDAY ENTER: EXIT: TOTAL: 33 vph 29 vph 62 vph 22 15 37 vph vph vph [4 The location of these driveways was examined. The east access is well situated to provide excellent sight distance for exiting vehicles on Mare Road m both directions. The two driveways are situated approximately 200 feet apart and the west driveway is situated apprommately 100 feet from the west property line abutting the Winery (Blum property). Based on the manual, Guidelines for Driveway Location and Design prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1987), 50' is sufficient spacing (including curb radii) between Lndustrial driveways Commercial driveways require even less separation. Therefore, the spacing of these driveways is more than sufficient. Trip Distribution and Assi~nment The next step of the investigation consisted of an analysis of the geographical distribution of the trips to and from the site In order to determine the distribution of traffic generated by the site a careful review of the existing roadway and travel patterns, the population distribution and the trip generators in the vicinity of the site was performed. In addition to the existing conditions, consideration was given to the nature of the proposed land use This was necessary due to the distinct travel patterns generated by different land uses. As previously mentioned, traffic m Southold is influenced by tourism. After considering this trend and examining the existing traffic patterns, it was estimated that 65% of the trips to/from the site will originate from the west. In order to properly assess the traffic impact of the proposal, it is necessary to know which roadway(s) will most probably receive the newly generated traffic, in vehicular volume and direction, during the peak hours. The existing roadway network in the x~icinity of the site was eXanuned in conjunction x, nth the above mentioned studies. The distribution of site generated traffic at each intersection was determined. (Refer to Appendix D for a summary, of the trip distribution and assignment). These volumes were added to the '~qo Build" peak hour volumes. The "Build" volumes are visually depicted in Figure 7. 15 W Z 3N'W9 f~ 8( 19)C~ W n~ ,LO O~ 16 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS As pre~4ously mentioned, future traffic volumes were estimated at the intersection of Mare Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane. These volumes were used to perform the capaciW analyses for the 1996 "No Build" and 1996 "Build" conditions. These analyses were performed using proc__~_ures outlined in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209) published by the Transportation Research Board. The procedures listed in the Highway Capacity Man~ permit the computation of intersection capaci .ty and level of service (LOS). In addition to analyzing the intersection of Main Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane. capaci _ty analyses were performed for the tm_signalized site accesses The capacit3_, of an unsignalized intersection is based on two factors. The first being the distribution of gaps m the major street traffic and the second being driver judgment in selecting gaps through which to execute their desired maneuvers. The level of service (LOS) of an unsignalized intersection is based on the unused or reserve capacity of the lane (or approach) in question Refer to Appendix A for further definition of level of traffic service for an unsignalized intersection. The level of service summaries are contained in Table 3. The level of sermeegcapacity_ analysis worksheets are contained m Appendix D. Upon a review of Table 3, it can be seen that the traffic generated by the proposed restaurant x~411 have no impact on the future levels of service at the intersection of Mare Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane. The xvest site access uall operate at excellent levels of semce. The east site access will operate at levels of service "D-E" during the peak periods, which is typical for unsignalized driveways on state roads and indicates that there is sufficient capacity on Main Road to accommodate the entering/emting volumes. 17 99 .0 rr m,m z___ m,m In order to confirm the analysis at the easterly drive~vay, gap studies were conducted during the P.M. and Saturday peak periods. These studies counted the number and duration of 2-way gaps m the traffic stream on Main Road. Based on values contained m Table 10-2 of the 1985 High~ay Capacity Manual, a 7 second gap in the ~.vo-way traffic stream is required for an exiting vehicle to turn le~ out of the site. A two second headway is required for a second vehicle to utilize the same gap, while based on field observations, a third vehicle would require the full gap size. The gap studies performed in November were adjusted to reflect peak summer conditions. The number of gaps and the capaciW of the gaps are contained in the enclosed tables. Upon an examinaaon of Tables 4 and 5, it an be seen that there are sufficient gaps to accommodate the site-generated traffic In conclusion, the trips generated by this proposed restaurant will have no impact to the future level of servaee on Mare Road. There is sufficient capacity on this roadway to accommodate the drivexvay volumes 19 NELSON & POPE TABLE 4 Gap Study Summary Job Name: Job No..' Location: Date: Weekday: ISLAND ALE 94114 N.Y.S. RTE. 25 @ E. SITE ACCESS 11/17/94 THURSDAY Time period # of gaps Capacity of gaps beginning (# of vehicles) 04:30 PM 26 51 04:45 PM 33 58 05:00 PM 36 75 SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS NOVEMBER ADJUSTMENT: 0.948 AUGUST ADJUSTMENT: 1.211 NOV-AUG ADJUSTMENT: 1.277 Peak Hour Start Time: 04:30 PM Critical Gap Size:(in seconds) 7 # of Critical Gaps in Peak Hour: 126 Capacity o1: Peak Hour Gaps:(in vehicles) 245 Capacity of Summer Peak Hour Gaps: 192 Projected Exiting Left-turns:(vehicles per hour) 8 Note: Gaps increased to project capacity for full hour 2O NELSON & POPE TABLE 5 Gap Study Summary Job Name: Job No.: Location: Date: Weekday: ISLAND ALE 94114 N.Y.S. RTE. 25 @ E. SITE ACCESS 11/19/94 SATURDAY Time period # of gaps Capacity of gaps beginning (# of vehicles) 12:30 PM 19 33 12:45 PM 20 34 01:00 PM 13 25 01:15 PM 25 46 SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS NOVEMBER ADJUSTMENT: 0.948 AUGUST ADJUSTMENT: 1.211 NOV-AUG ADJUSTMENT: 1.277 Peak Hour Start Time: 12:30 PM Critical Gap Size:(in seconds) 7 # of Critical Gaps in Peak Hour: 77 Capacity of Peak Hour Gaps:(in vehicles) 138 Capacity of Summer Peak Hour Gaps: 108 Projected Exiting Le[t-turns:(vehicles per hour) 19 SUMMARY It has been proposed to construct a 5,643 square foot "brew pub" restaurant on a 3 26 aere site situated on the south side of Main Road (NYS Route 25) in Cutchogue, Town of Southold_ The following is a summary of a study which investigated the potential traffic impacts associaU:d with the project and findings thereof: l) The intersection of Mare Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane was analyzed as part of this study. This intersection was found to operate at excellent levels of service during the November count period and during the projected summer peak period. 2) Future (1996) volumes xvere obtained by app154ng a 3% annual growth factor to the summer volumes and combining them with the traffic associated with several planned developments in the area as specified by the Town of Southold. 3) The P.M. and Saturday midday periods were determined to be the critical periods. During the P.M. peak the site will generate 43 trips (30 enter/13 exit). Dunng the Saturday midday peak, the site will generate 62 trips (33 enter/29 exit). 4) The traffic generated by this proposal was distributed to the study intersections based on a study of the population characteristics of the area and the ex/sting travel patterns. 5) The traffic generated by the proposal will have no impact to the future levels of service at the intersection of Main Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane. 6) The west site access will operate at excellent levels of service. The east site access will operate at levels of serv/ce "D-E", which indicates that there is sufficient capacity on Main Road to accommodate the driveway volumes. Gap studies conducted at the east access have confirmed this. 22 APPENDICES ISLAND ALE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY DECEMBER 1994 NELSON & POPE CONSULTING ENGINEERS APPENDIX A: LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION I. Signalized Intersection II. Unsignalized Intersection I. Signalized Intersection LEVEL OF SERVICE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service is a measure of the quality of traffic service that is provided along a roadway or at a particular intersection on a road. The levels of service range from a relatively congestion-free condition (Level of Service A) to major traffic congestion (Level of Service F) Level of Service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort and frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Standard Traffic Engineering Analysis procedures are used to determine existing and projected vehicle delays at an intersection. The following average vehicle delays have been used in this study to determine intersection and approach roadway levels of service. Level of Service A Level of Service B Level of Service C Level of Service D Level of Service E Level of Service F < 5.0 sec./veh. _> 5.0 and < 15.0 sec./veh. > 15.0 and < 25.0 sec./veh. > 25.0 and < 40 0 sec./veh. > 40.0 and < 60.0 sec./veh. _> 60.0 sec./veh. The following general statements may be made regarding intersection Level of Service. Level of Service A describes operations with a very low delay. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short traffic signal cycles may contribute to low delay. Level of Service B generally occurs with good progression and/or short traffic signal cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for Level A, causing higher levels of average delay. Level of Service C has higher delays than Level B. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures, where motorists are required to wait through an entire signal cycle, may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. At Level of Service D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths or high volume to capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Indimdual cycle failures are noticeable. Level of Service E is considered the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths and high volume to capacity ratios Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. The delays at Level of Service F are considered unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturations, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may occur at high volume to capacity ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. II. Unsignalized Intersection LEVEL OF SERVICE UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Unsignalized intersections make up the vast majority of at grade junctions in any street system. Stop and yield signs are used to assign the Right-of-Way to the street(s) at such intersections. This designation forces drivers on the controlled street(s) to judgrnentally select gaps in the major street flow through which to execute crossing or turning maneuvers. Thus, the capacity of the controlled legs is based on the following factors: 1. The distribution of gaps in the major street traffic stream. Driver judgment in selecting gaps which to execute their desired maneuvers. Standard traffic engineering and analysis procedures are employed to determine the capacity of the lanes or approaches of an unsignalized intersection. The Level of Service of an unsignalized intersection is based on the reserve or unused capacity of the lane in question. The criteria listed in the following table are used as a guide to deternfine the Level of Service of an approach of an unsignalized intersection. Reserve Capacity (PCPH)* Level of Service A Level of Service B Level of Service C Level of Service D Level of Service E Level of Service F >_ 400 300 - 399 200 - 299 100- 199 o- 99 <0 * PCPH denotes passenger cars per hour. The following general statement may be made regarding the expected delay to minor street traffic for each level of service. Level of Service A Little or no delay Level of Service B Short traffic delays Level of Service C Average traffic delays Level of Service D Long traffic delays Level of Service E Very long traffic delays Level of Service F When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane or approach, extreme delays will be encountered, with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985. APPENDIX B: II. llI TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAMS I. E~sting Volumes Adjusted Summer Peak Volumes 1996 "No Build" Volumes IV.1996 "Build" Volumes Existing Volumes o o o IJ.! · ^ > II. AdjusteASummer Peak Volumcs UJ LLI 0 uJ III. 1996 "No Build" Volumes LLI LU IV. 1996 "Build" Volumes iii LU APPENDIX C: TRIP GENERATION I. Proposal II. Other Planned Projects I. Proposal ISLAND ALE SUMI~k~RY OF AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION FOR 5.643 TH.GR.SQ.FT. OF QUALITY RESTAURANT DRIVEWAY VOLUMES 24 HOUR 7-9 AM PK HOUR 4-6 PM PK HOUR TWO-WAY VOLUME ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT AVERAGE WEEKDAY 545 5 0 30 13 24 HOUR PEAK HOUR TWO-WAY VOLUME ENTER EXIT SATURDAY 523 33 29 SUNDAY 410 24 24 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition, 1991. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS II. Other Planned Projects BLUM RESTAURANT SUM/~3%RY OF AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION FOR 1.3 TH.GR.SQ.FT. OF QUALITY RESTAURANT DRIVEWAY VOLUMES OTHER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 24 HOUR 7-9 AM PK HOUR 4-6 PM PK HOUR TWO-WAY VOLUME ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT AVERAGE WEEKDAY 125 1 0 7 3 ~4 HOUR PEAK HOUR TWO-WAY VOLUME ENTER EXIT SATURDAY 120 8 7 SUNDAY 94 6 6 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition, 1991. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTR/tNS BRAUN'S OYSTER COMPANY SUM1ZARY OF AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION FOR 2.7 TH.GR.SQ.FT. OF WAREHOUSING DRIVEWAY VOLUMES OTHER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 24 HOUR 7-9 AM PK HOUR 4-6 PM PK HOUR TWO-WAY VOLUME ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT AVERAGE WEEKDAY 13 1 0 1 1 24 HOUR PEAK HOUR TWO-WAY VOLUME ENTER EXIT SATURDAY 3 0 0 SUNDAY 2 0 0 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition, 1991. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS KING KULLEN - VACANT RETAIL SUM/~3%RY OF AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION FOR 3.4 T.G.L.A. OF SHOPPING CENTER DRIVEWAY VOLUMES OTHER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 24 HOUR 7-9 AM PK HOUR 4-6 PM PK HOUR TWO-WAY VOLUME ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT AVERAGE WEEKDAY 854 14 8 38 38 PASS-BY TRIPS 23 23 24 HOUR PEAK HOUR TWO-WAY VOLUME ENTER EXIT SATURDAY 1094 52 52 SUNDAY 917 61 63 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition, 1991. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS APPENDIX D: TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT LU z~ APPENDIX E'. CAPACITY ANALYSIS/LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS [ Existing Conditions Main Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane II. Adjusted Summer Peak Conditions Main Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane III. 1997 "No Build" Conditions Main Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane A IV. 1997 "Build" Conditions Main Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane B. Main Road and West Site Access C. Mare Road and East Site Access [. Existing Conditions Mare Road and Eugene's Road:I/Cox L~m¢ HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION S~Y 11-21-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) N.Y.S. RTE. 25 Analyst: RB Area Type: Other Comment: EXISTING 4:30-5:30 (N-S) COX LANE/EUGENES RD File Name: 25CLP1.HC9 11-21-94 PM PEAK No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane Width Grade % Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Arr Type RTOR Vols Prop. Share Prop. Prot. Assign Perm Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R > 1 < 41 339 101 .90 0.90 0.90 12.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 > 1 < 4 341 10 0.86 0.86 0.86 11.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N (Y/N) N 3 3 > 1 89 10 0.71 0.71 15.0 0 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 > 1 < 13 21 47 0.92 0.92 0.92 14.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 EB Left * Thru * Right * Peds WB Left * Thru * Right * Peds NB Right SB Right Green 60 Yellow/A-R 6 Lost Time 3 Cycle Length: 96 4 5 NB Left * Thru * Right * Peds SB Left * Thru * Right * Peds EB Right WB Right .0P Green 25.0A .0 Yellow/A- 5.0 .0 Lost Time 3.0 .0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #5 2 3 6 7 8 Lane Mvmts EB LTR WB LTR NB LT SB LTR Intersection Performance Summary Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS 1009 1538 0.53 0.66 7.0 B 7.0 B 1073 1635 0.39 0.66 5.9 B 5.9 B 476 1693 0.29 0.28 20.6 C 20.6 C 465 1654 0.19 0.28 19.9 C 19.9 C Intersection Delay = 9.2 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.459 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMI~A~RY 11-21-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) N.Y.S. RTE. 25 Analyst: RB Area Type: Other Comment: EXISTING 12:30-1:30 (N-S) COX LANE/EUGENES RD File Name: 25CLS1.HC9 11-21-94 SATPEAK No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane Width Grade % Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Arr Type RTOR Vols Prop. Share Prop. Prot. Assign Perm Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R > 1 < 37 392 96 0.92 0.92 0.92 12.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 > 1 < 4 359 5 0.85 0.85 0.85 11.0 0 2 2 (Y/N) N (Y/N) N 3 3 > 1 < 93 11 5 0.70 0.70 0.70 15.0 0 2 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 1 < 2 9 47 0.81 0.81 0.81 14.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 Phase Combination 1 EB Left * Thru * Right * Peds WB Left * Thru * Right * Peds NB Right SB Right Green Yellow/A-R Lost Time Cycle Length: Signal Operations 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left * Thru * Right * Peds SB Left * Thru * Right * Peds EB Right WB Right 60.0P Green 25.0A 6.0 Yellow/A- 5.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 96.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #5 ----------------------------------------_----__--________ .... -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB LTR 1032 1573 0.55 0.66 7.3 B 7.3 B WB LTR 1076 1640 0.40 0.66 6.0 B 6.0 B NB LTR 437 1553 0.36 0.28 21.2 C 21.2 C SB LTR 447 1589 0.16 0.28 19.7 C 19.7 C Intersection Delay = 9.3 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0,494 II. Adjusted Summer Peak Conditions Mare Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane !SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUI~W3~Ry 11-29-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) N.Y.S. RTE. 25 Analyst: D.J.LEVINE Area Type: Other Comment: PROJECTED SUMI~ER PEAK VOLUMES (N-S) COX LANE/EUGENES File Name: 25CLP1A.HC9 11-21-94 PM PEAK RD No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane Width Grade % Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Arr Type RTOR Vols Prop. Share Prop. Prot. Assign Perm Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R > 1 < 52 433 129 0.90 0.90 0.90 12.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 > 1 < 5 436 13 0.86 0.86 0.86 11.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 > 1 114 13 0.71 0.71 15.0 0 2 2 (Y/N) N (Y/N) N 3 3 0 0 > 1 < 17 27 60 0.92 0.92 0.92 14.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phase Combination 1 EB Left * Thru * Right * Peds WB Left * Thru * Right * Peds NB Right SB Right Green Yellow/A-R Lost Time Cycle Length: Signal Operations 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left * Thru * Right * Peds SB Left * Thru * Right * Peds EB Right WB Right 60.0P Green 25.0A 6.0 Yellow/A- 5.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 96.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB LTR 977 1489 0.70 0.66 9.5 B 9.5 B WB LTR 1073 1635 0.49 0.66 6.7 B 6.7 B NB LT 456 1623 0.39 0.28 21.5 C 21.5 C SB LTR 465 1654 0.24 0.28 20.3 C 20.3 C Intersection Delay = 10.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.606 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION StrM/~RY 11-29-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) N.Y.S. RTE. 25 Analyst: D.J.LEVINE Area Type: Other Comment: PROJECTED SI/M~4ER PEAK VOLUMES (N-S) COX LANE/EUGENES RD File Name: 25CLS1A.HC9 11-21-94 SATPEAK No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane Width Grade % Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Arr Type RTOR Vols Prop. Share Prop. Prot. Assign Perm Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R > 1 < 47 501 123 0.92 0.92 0.92 12.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0. (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 > 1 < 5 459 6 0.85 0.85 0.85 11.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 > 1 < 119 14 6 0.70 0.70 0.70 15.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 > 1 < 3 11 60 0.81 0.81 0.81 14.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 Phase Combination 1 EB Left * Thru * Right * Peds WB Left * Thru * Right * Peds NB Right SB Right Green Yellow/A-R Lost Time Cycle Length: Signal Operations 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left * Thru * Right * Peds SB Left * Thru Right * Peds EB Right WB Right 60.0P Green 25.0A 6.0 Yellow/A- 5.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 96.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Adj Sat v/c g/C Lane Mvmts EB LTR WB LTR NB LTR SB LTR Group: Approach: Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS 999 1523 0.73 0.66 10.2 B 10.2 B 1075 1638 0.51 0.66 6.9 B 6.9 B 420 1492 0.47 0.28 22.4 C 22.4 C 448 1594 0.21 0.28 20.0 C 20.0 C Intersection Delay = 11.1 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.654 IlL 1997 "No Build" Conditions Main Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUM1ZARY 11-29-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) N.Y.S. RTE. 25 Analyst: D.J.LEVINE Area Type: Other Comment: NO BUILD SUMMER PEAK VOLUMES (N-S) COX LANE/EUGENES RD File Name: 25CLP2.HC9 11-21-94 PM PEAK No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane Width Grade % Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Arr Type RTOR Vole Prop. Share Prop. Prot. Assign Perm Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R > 1 < 60 471 143 0.90 0.90 0.90 12.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 > 1 < 5 474 14 0.86 0.86 0.86 11.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 > 1 128 14 0.71 0.71 15.0 0 2 2 (Y/N) N (Y/N) N 3 3 0 0 > 1 < 18 28 68 0.92 0.92 0.92 14.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phase Combination 1 EB Left * Thru * Right * Peds WB Left * Thru * Right * Peds NB Right SB Right Green Yellow/A-R Lost Time Cycle Length: Signal Operations 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left * Thru * Right * Peds SB Left * Thru * Right * Peds EB Right WB Right 60.0P Green 25.0A 6.0 Yellow/A- 5.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 96.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Adj Sat v/c g/C Lane Mvmts EB LTR WB LTR NB LT SB LTR Group: Approach: Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS 945 1440 0.79 0.66 12.3 B 12.3 B 1070 1631 0.54 0.66 7.1 B 7.1 B 447 1588 0.45 0.28 22.1 C 22.1 C 464 1648 0.27 0.28 20.5 C 20.5 C Intersection Delay = 12.3 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.689 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 11-29-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) N.Y.S. RTE. 25 Analyst: D.J.LEVINE Area Type: Other Comment: NO BUILD SUMMER PEAK VOLUMES (N-S) COX LANE/EUGENES RD File Name: 25CLS2.HC9 11-21-94 SATPEAK No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane Width Grade % Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Art Type RTOR Vols Prop. Share Prop. Prot. Assign Perm Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R > 1 < 55 545 139 0.92 0.92 0.92 12.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 > 1 < 5 502 7 0.85 0.85 0.85 11.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 > 1 < 135 15 7 0.70 0.70 0.70 15.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 > 1 < 3 12 69 0.81 0.81 0.81 14.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 Phase Combination 1 EB Left * Thru * Right * Peds WB Left * Thru * Right * Peds NB Right SB Right Green Yellow/A-R Lost Time Cycle Length: Signal Operations 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left * Thru * Right * Peds SB Left * Thru * Right * Peds EB Right WB Right 60.0P Green 25.0A 6.0 Yellow/A- 5.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 96.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB LTR 956 1456 0.84 0.66 14.4 B 14.4 B WB LTR 1068 1627 0.57 0.66 7.4 B 7.4 B NB LTR 410 1456 0.55 0.28 23.5 C 23.5 C SB LTR 447 1589 0.23 0.28 20.2 C 20.2 C Intersection Delay = 13.5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.752 IV. 1997 "Build" Conditions A Mam Road and Eugene's Road/Cox Lane HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUM/4ARY 11-29-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) N.Y.S. RTE. 25 Analyst: D.J.LEVINE Area Type: Other Comment: BUILD SUMI4ER PEAK VOLUMES (N-S) COX LANE/EUGENES RD File Name: 25CLP3.HC9 11-21-94 PM PEAK No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane Width Grade % Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Art Type RTOR Vols Prop. Share Prop. Prot. Assign Perm Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R > 1 < 61 474 144 0.90 0.90 0.90 12.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 > 1 < 5 480 14 0.86 0.86 0.86 11.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 > 1 131 14 0.71 0.71 15.0 0 2 2 (Y/N) N (Y/N) N 3 3 0 0 > 1 < 18 28 70 0.92 0.92 0.92 14.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phase Combination 1 EB Left * Thru * Right * Peds WB Left * Thru * Right * Peds NB Right SB Right Green Yellow/A-R Lost Time Cycle Length: Signal Operations 3 4 NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left * Thru * Right * Peds EB Right WB Right 60.0P Green 25.0A 6.0 Yellow/A- 5.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 96.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #5 2 5 6 7 Lane Mvmts EB LTR WB LTR NB LT SB LTR Intersection Performance Summary Adj Sat v/c g/C Group: Approach: Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS 945 1440 0.80 0.66 12.5 B 12.5 B 1070 1631 0.54 0.66 7.1 B 7.1 B 444 1580 0.46 0.28 22.2 C 22.2 C 464 1648 0.27 0.28 20.5 C 20.5 C Intersection Delay = 12.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.698 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUM/~3%RY 11-29-1994 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E-W) N.Y.S. RTE. 25 Analyst: D.J.LEVINE Area Type: Other Comment: BUILD SUMMER PEAK VOLUMES (N-S) COX LANE/EUGENES RD File Name: 25CLS3.HC9 11-21-94 SATPEAK No. Lanes Volumes PHF or PK15 Lane Width Grade % Heavy Veh Parking Bus Stops Con. Peds Ped Button Arr Type RTOR Vols Prop. Share Prop. Prot. Assign Perm Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R > 1 < 56 551 142 0.92 0.92 0.92 12.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 > 1 < 5 509 7 0.85 0.85 0.85 11.0 0 2 2 2, (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 > 1 < 138 15 7 0.70 0.70 0.70 15.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3: 0~ 0 0~ 0 > 1 < 3 12 71 0.81 0.81 0.81 14.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (Y/N) N 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 Phase Combination 1 EB Left * Thru * Right * Peds WB Left * Thru * Right * Peds NB Right SB Right Green Yellow/A-R Lost Time Cycle Length: Signal Operations 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left * Thru * Right * Peds SB Left * Thru * Right * Peds EB Right WB Right 60.0P Green 25.0A 6.0 Yellow/A- 5.0 3.0 Lost Time 3.0 96.0 secsPhase combination order: #1 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Adj Sat v/c g/C Lane Mvmt s EB LTR WB LTR NB LTR SB LTR Group: Approach: Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS 956 1456 0.85 0.66 15.1 C 15.1 C 1067 1626 0.57 0.66 7.5 B 7.5 B 407 1446 0.56 0.28 23.7 C 23.7 C 447 1589 0.24 0.28 20.3 C 20.3 C Intersection Delay = 13.9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.765 B. Mare Road and West Site Access 1985 HCMz UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET_ 40 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ...................... 9 AREA POPULATION ..................... 10000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ......... RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ....... W. SITE ACCESS NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. D_J.LEVINE DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) .... 11-22-1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............... PM PEAK OTHER INFORPIATION.._ BUILD - SUMMER PEAK INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TP. AFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LEFT 0 3 0 -- THRU 680 680 0 -- RIGHT 14 0 0 -- NI/MBER OF LANES LANES EB WB NB SB 1 1 1 -- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page 2 EASTBOU~ WESTBOUND 0.00 NORTHBOUND 0.00 SOUTHBOUND ..... VEHICLE COMPOSITION PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GR3%DE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 0.00 90 20 N 90 20 N 90 20 N EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TkBULAR VALUES (Table 10-2) ADJUSTED VALUE SIGHT DIST. ADJUSTMENT FINAL CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.90 5_90 0.00 5_90 MAJOR LEFTS WB 5.20 5.20 0_00 5_20 MINOR LEFTS NB 7_10 7.10 0.00 7.10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ...... RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .... W. SITE ACCESS DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 11-22-1994 , PM PEAK OTHER INFORM3tTION .... BUILD - SUMMER PEAK CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 MOVEMENT POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE PATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c c v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET NB LEFT 0 83 83 > 83 > 83 > E > 0 > 0 > RIGHT 0 399 399 > 399 > 399 > B MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 4 489 489 489 485 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..... RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .... W. SITE ACCESS DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 11-22-1994 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... BUILD SUMMER PEAK 1985 HCM~ UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page 1 IDENTIFYING INFOR/4ATION AVER3kGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 10000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ......... RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ....... W_ SITE ACCESS NAME OF THE ANALYST ............... D J_LEVINE DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) ...... 11-22-1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. SATURDAY PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... BUILD - SUMMER PEAK INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LEFT 0 3 0 -- THRU 746 724 0 -- RIGHT 15 0 0 -- NI/MBER OF LANES LANES EB WB NB SB 1 1 1 -- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 EASTBOUN]D WESTBOUND 0_00 90 20 NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 SOUTHBOUND ........... VEHICLE COMPOSITION PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB 93~DIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 0.00 90 20 N N N EASTBOUND WESTBOUIYD NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TABULAR VALUES (Table 10-2) ADJUSTED VALUE SIGHT DIST. ADJUSTMENT FINAL CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS NB 5_90 5.90 0_00 5-90 MAJOR LEFTS WB 5.20 5_20 0.00 5_20 MINOR LEFTS NB 7_10 7_10 0_00 7.10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ...... RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .... W_ SITE ACCESS DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 11-22-1994 ; SATURDAY PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... BUILD - SUMMER PEAK CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 MOVEMENT POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE P. ATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET NB LEFT 0 72 72 > 72 > 72 > E > 0 > 0 RIGHT 0 359 359 > 359 > 359 > B MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 4 447 447 447 443 A IDENTIFYING INFORM3tTION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ...... RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .... W, SITE ACCESS DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 11-22-1994 ; SATURDAY PEAK OTHER INFORM3tTION .... BUILD - SUMMER PEAK C. Mare Road and East Site Access 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. PEAK HOUR FACTOR .................... AREA POPULATION ..................... NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ........ NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ...... NAME OF THE ANALYST ................. DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) ..... TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................ 40 .9 10000 RTE 25 E. SITE ACCESS D.J.LEVINE 11-22-1994 PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... BUILD - SLTMMER PEAK INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEFT THRU EB WB NB SB 0 8 8 -- 680 672 0 -- RIGHT 6 0 5 NUMBER OF LANES EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 1 -- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB ~{ADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND ........... VEHICLE COMPOSITION EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 NORTHBOUND 0 SOUTHBOUND --- CRITICAL GAPS % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION A/~D RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TABULAR VALUES (Table 10-2) ADJUSTED VALUE SIGHT DIST. ADJUSTMENT FINAL CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.90 5.90 0.00 5.90 MAJOR LEFTS WB 5.20 5.20 0.00 5.20 MINOR LEFTS NB 7.10 7.10 0.00 7.10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ...... RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .... E. SITE ACCESS DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 11-22-1994 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... BUILD - SUMMER PEAK CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 MOVEMENT POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c -v p M SH R SH LOS MINOR STREET NB LEFT 10 84 83 > 83 > > 119 > RIGHT 6 401 401 > 401 > 73 > E 104 >D 395 > B MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 10 495 495 495 485 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ...... RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .... E. SITE ACCESS DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 11-22-1994 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... BUILD - SUM~ER PEAK 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ...................... 9 AREA POPULATION ...................... NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ......... NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ....... 10000 RTE 25 E. SITE ACCESS NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. D.J.LEVINE DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) ...... 11-22-1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. SATURDAY PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... BUILD - ST/MMER PEAK INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEFT THRU EB WB NB SB 0 8 19 -- 739 708 0 -- RIGHT 7 0 10 -- N13MBER OF LANES EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 1 -- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ..... VEHICLE COMPOSITION PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS 0.00 90 20 ACCELERATION LANE FOR RIGHT TURNS N 0.00 90 20 N 0.00 90 20 N EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 NORTHBOUND 0 SOUTHBOUND --- CRITICAL GAPS % SU TRUCKS AND RV'S 0 % COMBINATION VEHICLES 0 % MOTORCYCLES 0 0 0 0 0 TABUI2%RVALUES ADJUSTED (Table 10-2) VALUE MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.90 5.90 0.00 MAJOR LEFTS WB 5.20 5.20 0.00 MINOR LEFTS NB 7.10 7.10 0,00 SIGHT DIST. FINAL ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP 5.90 5.20 7.10 IDENTIFYING INFORF~kTION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ...... RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .... E. SITE ACCESS DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 11-22-1994 ; SATURDAY PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... BUILD - SUMMER PEAK CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 MOVEMENT POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET NB LEFT 23 72 71 > 71 > ~ 98 > RIGHT 12 365 365 > 365 > 48 > E 63 >E 353 > B MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 10 455 455 455 446 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ...... RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .... E. SITE ACCESS DATE AND TIME OF TH~ ANALYSIS ..... 11-22-1994 ; SATURDAY PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... BUILD - SUM~ER PEAK APPENDIX F: NYSDOT DATA Average Weekday Hourly Report II. Accident summaries I Average Weekday Hourly Report NEW YORK STATE DEPT OF TR3~NSPORTATION AVEP~AGE WEEKDAY HOURLY REPORT ROUTE 25 NEW SUFFOLK ROAD TO TUCKER LANE SOUTHOLD JULY 1993 AM 12-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 PM 12 -1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 34 30 19 16 12 9 11 9 12 18 39 52 126 137 227 252 333 289 380 327 424 351 475 369 488 ** 384 444 401 413 420 434 445 429 441 390 367 293 263 254 240 189 175 180 144 107 101 75 53 FILE RT25 NAME 070490793 DAILY TOTAL 11,081 EST. AADT 9,300 ** DENOTES PEAK HOUR TOTALS 5,788 5,293 II. Accident Summa~es LU ma. ~ z Z 0 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000~00000~0 Z Z~ ©000000000000000000000000000000~000000000000000000~ 000000 0000000 000000 0000000000000000~00000 ~ ~00~00----00000000000000000--00~000000000000--00000000{3 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Raad P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 76.5-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 11, 1994 Rudolph H. Bruer0 Esq. P.O. Box 1466 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Bruer: On October 4, 1994 the Town Board reviewed the EAF submitted by you on behalf of Frank Cichanowicz, III for the proposed rezoning of his property on the Main Road, Cutchogue. The Town Board has decided that it needs further information from you in the form of a Traffic Survey to address the possible cumulative impacts from nearby projects currently proposed or being built. The Town Board is not requiring an ElS at this time, simply further information. The Traffic Study should detail the existing road conditions at peak periods, detail the increase of traffic resulting from the proposed and neighboring projects, and should analyze how that traffic will affect the carrying capacity of the road under maximum traffic conditions. In addition to your project, the survey should consider the impacts of: -the adjacent Peconic Bay Winery, farm stand, and a proposed change of the house to a restaurant; -the expansion of the nearby Braun Oyster Company warehouse; -the King Kullen Shopping Center. The Town will complete the SEQRA review after it receives the Traffic Survey. They would be willing to accept a traffic survey done jointly with another applicant if you prefer to do this. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Page 2 Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York State Department of Transportation Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Planning NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Lalham, Jr. Bennetl Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDanald Kenne[h L. Edwards Town Haft, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Soulhold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765~3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 6, 199~, Reynold Blum Peconic Bay Vineyards P. O. Box 709 Main Road Cutchogue. NY 11935 RECEIVED OCT, '7 1994 ~ulhold 1own Cle~ RE: Proposed site plan for Peconic Bay Winery. Restaurant Zoning District: General Business (B) SCTM# 1000-103-1-19.2 Dear Mr. Blum. As mentioned in the Board's letter to your agent, (Samuels ~; Steelman), of September 28. 199~. (copy enclosed) we are conducting a coordinated SEQRA review with the proposed Brew Pub to the east of your property. In reviewing all proposed building activity in this area, the Board feels that the cumulative impacts of the anticipated increase in traffic activity that will result from the conversion of your rental residence to a restaurant and the addition of the proposed new brewery must be addressed by each of the property owners. Accordingly. at our October 2~, 1994, public meeting we are rescinding the negative declaration granted to you on May 23. 1994, and re-opening the environmental review in order to assess this new change in circumstances, (the addition of the proposed brewery), which was not previously addressed. It is likely that you will be asked to provide additional information about the anticipated traffic impacts from the converted restaurant on the existing carrying capacity of State Route 25.. In light of the above changed circumstances, the Town Board, as part of their SEQRA review of Frank Cichanowicz's Change Of Zone Request, plans to hold a special meeting to which all of the affected property owners will be invited to review these changed circumstances and give you an opportunity to comment. You will be informed of the date of this meeting by the Town Clerk. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact this office. Sincerely, Richard G. Ward Chairman cc: Thomas Fisher, Senior Building Inspector In Charge Frank Cichanowicz, Brew Pub James O. Frein, Regional Traffic Engineer Gerard P. Goehringer. Chairman Board of Appeals Southold Town Board Suffolk County Department of Health services NYSDEC - Albany NYSDEC - Stony Brook N.Y.S. Dept. of Transportation. Hauppaug Judith T. Terry. Southold Town Clerk Samuels & Steelman, Architects PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 2a, 1394 $~uels & Gteehnan, Architects 25235 Main Road Cutchogue, Ny 11935 RE: Proposed site plan for Peconic Bay Winery, Restaurant Zoning District: General Business SC~ 1000-103-1-19.2 (B) Dear Ms. Steelman, The Planning Board has received a copy of the New York State Department of Transportation letter addressed to you and dated Septenlber 20, 1994, (copy enclosed]. The Board will conduct a coordinated site review with the~ proposed Brew Pub to the east of your clients project with the purpose of having an internal flow of traffic between the properties. Accordingly, we will be coordinating our review of both Drojects with the New York State Department of Transportation. The DOT already has taken the Brew Pub project into consideration in reviewing your clients project. It may be to your client's advantage to initiate coordination with the NYSDOT and Mr. Cicanowicz in order to expedite the site plan approval. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact this office. Chairman CC: Thomas Fisher, Senior Building Inspector In Charge Frank Cichanowicz, Brew Pub James O. Frein, Regional Traffic Engineer Reynold Blum, Peconic Bay Winery Judith T. Terry, -19- a CND has been issued, states what conditions have been imposed and allows for a minimum 30-day public comment period; and (v) the CND has been prepared and filed in accordance with sections 617.6(g) and 617.10(a)(2) of this Part. (2) A draft EIS must be prepared if comments are received regarding the proposed CND which would support a positive declaration concerning: (il the previously identified or newly raised significant environmental ~mpacts; or (ii) the need for the e×amination of the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures. (3) The lead agency must require an ElS if requested by the applicant. (il Rescission of Negative Declarations: ._ At any time prior to its decision to undertake, funO or approve an action, a lead agency must rescind a negative declaration if it deter- mines that a significant environmental effect may result from a project modification or that there exists a change of circumstances which was not previously addressed. Prior to any rescission, the lead agency must inform other involved agencies and the applicant and must provide a reasonable opportunity for the applicant to respond. 5617.6 617.7 617.7 SCOPING. ~ (al Formal scoping is optional. It may occur either at the ini- tiation of the lead agency or at the request of the applicant, prior to the acceptance oF a draft EIS. If the action involves an applicant, either a written scope of issues to be addressed in the draft EIS must be provided by the lead agency to the applicant and all involved agencies, within 30 calendar days following the filing of the positive declaration, or an applicant may initiate the process by providing the lead agency with a draft scope of issues. Scoping may be accomplished through meeting(s), exchanges of written material, or other methods that will allow the lead agency, the applicant, and involved agencies to agree upon a written scope of issues in a timely manner. In the event that [he lead agency fails to provide a written scope of issues within 30 6 NYCRR Part 617 - State Environmental Quality Review PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Rilchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 3~ptember 28, ±394 S~uue]s & Stee~nan~ Architects 25235 Main Road Cutchogue, Ny 11935 RE: Proposed site plan for Peconic Bay Winery, Restaurant Zoning District: General Business SCTM~ 1000-103-1-19.2 (B) SEP29/994 Dear Ms. Steelman, The Planning Board has received a copy of the New York State Department of Transportation letter addressed to you and dated September 20, 1994, (copy enclosed). The Board will conduct a coordinated site review with the proposed Brew Pub to the east of your clients project with the purpose of having an internal flow of traffic between the properties. Accordingly, we will be coordinating our review of both projects with the New York State Department of Transportation. The DOT already has taken the Brew Pub project into consideration in reviewing your clients project. It may be to your client's advantaqe to initiate coordination with the N%'SDOT and Mr. Cicanowicz in order to expedite the site plan approval. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact this office. /~Slncere±y. ,, . / I ~ /..,',' V..,} /.~/ / ~,ld~a~d/'~ ~ar~ ~' Chairman cc: Thomas Fisher, Senior Building Inspector In Charge Frank Cichanowicz, Brew Pub James O. Frein, Regional Traffic Engineer Reynold Blum, Peconic Bay Winery Judith T. Terry, September 20, 1994 Nancy Steelman Samuels and Steelman Architects 25235 Main Road Cutchogue, New York 11935 Dear Ms. Steelman: PeCOnlC ~a,! Vineyar~ Resnaurann Our .Ease No. This is in regard to the site plans for ute referenced project which were submitted to this office for review. The Departmenu's review of this projecn is being coordinate~ by Mr. Gary Hills of my staff. Prior to issuing a New York State Highway Work Permin, the following items mus~ be addressed: Provide a none on plans to re-graGe the areas behind ~he new curb on each side of the driveway to help facilitate sight distance . The present uncontrolled access at the farm stand is no[ acceptable_ The total site access must be reorganized with a single point of access to Route 25. Please submit four copies of revised plans to our Regional Permit, Mr. Vito Lena, at the above address. Refer to our case number in all correspondence. Very truly yours, Original h. THOMAS F. OIlLE:, Ci J~,~ES O. FREIi~ Regional Traffic Engineer cc: Ms. Valerie Scopaz, Town of Souhhold JOF :GI{: JS Attachmenu PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kennelh L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 FROM: RE: PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD J=dich T. Terry, Town Clerk Richard G. Ward, Chairman ~ Lead Agency Coordination Request Change of Zone Application for Frank Cichanowicz III Main Road, Cutchogue Zoning District: Residential Office (RO) SCR~M# 1000-10]-1-19.~ DATE: September 22, 1994 SEP26 1994 Seufl~ld Town This is in £esponse to your Lead agency Coordination Request of August 10, 1994. The Planning Board would like to be coordinating agency. A site plan application has been made, however it is incomplete. The Board has notified the applicant of the information needed to enable it to proceed with the review. A copy of that correspondence is attached for the Town Board's convenience. When the requested information is supplied to the Planning Board, we will be able to start the environmental review of the site plan for coordination purposes. Meanwhile, there are cnunulative traffic concerns on State Route 25 which we anticipate may require the applice~%t to fill out a Part III of the Environmental Assessment Form. In order to expedite the environmental review, we suggest the applicant be directed to apply for all necessary permits from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and the New York State Department of Transportation. If you have need of additional information on this project please contact Bob Kassner at this office. Attacb3nent: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennetl Odowsk~, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O_ Box 1179 Sou[hold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD E~ptember 22~ 19q4 Rudolph H- Bruer ~dson and Bruer Attorneys At Law Hain Road, P.O. Box 1466 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Proposed site plan for Frank Cichanowicz III Main Road, Cutchogue Zoning District: Residential Office ECTM~ 1~00-103-1-19.3 {RO) Dear Mr. Bruer, The Planning Board has received your site plan application dated July 26~ 1994. However, we find the plan itself to be missing required J. nformation. For example, the following additions/changes must be addressed: Traffic flow and volume, (ingress and egress), plus internal flow and connection to the winery to the west must be reviewed. The possibility of whether odors will emanate from the brewery must be determined. · Names and addresses of adjoining landowners. Grading and drainage plans. Color of sign. Copy of deed. Square footage, dimensions, number of seats and building setbacks for all buildings. ~a~king cslculations must show all uses. Ail elevations must be shown, roads, curbs, top and bottom of pond. Name and address of person preparing the map, sealed with ~he app]_icable New York State license seal and signature. Add twenty five foot (25') evergreen buffer in area of buffer easement on residential property to the south. (Parking extends into the residential area) The above should not be considered a complete list of all required elements of the site plan. You should reference the Town Code, Section 100-~56 for a listing of the required technical data that must be sho%~ on the site plan. In addition to the above, New York State Department of Transportation review, (curb cut permit), and Suffolk County Department of Health Services review must be accomplished before approval can be obtained from this Board. If you have any questions, or require further assistance, please contact this office. Sincerely, ~R i~G/ Kassner Site Plan Reviewer cc: Thomas Fisher, Senior Building Inspector In Charge STATEMENT CRAMIrR, V00RHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental Consultants 54 N. Country Road MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 11764 (516) 331-1455 DATE Sept. 20, ]994 Judith T- Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southo]d, NY 11971 DATE 9/20/94 ~1672 BALANCE FORWARD RE: Frank Cichanowicz SCTM #1000-103-1-P/O 19.3 SE~RA EAF Review Change of Zone $500.00 $500.00 CARMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. ,nt Number. ........... ~oice = ............. Date...~lpy ~-9.,...19...~' ...... TOWN OFSOUTHOLD, COUNTYOF SUFFOLK, N.Y., Dr. PAY TO: Payee Name: .q~.Y. qg~.i.~.9.~gF.i.~.,..~nc- Address: .~.z.~.?.z.~e?.,..~ .... ~?~.4 ......... Payee Identification or Social Security Number: Payee Reference: Phone No. ( .... ) ....................... Vendor Contact Cash Discount .................. % ......... Days ................................... Item DescriptionofMaterial/Se~ice Quantity Unit Amount No. Price RE: Frank Cichanowicz SEQRA EAF Review Change of Zone ~ ~,: SCTM ~1000-103-1-P/O 19.3 CVA Invoice ~1672 $500.00 / Total $500.00 ~Discount Net $500.00 The undersigned ~0~(At:J[ (Acting on behalf of abcJ named claimant) does hereby certify that the foregoing claim is true and correct and that no part thereof has been paid, except as therein stated, and that the balance therein stated is actually due and owing. Dated ................. ~,....;~.0 .... 19 . .9.4. ........ :~.. ..... ~O),..'~..'?,, .... ~ Signature PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Odowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TO: FROM RE; PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Judith T~ Terry, Town Clerk R~chard G. Ward, Chairman ~.. Lead Agency Coordination Request Change of Zone application for Frank Cichanowicz III Main Road, Cutchogue Zoning District: Residential Office (RO) SCTM# 1000-103-1-19.3 DATE: August 31, 1994 This is in response to your Lead Agency Coordination Request of August 10, 1994. This Board does not have a complete site plan application. We reco~m~end that you hold the proceeding open until we get a complete application. We have no problem with The Town Board assuming Lead Agency, but would like to be a involved coordinating agency so that the environmental review for the change of zone and the site plan can be conducted simultaneously and expeditiously. As soon as we receive a complete application we will respond to your request. Attached please find a copy of the letter whereby we have notified the applicant of the information needed to complete his site plan application. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Soulhold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TO: FROM: RE: PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Richard G. Ward, Chairman ~ Request foi- report on change of zone Frank Cichanowicz III Main Road, Cutchogue Zoning District: Residential Office SCTM# 1000-103-1-19.3 DATE: August 31, 1994 $ourhold I~w~, Clerl~ application for (RO) This is in response to your August 10, 1994, request for comments on the above referenced project. The Board will respond with a report after the SEQRA review is complete. JUDITH T. TERRY' TOWN CLERK lown Hall. 53095 Mare Rom. P.O. Box 1179 Southold. Ne',,, York 11971 F~x t516) 705-1823 !clephone t516) 765 1801 OFFICE OF THE 'I'OV,'N CI.ERK TOWN ()F S()U'III()LI) August 23, 199~1 Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Environmental & Planning Consultants 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Gentlemen: The $outhold Town Board, at a regular meeting held on August 9, 1994, adopted a resolution engaging your services to conduct a SEQRA review of the long Environmental Assessment Form with respect to the petition of Frank Cichanowicz, III for a change of zone, at the agreed cost not to exceed $500.00. Petition and pertinent map, etc,. are enclosed Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures cc: Rudolph Bruer, Esq. RECEIPT JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK Town o[ Soutl~old Southotd, New York 11971 DATE phone:516-765-1801 /- . /¢~/ / '~ -- - . .. [J CAS~ ' 2: £ August 23, 1994 Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 1197'1 2 5 199, RE: Petition of Frank Cichanowicz, III for a change of zone Dear Ms. Terry; This is in response to your letter addressed to Rudolph Bruer, Esq. dated August 12, 1994. Enclosed please find check in the amount of $500.00 for the cost of the Environmental Quality Review that must be done bel~ore proceeding with the petition for a zone change. Sincerely, Donald Wilcenski cc: Rudolph Bruer, Esq. JIYDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 12, 1994 Rudolph Bruer, Esq. P.O. Box 1466 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Bruer: In accordance with Chapter 44, Environmental Quality Review, of the Code of the Town of Southold, the Town Board has engaged the services of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates to review the Long Environmental Assessment Form submitted by you with regard to the petition of Frank Cichanowicz, III for a change of zone. The cost of this review is $500.00, and must be paid prior to the consultants commencing their work. Please submit a check in the amount of $500.00, payable to the Southold Town Clerk, at your earliest convenience so we may proceed with processing the petition. Thank you. Very truly yours, "Judith T. Terry $outhold Town Clerk JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Bo:,,. l 179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax 1516) 765 1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 10, 1994 To: From: Re: Petitioner Judith Terry, Town Clerk Fees for Review of Zoning Actions £ Applications The Suffolk County Legislature, effective January I, '1992, authorized fees for certain actions and applications submitted to the offices of the Suffolk County Planning Commission. Their memorandum with respect to these fees, dated December 10, 1991, reads in part: "As of January 1, 1992, zoning and subdivision actions and applications requiring significant review will be subject to a $50 fee for each zoning action ..... " "Please notify all applicants subject to County review of the requirements of County processing fee. This office (the Suffolk County Department of Planning) will bill the applicant directly once the need for significant review is determined." JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 117tI Southold, New York 11971 Fax 1516~ 765 Ig, 23 Telephone 15161 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS WERE ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 9. 199~: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby engages the services of Cramer, Voorhis ~; Associates, at a cost not to exceed $500.00, to review the Long Environmental Assessment Form with respect to the petition of Frank Cichanowicz Ill for a change of zone from Residential- Office ("R-O") District to General Business ("B") District; said review to include applicant's Part I, prepare a Part II and III, draft a proposed declaration, including a field inspection; the cost of said review to be paid by the applicant prior to the commencement of the review. udith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk August 10. 199Zl JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Soulhold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765 1~23 Telephone (516) 765 [80[ OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 10, 1994 Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith change of zone on certain route 25, Cutchogue. is the petition of Frank Cichanowicz III for a property located on the southerly side of NYS Please prepare an official report defining the conditions described in said petition and determine the area so affected by your recommendation, and transmit same to me. Thank you. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry c/ $outhold Town Clerk Attachments cc: Rudolph Bruer, Esq. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax 1516) 765-1823 Telephone (516~ 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS WERE ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 9. 199q.: WHEREAS, a petition has been received from Frank Cichanowicz III for a change of zone on certain property located on the southerly side of NYS Route 25, Cutchogue, from Residential-Office ("R-O") District to General Business ("B") District; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Clerk be and she hereby is directed to transmit this petition to the Southold Town Planning Board and Suffolk County Department of Planning, all in accordance with the Southold Town Code and the Suffolk County Charter. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerl~ August 10. 199q JI/DITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (5161 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 10, 1994 Lead Agency Coordination Request The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the application and a complete Long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Pro}ecl Name: Frank Cichanowicz, III Requested Action: Petition for a change of zone from Residential-Office (R-O) District to General Business (B) District on certain property located on the southerly side of NYS Route 25, Cutchogue, New York. SEQRA Classification: Type I Contact Person: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk, Town of Southold. The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (ELS) on this project. If you have an interest in being lead agency, please contact this office immediately. If no response is received from you within 30 days of the date of this letter, it will be assumed that your agency has no interest in being lead agency. Page 2 A~lency Position: [ ] This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status this action. [ X ] This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. [ ] Other. (See comments below. J Comments: on Please feel free to contact this office for further information. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Attachments Copies of this request and all attachments to the following: Commissioner Marsh, NYS-DEC, Albany Robert Greene, NYS-DEC, Stony Brook Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. for Frank Cichanowicz, III (without attachments) 5outhold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board (without attachments) JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK Tov~n Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax ~5161 765-1823 Telephone 15161 765-18111 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS WERE ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 9, 199q: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby commences the Lead Agency Coordination process with regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act in the matter of the petition of Frank Cichanowicz I11 for a change of zone from Residential Office ("R-O") District to General Business ("B") District on certain property located on the southerly side of NYS Route 25, Cutchogue, New York. Judith T. Terry r~7 Southold Town Clerk' August 10. 199q PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Richard G. Ward, Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Bennett Ortowsk{, Jr. Mad( S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516/765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 4, 1994 Rudol~ H. Bruer Edson and Bruer Attorneys At Law Hain Road-P.O. Box 1466 Southold, NY 11971 Proposed site plan for Frank Cichanowicz III Main Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Zoning District: Residential Office (RO) SCTM% 1000-103-1-19.3 Dear Mr. Bruer, The Planning Board has received your letter of July 29, 1994, requesting a review of a proposed Restaurant "Brew Pub". As had been previously mentioned this is not a permitted use in the Residential Office (RO) zone. However, as you have submitted a change of zone application to the Town Board, this Board can comment, in a preliminary manner on the site plan when we receive the following information: Elevation drawings. Drainage and grading plan. A lighuing plan showing type of fixtures and wattage. Zone, and zoning lines. Lot, Block and Section. Existing buildings if they will be retained in the fi~ plan. r or not the Part 3 ther supporting termined by the ne which will not I be prepared. not be a significant have been required, /e ~. significant impact .spons~ble Officer Prin.t or Type~,_ . 14-15-:~ (2/87)-- 7c 617.21 SEQR Appendix 'A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies ~etermine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- Iy. there are aspects of a project that are subiective or unmeasureable, It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically qxpert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3: Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part3: If any impact in Part2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF compleled for this project: [] Part 1 [] Part 2 []Part 3 Upon review of the information ~ecorded on this FAF (Parts ] and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: [] A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which wlil not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. [] B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this UnlistEd Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONFD negative declaration will be prepared.* [] C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a, significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared_ * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Frank Cichanowicz, III Narne of Action Name of Lead Agency Prin.t or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(If different from responsible officer) 7/26/94 Date PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions wi[[ be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. · It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Frank Cichanowicz, III LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Slree[ Address, Municlpalily and Counly) S/S Main Road, Cutcho~ue New York NAMEOFAPPLIGANTISPONSOn Frank Cichanowicz, III BUSINESS TELEPHONE (516) 765 1220 ADDRESS 255 Lupen Drive CITY/PO Cutchogue, NAME OF OWNER (11 dil[erenl)  TATE ZIP CODE 11935 BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( ) ADDRESS CITY/PO DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Zone change from "R/O" Residential/Office to "B" Business STATE ZIP CODE Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if nor applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas 1. Present land use: [~Urban [qlndustrial I-]Forest [~Agriculture 2. Total acreage of project area: 3.2~ acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE · Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) W'etland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type). 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? fqCommercial :~rO ther I-IResidential (suburban) ~lRural (non-farm) Residential Office (R/O) Zone PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION none acres 0 acres none acres 0 acres 3 acres 2 " acres O acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres · 25 acres ]. 25 acres acres acres Brideehamoton Loam a'. Soil drainage: ][;]~,,Vell drained I00 % of site E3Moderately well drained % of site f~Poorly drained % ot site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS ' Land Classification System? acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). · 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? [~Yes :~No a.-what is depth to bedrock[ (in feet) 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: [][O-10% % []10-15% % [15% or greater 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Register~ of Historic Places? I~Yes r~No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register..-of National Natural Landmarks~ OYes [~No g. What is the depth of the water table? 2,5' (in feet) 9. Is site located over a-primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? [~Yes I~No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? I-lYes [~No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that i~ identified as threatened or endangered? OYes [~No According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) E]Yes ~No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? []Yes ~No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community~ I~Yes ~No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: None a. Name o1' Stream and name of River to which it ~s tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name .0 b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by~xisting p_ub]ic utilities? ~ii~Yes I~No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? [~Yes [~No b) If Yes will improvements be necessary to allow connection~ ~]Yes (~No 18. Is the ske located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 30,I~ ~Yes [~No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 [~Yes ~No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? [~Yes [~No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropria'te) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 27 b. Project acreage to be developed: c~ ?R? acres initially; same c. Project acreage to remain undeve!oped 23 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: ~/A (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansmn proposed N/A %; f. Number of o~[-street parking spaces existing ; proposed as pe~ code g. Maximum vehicular trips ~enerated per hour ]-0 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family l-wu Family Multipre Family Initialry N/A Ultimate[¢ N/A i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure ~-..~ height; __~'~- width; j. Linear [eet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? acres ultimately. Condominium ) ~,_ u~ length. ft. 2. How much natural material (i.e.. rock, earth, etc.)will be removed from the site? None 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? [~Yes UNo I~N/A a. If yes, for what intend.d purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? []Yes [~No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? I~Yes ~lNo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees. shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? None acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 1OO years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this proiect? I~Yes llano 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 3 to 5 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated 1 (number). b Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 October c. Approximate completion date of final phase March d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? OYes []No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 20 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project O 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? tons/cubic yards month 1994 year, (including demolition). month 1995 year. · OYes [Z]No ; after project is complete 15-20 I~Yes [~No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? [~Yes /No a. Ilc yes. indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? OYes []No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain ~lYes [~No 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? [~Yes 16. Will the project generate solid waste? [~Yes UNo (minimal) a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? OYes c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain ~No O--lYes I~No 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? []]Yes ONo a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? OYes ~]No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? I~Yes 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ~0fes ~No If yes , indicate type(s) Electrical OYes I~No 22. If water supph/ is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 20 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 450 gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? I~Yes If Yes. explain gallons/minute [~'N o 25. Approvals Required: City, Town, Village Board l~Yes I~]No City, Town, Village Planning Board [~¥es [~No City. Town Zoning Board [~]Yes rqNo City, County Health Department ,Ii, Yes Other Local Agem:ies []Yes Other Regional Agencies [~Yes fi]No State Agencies fi]Yes [~No Federal Agencies il-lYes Suffolk County Planning Submittal Date C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? Ii: Yes, indicate de£i~ion required: []zoning amendment I-Izoning variance fi]special use permit Osubdivision [~]site plan ~]new/revision of master plan /~lresource management plan fi]other 2. What is the zoning classii:ication(s]of the site? "R/0" Residential/Office 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site il' developed as permitted by the present zoning? Appartment over offices/Governmental uses/Fraternal Organization/School 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? Business "B" 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site ii: developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? Restaurants,~wineries and vineyards 6 Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ~Yes 7. What are the predominant land use[s) and zoning classifications within a ¼ mile radius of proposed action? 90% Business 10% Residential and Residential/office fi]No 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ¼ mile? Ii, Yes fi]No 9. Ii: the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorization[s} for the i:ormation of sewer or water districts? il-lYes [~No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? ~Yes ~No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? [~Yes fi]No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? F-lyes I~lNo · a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? fi]Yes E~No- D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify yoor project. ~f there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best o[ my knowledge ^pp,,ca.t, Spo. me _ °ate I1' the action is in Ihe Coastal A ea, and you~e a state agency, complele the Coastal Assessment Form beiore proceeding with this assessment. 5 Edson and Bruer AI~OI~NI~'S AT LAW July 29, 1994 Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd PO BOX 1179 RECEIVED Southold, N.Y. 11971 Att: Judith Terry Re: Application for change of Zone Ciehanowicz l~ Dear Mrs. Terry: Enclosed please find for submission Change of Zone Application of Frank Cichanowicz, III requesting a change of zone from "R/O" (Residential/Office) to "B" (Business). The attached enclosures consist of the following: 1. Three (3) Petitions (Applications); 2. One Metes and Bounds description attached to each Petition; 3. Copy of Full Environmental Assessment Form; 3. Six (6) copies of an accurate map to scale drawn to the requirement of the Suffolk County Planning Commision; 4. Check of Frank Cichanowicz, III in the sum of $1,000.00 representing the Application fee. Sincerely, Rudolph H. Bruer Enc. RECFiVED Southold I'o,¢,.n ,o: ..... STATE OF NEW Yoruc PETITION IN THE MATTEig OF TH% PETITION OF FOR A Ci{~LNGE, MODIlc'ICATION OR Ai~IENDMENT 027 Tire BULLDLNG ZONE OP. DL'4- ANCE OF TI{E TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. TO TId]E TOWN BOTdlD OF THEE TO~VN OF SOUTIIOLD: 1. I, --.. _.F.?..a_.n...k....C_i._c_h..a_n_o_.w..i..c.z. ............................ res ding at 2.5~ .b~p.e~n Dti.Y¢ . .6Mt_¢itagll.e. NY 1193~ (insert narne of petitioner) Suffolk County, New York, the undersigned, am the owner of certain real property situated at S/..S...~.I.a.i..n._..R..°...a.~t.t...-C.u-..t..c.-h.9.E.u-a....N...Y. ....... and more particularly bounded and described as follows: SEE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION 2. I do hereby petition the Town Board of the Town of Southold to change, modify and amend the ]Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southo]d, Suffolk County, New York, including the Building ZoneBIaps heretofore made a part thereof, as £ollows: Change of Zone from "R/O" Residential/Office to "B" Business on part of property located on the South side of Main Road, Route 25, Cutchogue N.Y. as per the atta- ched map accompanying this application. RIDER TO PETITION OF FRANCK CICHANOWICZ, III FOR A CHANGE, MODIFICATION OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. DESCRrPTION: ALL that certain plot, p~ece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of Main State Road, 287.32 feet westerly from its intersection with the westerly side of Harbor Lane. Said point also being where the North westerly comer of land now or formery of Fogarty intersects the southerly side of Main State Road. RUNNING THENCE from said point and along land now or formerly of Fogarty South 35 degrees 53 minutes 10 seconds East 117.00 feet to a point and land now or formerly of Coster. RUNNING THENCE from along land now or formerly of Coster South 34 degrees 18 minutes 50 seconds East 216.18 feet to other land of Cichanowicz. RUNNING THENCE through other land of Cichanowicz South 49 degrees 31 minutes West 417.38 feet to land now or formery of Blum. RUNNING THENCE along land now or formerly of Bblum North 40 degrees 29 minutes West 327.70 feet to the southerly side of Main State Road. RUNNING THENCE along Main State Road the following 2 courses and distances: 1. North 49 degrees 31 minutes East 155.17 feet; 2. North 48 degrees 46 minutes 20 seconds East 294.83 feet to the point or place OF BEGINNING. Such reque-~t is made for the following reasons: ~'see rider attached" (L. S.) ....................... .~..~. _"-%. ......... STATE OF NEW YORK, ) ) SS:- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ) FRANK CICHANOWICZ, III , ]3EIXG DULl' ' 'N .............................................. S'WO1,.: , deposes and says that he is the petitioner in the within actlmx; that be has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his (her) own knowledge, except as to the ma~te~s therein sta~ed to be alleged on inform:riCh and belief, and th=t as to those matters he believes it to be true_ Sworn to before me RIDER TO PETITION OF FRANCK CICHANOWICZ, III FOR A CHANGE, MODIFICATION OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. 3_ Such request is made for the following reasons: The property would be better served by it being used as a restaurant (brew pub). The restaurant (brew pub) is to be an establishment wherein various varieties of local beers are to be brewed from crops grown on the premises and elsewhere. The brew will be offered for sale for on and off-premises consumption much like the local wineries. Pub fare be an integral part of the pub for local customers and tourists who have come to the North Fork_ The present zoning of "Residential Office" is out of place in this already commercial Changing the zoning to "Business" will conform with the adjacent properties on both sides of the street. The restaurant (brew pub) will conform to the concept of business being located in the hamlet, the use is that of an attraction for tourists coming to Southold. The ability to have on-premises consumption of a product partially grown on the premises will add to Cutchogue, being a more touristic center. The neighboring property to the West is a Vineyard with business zoning on Route 25_ This change of zoning was granted last year for the same reasons being proposed with this application. This use will be consistent with the uses in the area. 14-1 3-2 (2/87)--/c 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SEQR Purpose: The fu[I EAF is designed to he[p applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable, It is a[so understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically e?pert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data. it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3: Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentialb,,- large impact. The form also identifies ~vhether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 2. is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed tot ti]is project-' [] Part I [] Part 2 []Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that' [] A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. [] B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* [] C. The proiect may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have ~ significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Frank Cichanowicz, III Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead AGency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer ~n Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(lidifferent from responsible officer) 7/26/94 Date PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed ma,,, have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through 1~. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requirin~ such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and sDecify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Frank Cichanowicz, III LOCATION OF ACTION (Include SI/eel Aadress, Municlpalily and Ceunly) S/S Main Road, Cutchogue New York NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR Frank C~chanowicz, III (516) 765 1220 ADDRESS 255 Lupen Drive C[T~/PO NSTATE I ZJPCODE Cutchogue, 11935 NAME OF OWNER illdillerenl) ) BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( ) ADDRESS CITY/PO STATE [ ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Zone change from "R/O" Residential/Office to "B" Business Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: I~Urban I~lndustrial [~Fore~t [~Agriculture ~¢Pther 2. Total acreage of project area: 3.2~ acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland /Nomagricultural) Forested Agricurtural [Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.} Wetland {Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated [Rock, earth or firl) Roads, buildings and other p~ved surfaces Other {Indicate type) 3. What is predominant soil type{s) on project site~ ~]Commercial [~Residenhal (suburban) [~Rural (non-farm) Residential Office (R/O) Zone PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION none acres 0 acres 3 acres 2 acres O acres O acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres . 2,5 acres ~- , :~5 acres Bridgehampton Loam a' Sod drainage: ~;~,'ell dramed 100 98 of ~,ite [~Moderately well dra,ned % of ~ite ~Foorly drained % of site b. ]~ any agricuiturai land i~ revolved, how many acre~ of soil are classified within ,oil group 1 throush 4 o¢ the NY5 Land Classification Systeml acres ~See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcropp~n~ on pro/eot site~ ~Yes ~No a. What is depth to bedrock~ (in feet) 5,. Approximate percentage of proposed proiect site with slopes' [~3-10% % L~10-15% % ~15% or greater % 6. Is proiect substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site. or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places;' I~Yes [~No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ~]¥'es [~No §. What is the depth of the water table? 25 (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sore source aquifer? [~Yes ~No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist irl the project area? [~Ye~ [~No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threa£ened or endangered? ~No According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? Iie., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations] ~lYes [~No Describe 13. ls the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? []Yes ~]No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to tile community? [~Yes [~]No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: ~one a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or conti~uous to project area: a. Name 0 b. Size (In acre>) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ~]Yes ~No aJ If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? [~Ye* ~No b) if Yes, will improvements be necessary to a/Iow connection? ~]Yes ~No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 2S-AA, Section 303 and 304? ~Ye~ ~No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 E~Yes r~No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ~Yes [~No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale o~ project (fill in dimensions as appropria'te) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor b. Project acreage to be developed: ~_2R2 acres initially; c. Project acreage to remain undeve!oped 23 acres. d. Length o[ project, in miles: ~/A (li appropriateJ e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed [. Number of off-street parking spaces existing g. Maxmmm vehicular trips generated per hour I_0 h If residential Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Initially ~/A Ultimately ~/A i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure j. Linear feet of iroptage along a public thoroughfare project wrll occupy 27 acres. ~a~e acres ultimately. N/A _; proposed _as per code {upon completion of proiect)~ A4ultiple Famd¥' Condominium height: 6-g width; I 2-~ length. ~FSO tr. 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.)will be removed from the site? 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? I~Yes rqNo [~N/.,\ a. If yes, for what intends,; purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [~Yes [~No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [~Yes ~lNo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? gTone acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? i-lyes 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 3 to 5 months, (including demolition) 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated [ (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase1 October month [994 c. Approximate completion date of final phase March month [995 d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? [~Yes [~No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ~lYes I~No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 20 ; after project is complete [5-20 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this proiect 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? [~Yes J~No If yes, explain tons/cubic yards year, (including demolitionl. year. 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? E~Yes [~No a. If ,,'es. indicate type of waste (sewa§e, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? E~Yes [~No Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain [~Yes UNo 15. Is project or any portion ot project located in a 100 year flood plain? ~lYes 16. Will the project generate so[id waste? [~Yes ~No (minimal) a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste faciliw be used? rqYes g=J3No c if yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain I~No [~Yes ~lNo 17. Wi[[ the project involve the disposal of solid waste? I'~Yes ~No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. I~ yes, what i~ the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? L~Yes ~No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? IqYes 20. Will proiect produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise [ewds? 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ~'es ~No If yes . indicate type(s) Electrical l~No IZ]Yes [~No 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 20 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 450 gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ~]Yes If Yes, explain gallons/minute. [~'No 4 25. Approvals Required: Type Submittal Date City, Town, Village Board ~Yes I~No City, Town, Village Planning Board I~Yes [:]No City, Town Zoning Board ~lYes I~No City, Count;' Health Department ,~Yes f~No Other Local Agencies I~Yes ~No Other Regional Agencies NlYes [~No State Agencies [:3Yes []No Federal Agencies [~Yes ~]No Suffolk County Planning C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? r~Yes [~No If Yes, indicate decision required: [~zoning amendment [:3zoning variance fqspecial use permit I~subdivision [:]site plan I~new/revision of master plan []resource management plan []other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? "R/O" Residential/Office 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Appartment over offices/Governmental uses/Fraternal Organization/School 4. What is the proposed zonmg of the ~ite? Business "B" 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning[ Restaurants, wineries and vineyards 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ~Yes 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a IA mile radius of proposed action? 90% Business 10% Residential and Residential/office [~No 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a % mile? ~Yes fqNo 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? I-lyes ~No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protectionJ? I~Yes [~No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ~Yes [:]No 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? [:]Yes [g]No , a If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? [qYes [:]No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated wKh your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sports m .) Date ~/ ,5 ( ,," ~", ;~- Signature ,~_~ W' '-.J_¢~./~"r/~~-~. Title (~ _ If [he aclion is in the Coastal Area, and you~*a~e a Male agency, complete Ihe Coaslal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 TOWN BOARD, TO\VN OFSOUTHOLD In the Matter of tile Petition o[ FRANK CICHANOWICZ, Ill tO the Town Board o~: Ihe Town of SOLIthold. NOTICE TO ADJACENT OWNERS YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the inteiltion of the undersigned to petition tl~e Town Board of the Town of Southold to requesta change of zoning from Residenti~/QffJaa to Bu~in~ 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: South Side of Main State Road, Cutcho~ue NY SCTM#: 1000-103-1-19.3 3. That the property which is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: "R/O" Residential Office 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request that the above-dcscribed property be placed in the following zone district classification: B (business) 5. Ti~at within five days from the date hereof, a written Pet/zion requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the South61d Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours. 6. That befme the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the n3atter by the Town Board; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least ten days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspap~_rs published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to ap- pear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: July ~6. 1 qq4 Petitioner Frank Cichah~wicz, IIi 'dy Rudolph H. Bru'~tr Z Post Office Address: 255 Lupen Driwe · Cutchogue NY 11935 NAME [erman Blt~n .eynold F. Blum uffolk County etlnet Orlowski Jr. ames J. and Judith Falbo arbara Sowinski alchet Corp. illiam and WF Orlowski race ~einen PROOF OF .".lAILll~:C, Of: ~_O_]-IC~ 6I)DRES5. 3706 Calera Dr. New Port Richey ~la. 34652-6469 ~ox 709 Main Road Cutcho~ue, N.Y. 11935 330 Center Drive, Riverhead, N-Y. 11901-3311 Vineyard View Drive P.O. Box 297 Cutchogue, N.Y. 2700 Harbor Lane Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935 1263 SW Osdar Cove Port St. Lucie Fla. 34986 Pequash Avenue Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935 218 Carlton Road Millin§ton N.J. 07946 RR1 805 Harbor Lane Cutcho§ue, N-Y. 11935 illiam F III and Helen A. Coster anry Rienecker Jmes Fogarty Jssel Baker Maple Lane Laurel N.¥, 11948 " P.O. Box 704 Cutchogue, N.Y. 11935 Main Road, Cutchogue NY 11935 ¥ineyard View Drive, Southold NY 11971 11935 5TATEOFNEWYORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: N]~ \! ~ LU- ~ ~ , beio~ duly sworn, depos~ nnd snys d:~ on ~he ZO day ~ ~.{ .]9 ~ ,deponent m~iled a true copy of the Notice set forth on ther~e~se side here~, dirtied to each of the abov ·-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; tllat the addresses se: opposite the names of said persons are die addresses of said persons as shoxvn on the cur- rcn~ assessmen~ roll of the Town of 5outhold; :hat said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at ~~ ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said f:ersons by (certified) {registered) mail. ,wern ~o me this lay of -~',..u!J,..:,19 '%u / o J /) "' Notary Public MELI~$A ECKHARDI' Public, Sla:,.- ~! New ¥11rk No,4~$913 - Sulidl.: OounlJf Tem~ Expires Uay 4, 19~/ 14-15 ~ (2/87)--7c 617.21 Appendix 'A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SEQR Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies a~termine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically e.xpert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The fuji EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the rangeof possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type I and Unlisted Actions Identify [he Portions of EAF completed for this project: [] Part 1 [] Part 2 []Part 3 Upon review of the information ~'ecorded on this EAF (Parts I and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: [] A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore,· is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. [] B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared_* [] C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have ~ significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration wilt be prepared. * A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Frank Cichanowicz, III Name of Action Name of Lead Agency 'Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) 7/26/94 Date PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION Frank Cichanowicz, III LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Slreel Address, MuniclpalJly and Counly) S/S Main Road, Cutchosue New York NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR Frank Cichanowicz, III BUSIN ESS TELEPHONE 1516) 765 1220 ADORESS 255 Lupen Drive C,~Y/PO ~TATE I ZIPCODE Cutchogue, 11935 NAME OF OWNER (Il difleren[) BUSINESS TELEPHONE ( I ADDRESS CITY/PO STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Zone change from "R/O" Residential/Office to "B" Business Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: I-IUrban [~lndustrial f-lForest I-IAgriculture 2. Total acreage of proiect area: 3.2~ acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) none acres 0 acres Forested none acres 0 acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) 3 acres 2 acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) 0 acres 0 acres· Water Surface Area 0 acres 0 acres I. Jnvegetated (Rock. earth or fiji) 0 acres 0 acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces .2.5 acres 1.25 acres Other (Indicate type) acres acres [~Commercial :[~rO ther I~Residential (suburban) [qRural (non-farm) Residential Office (R/O) Zone 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Bridmehamoton Loam a~ Soil drainage: ][:][Well drained i00 % of s, ite C]Moderately well drained % of site DPoorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? acres. (See '[ NYCRR 370). · 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on proiect site? I-lYes ~]~No a. ·What is depth to bedrock? (in feet) 2 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: E~)-10% % ~10-15% % F~'[$% or greater % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site. or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? L~Yes [~No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register-of National Natural Landmarks? [~Yes 8 What is the depth of the water table? 2.~ (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? [~Yes P~No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? OYes ~No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? OYes []No Accordin§ to Identify each specie~ 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? [i.e., cliffs, dunes, other ~eologica[ formations) Describe 13. Is the proiect site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? OYes [~)No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? I~No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: l,~or~e a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to proiect area: a. Name 0 b. Size (in acres) 17. Is the site served by-existing p_ublic utilities? I~Yes ~No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? I~Yes b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ~Yes [~No 18, Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? [~Yes [~No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 [qYes ~No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? I--lYes [~No B. Project Description 1, Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropria'te) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 27 b. P~oject acreage to be developed: 3 ?R? acres initially, ~ame c. Project acreage to remain undeve!oped 23 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: ..t']/A (if appropriate) ,e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed __ /.,T/A f. Number of oil-street parking spaces existing g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour h. If residential Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Initially ~/A Ultimately I~/A i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 2-..~ height; ~"~' . width; ) ~-I'IF length. j. Linear feet of frogtage along a public thorougbi:are project wirJ occupy is? ~-,5'0 ft. acres ultimately. proposed as per code (upon completion of project)? Multiple Family Condominium 2. How much natural mate,a[ Ci.e., rock, earth, etc ) will be removed from the site~ 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? I~Yes a. If yes, for what intend~: purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? E3Yes E~Na c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? [~Yes [~No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? None acres 5 Will any mature forest Cover 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? [~Yes ~No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 3 to 5 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated [ (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 October c. Approximate completion date of final phase igareh d Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? ~}Yes ~No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 20 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require reJocation of any projects or facilities? None tons/cubic yards months, (including demolition). month 1994 year, (includin~ demolition). month 1995 year. [~Yes [~No ; after project is complete 1,5-20 I~Yes [~No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? []Yes []No a. If ,/es. indicate type of waste Csewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? [~Yes I~No Type ' 14. Will surface area of an ~xisting water body increase or decrease by proposal? Explain ~lYes []No 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? E3Yes 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ~Yes ~No (minimal) a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes. will an existing solid waste facility be used? I~Yes :[~No c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain ~]No nYes ~No 17 Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? ~]Yes ENo a. It yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. I~ yes, what is the anticipated site Iife~ years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? E]Yes [~]No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? [~Yes 20. will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? ~Wes ~No If ~'es , indicate type(s) Electrical B~INo I-lYes [~No 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 20 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 450 gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? l-lYes I[ Yes. explain gallons/minute. [~No 25. Approvals Required: Type Submilla[ Dale City, Town, Village Board [~Yes DNo City, Town, Village Planning Board []Yes [No City, Town Zoning Board [~Yes DNo City, County Health Department ,~]Yes [~No Other I_oca] Agencies I~Yes [~No Other Regional Agencies I~Yes E3No .State Agencies [~Yes Federal Agencies I-lYes ~]No Suffolk County Planning C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? [~Yes I~No If Yes, indicate decision required: [~zoning amendment I~zoning variance I~special use permit []subdivision [~]site plan I~new/revision of master plan [~resource management plan Dother 2 What is the zoning classification{s}of the site? "R/0" Residential/Office 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Appartment over offices/Governmental uses/Fraternal Organization/School 4 What is the proposed zoning of the site? Business "B" 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? Restaurants,~wineries and vineyards 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ~]Yes 7. What are the predominant land use{s) and zoning classifications within a ¼ mile radius of proposed action? 90% Business 10% Residential and Residential/office [~No 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ¼ mile? [~Yes I-INo 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a. What is the minimum lot size proposed;' 10 Will proposed action require any authorization{s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? I-lYes I~No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? ~lyes [~No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? []Yes ~lNo 12 Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? I-lyes Ik-'lNo , a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? DYes []No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that i, he information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. · Applicant/Sport m Date Z 6__/ ~ L~- If Ihe aclion is in Ihe Co,sial Area, and you~e a slale a~ency, complele [he Coaslal Assessmenl Form before proceeding wilh Ibis assessmenL 5 .fLrDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53005 Main l%ad P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF 8OUTHOLD SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Determination of Signi~ance Lead Agency: Address: Town Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: May 15, 1995 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. Title of Action: Frank Cichanowicz, III Change of Zone Petition from Residential-Office "R-O" District to Business "B" District SEQR Status: Unlisted Action Project Description: The project which is the subject of this Determination, involves a proposed change of zone of 3.24 acres from Residential Office "R-O" to General Business "B". The project decision is structured to restrict business use in conformance with the following goals: 1) maintain aesthetic quality of rural/historic agricultural use through historically appropriate design and site planning; 2) allow only retail businesses complementary to the rural and historic character of the surrounding area, such as offices, antique, art and craft shops and galleries and other retail sales supplemental to vineyard use; and, 3) allow restaurants, except drive-in restaurants. SCTM Number: District 1000 - Section 103 - Block 01 -p/o Lot 19.3 Location: The site is located on the south side of Main Road, 287.32 feet west of Harbor Lane, in Cutchogue, New York. Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II, and the following specific reasons: 1) 2) 4) 5) The project has been evaluated through a Long EAF Part I and 1I which consider environmental andplanning aspects of the project. The subject parcel does not exhibit environmental sensitivity in the traditional sense. Review of the Long EAF Part I as well as field inspection indicates that the site is suited for controlled development for the following reasons; soils are conducive to leaching, topography is flat, there are no significant vegetation, wetlan~ or wildlife habitat on site. 3) The proposed zoning would not generate a significant influx of people or traffic as compared to present zoning, nor would noise, aesthetic or visual resources be significantly adversely impacted. 1 :and use and zoningissues are a local, as opposed to a regional, consideration and measures are available to reduce impact upon the community. The use would be subject to site plan approval by the Plarm/ng Board if the zoning is changed in accordance with Chapter 100 of the Southold Town Code. For Further Information: Contact Person: Address: Phone No.: Judith Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold (516)765-1800 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Planning NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Rudolph Bruer, Esq., for Frank Cichanowicz SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Determination of Si~ificance Lead Agency: Address: Date: Town Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has deterrrfined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. Title of Action: Frank Cichanowicz, III Change of Zone Petitio~ from Residential-Office "R-O' District to Business "B" District SEQRStatus: Unlisted Action Project Description: The project which is the subject of this Determination, involves a proposed change of zone of 3.24 acres from Residential Office "R-O" to General Business "B". The project decision is structured to restrict business use in conformance with the following goals: 1) maintain aesthetic quality of rural/historic agricultural use through historically appropriate design and site plamfing; 2) allow only retail businesses complementary to the rural and historic character of the surrounding area, such as offices, antique, art and craft shops and galleries and other retail sales supplemental to vineyard use; and, 3) allow restaurants, except drive-in restaurants. SCTM Number: District 1000 - Section 103 - Block 0! -p/o Lot 19.3 Location: The site is located on the south side of Main Road, 287.32 feet west of Harbor Lane, in Cutchogue, New York. Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II, and the following specific reasons: 1) 2) 4) 5) The project has been evaluated through a Long EAF Part I and II which consider environmental and planning aspects of the project. The subject parcel does not exhibit environmental sensitivity in the traditional sense. Review of the Long EAF Part I as well as field inspection indicates that the site is suited for controlled development for the following reasons; soils are conducive to leaching, topography is flat, there are no significant vegetation, wetlan~ or wildlife habitat on site. 3) The proposed zoning would not generate a significant influx of people or traffic as compared to present zoning, nor would noise, aesthetic or visual resources be significantly adversely impacted. Land use and zoning issues are a local, as opposed to a regional, consideration and measures are available to reduce impact upon the community. The use would be subject to site plan approval by the Plarming Board if the zoning is changed in accordance with Chapter 100 of the Southold Town Code. For Further Information: Contact Person: Address: Phone No.: Judith Terr-j, Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold (516)765-1800 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Planning NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Rudolph Bruer, Esq., for Frank Cichanowicz 2/0// cAsz r:o: ..... ..~. -~---/---.-.- STATE OF NEW YOIU¢ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD pET1TION iN THE MATTED. OF TI~IE PETITION OF FOR A CI{~kNGE, i%IODIFICATiON Oil ~%5'IENDBIE~T O[~ TIlE BUILDING ZONE ORDLX[- ANCE OF TI{E TOWN OF SOUTt{0LD, SUFtr0Lk COUNTY, NEW YORIf. FRANK CICHANOWICZ III TO THE TO%VN BO,ktlD OF THE TO\VN OF SOUTI{0LD: 1. I ...... .F-r--aj}k....C.?--h-.a. 2.9..w-.i-.c..z. ............................ res din.g at .2.iS._.b~p.~n..P.n&.w~.,...C"t~og~.a NY 119 ([nsert name of petitioner) Suffolk County, New York, the undersigned, am the owner of certain real property situated at S/.,S....M..a...i.n._..K. 9...a.d.~...g-u...~.~..h..°.~.u..e...N.~ ....... and more particularly bounded and described as follows: SEE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION 2. I do hereby peri/ion the Town Board of the Town of Southold to change, modify and amend th~ Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of SouthoId, Suffolk County, New York, including lhe Building Zone BIaps heretofore made a part thereof, as follows: Change of Zone from "R/0" Residen~ial/0ffice to "B" Business on part of property located on the South side of blain Road, Route 25, Cutchogue N-Y. as per the atta- ched map accompanying this application. 'DNINNIO~ dO ao ~u.tod oql ol looj £g-~6~ ls~"~ spuooos 0~ solnu!tu 9t, soo~op §~ qLtoN -~ :so~tmls!p pu~ sos.moo E §u.t~o[[oj oql p~oM o~rlS u.mIA! i]uol~ 'ffDN~H£ DNINNFI~t 'P~OH ~]t'lS' u.mIA[ Jo ~p.ts ,(puq]nos ~ql o] looj OL'L'~6 lSOA, k g~lnutm 6E soo.x:gop 01~ q~toN mniqlt _,to ,(i.totu.mj .to ~ou ptmI :guo[~ ~tDNZffH£ DNINNfl~t 'mn[lt Jo K.t~m~oJ..to axou pu~1 ol looj §i~'£[1' ISOA'k samu.tm I£ soo.tgap 6'r tBnos zo.t~omnto.tD jo ptr~I .tott~o q§noxql ~{DN~{HZ DNINNfI~I 'zo.t~otmtto!D jo ptm[ .toqlo o~ ~ooj gI '9[~; lge'-fl[ spuo~ 0g so:tatum gl s~.t~op 1,£ qlnos -~o]goo Jo ,(I.tom.toJ .to ,~ou pu~l :guop~ mo.xj 'LIDN~tHJ. DNINNfil{ · x~lsoD jo ,(l.tom.toj .to axou pm~1 ptm lu!od eol looJ 00'LII lsz:'~ spuo~os 0[ solnmm £~; soo.t$op gE qlnos ,(1.m§og jo ,([.~o,,,.to3 .to ~ou puli §uol~ ptm ~u!od p.res uJo.t:~ '~DN~{HJ. DNIN. Nflt:I 'peo}I OlL'IS u.mlA[ JO op!s ,(i~otDnos oql sloo~olu.t ,(~o=I ~o ,Gotmoj ~o axou ptm[ 3o ~ouaoo ,(i:olsoax q~aoN otb o~oq~ ~u.toq o~[e ~u!od p.mS 'otr~I ~oq~H ~o op!g ~(Ismsote ott~ ql.t~ uo.no~g~om.t ~.t mo~3 ,(i.tms~ ~ooj E~'LgE 'peo}:I o~m$ u.mIAl jo op.t~ ,(i.toqmos oq~ uo ~u!od ~ ~ 9NINNI9~ :saXOliOJ s~ poq~zosop pue popunoq ~txox axoN jo ole~S '~I[ojjng Jo K~unoD 'ploqlno$ JO u~O,L 'on,originD ~ §u!oq ptre ~u!,~[ 'ol~n1.~s 'pol~oxo slumuo^o~dm! ptm sSu!pi.mq o~ ill!ax 'pueI jo io~x~d ~o ooo~d '1o[d u.pelzo~ l~t]l :NOIJ..([IllD S~tO 'h'-klOX A-k~._N 'X.I. NflOD )I'][O~I'=[FIS '(I'IOHJ. D_OS =[O NAkO& ~H& .riO ~tDNVNIO'}IO 'ffNOZ DNICl"Ilfllt ~tH& 4'0 NOI&VDI=II(IOI, q '~DNVHD V }IO~1 III 'ZDIA'kONVHDID >IDN.~q:t::[ HO NOIJ~I&~d OJ, }I3[(lFeI Such request is made for the following reasons: 'sac rider attached" (L. $.) ............ STATE OF NEW YORK, ) ) SS:- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ) FRANK CICHANOWICZ, III BIEI.N'G DULY S~VORN, deposes and says he is the petitioner in the within action; that he has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to his (her) own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and tl~at as to those matters he believes it to he true. RUDOLPH H. ~RUER Notary Public, State of New York -g~ olnol:I uo ~ut. uoz ssou!snq ql!h~ pa~OU!A ~ s.t IsoA~ oql ol ,(l.~udo.~d ~u[aoqq~t.~u oq£ -.~alu*o o.rls.unol o.~om e ~lu!oq '*n~oq~lnD ol ppe [I!~X sast. m~,d oql uo u~o~l ,(fie.ri_md lonpo.td ~ jo uo!ldulnsuo~ s~s!mo~d-uo ~a~q ol ,(l![[q~ ~q,.L · ploqlnos ol Su!moo sls.unol .IO.I uo!lo*.~lle tm jo l~ql s! osn ottl 'loIm~q otB u! po:l~oI ~u!oq ss~u!snq jo ldo~uo~ ~ql ol m~ojuo~ Ii,ax (qnd ax~.tq) ]tn~.melSO.t oq,L 'loo~ls ~ql jo sop!s qloq uo s,!l..~odosd lu*o~[p~ *ql qlt. nx m~ojuo~ i1./~ ,,ssou!sn[t,. m ~u~uoz *ql ~u!~tmtlD I'e!v,omu/oo ,(p,c,O.tl'U. s!ql u! o*~Id to lno s! .,ao[.IotO l~.rluop!so/{, j.o ~u.tuoz luos*.~d '~o=I q~tohI *ql ol ~tuoo ,~t~q oq~ sls.unol ptn~ s-t~molsna 1~oo[ .~oj qnd m0 jo l.red lm~lu[ tn~ ,q ,.raj qnd -so~uom. ax [eoo[ oql o~t.q q~ntu uo!ldmnsuoo sos[mo.td-j~.o ptre uo .toj olds xoj lyO~,jjo oq ii./~ axmq oq~L · o.~aqmosl, ptm sos~moid oltl uo u&ol'A sdo~a mo.t3 po~o.~q ~q ol o.~ s,ooq [e~oI ~Io soB~./xe^ sno.ue,x u!o.roq~ lu~mqsHqmso tm oq ol si (qnd ~o./q) ltre.mms~.~ oqj~ '(qnd ~to~q) lumn~lsO~ ~ s~ pOSh ~u!oq 1~ ,(q potoos aolloq oq pInoax ~laodoid ott& :suosm~ ~u.taxollo$ mil ~o~ opmu st. lsgnb~ q,n$ -£ '"A'clOX A'k~_N 'X&NflOD )I'IO:t::[FIS 'GqOH&flOS ::IO NAkO& ~H& =I0 ~tDNYblIG~IO ~qOZ DNIG'IIfI~t ~tH& :t0 NOI&¥DlttlGOIAI '~DN'v'HD ¥ 'tlO=I III 'ZDIAkONYHDID )IDNIV"tI=I =IO NOI£I&~cI O& tt~1(/II1 \ I (' STfixT E I C^~ H SLUM ZONE S, SAHU hlAP TO ACC01vlpAMY APPLI,._A., FFX. O ~ "fao" TO"5" FOra TOWtW OF SO~TPlOLD I-d ~